Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Nomination for deletion of Template:Original Premier League Clubs

Template:Original Premier League Clubs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 86.164.110.70 (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Height "presentation" / Others (related)

I always thought that the correct way to insert an height in a player's box would be "| height = 1.82 m (6 ft 0 in)". Well, at least it would beat writing it manually (1,82 m). The former is more accurate than the latter, am i wrong or right?

If i am, User:Messiarg10 begs to differ, i have "caught" him replacing the template with the manual on several players, have tipped him about that got no reply. In fact, neither have ALL the other users who have tried to get in contact with him, no summaries also whatsoever.

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the template is the correct version. Warn and move on. TonyStarks (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Football Club History Database

Nice surprise to find that FCHD has come back to life after however many years it is, at http://www.fchd.info/, and very nearly up to date :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic resource, I wonder if Richard Rundle (talk · contribs) will also return? We can but hope... GiantSnowman 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Does it only do clubs in England and Wales? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. It does, and always did, only do England and Wales, as the original home page used to say. But the new one mentions Scotland. Don't know if Mr Rundle has ambitions to include Scottish leagues at some stage, or what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
And having actually looked, there are SPL and SFL clubs on there now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It is great to see this resource updated! I have noticed that Frampton Athletic, Division 1 of the Bristol Premier Combination, have played one game in the FA Vase back in 1984-85 - refer http://www.fchd.info/FRAMPTOA.HTM. Surprising that they do not have an article as they meet WP:N.

Greek vandal

Has been warned repeatedly for removing stuff in players' infoboxes, "contributes" as this IP (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.92.29.172), this (here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.92.133.175) or this (here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.92.120.99). As expected, does not respond to anything asked and does not write one summary to save his life.

Diffs include this one (removing Fredy Guarín's LOAN http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Fredy_Guar%C3%ADn&diff=493320585&oldid=493107396, has done it even after i reverted it), or removing the clubs he pretty much wants in boxes (here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Manoel_de_Oliveira_da_Silva_J%C3%BAnior&diff=prev&oldid=491585874 or here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rodrigo_Jos%C3%A9_Lima_dos_Santos&diff=490945358&oldid=490128901, in Rodrigo José Lima dos Santos i think he removed six or seven clubs in the box!).

Another thing the "user" engages in: going to club boxes and replace the info about the past season, the correct approach, with info of the ongoin season, WRONG (here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Real_Valladolid&diff=next&oldid=492991455 and here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Elche_CF&diff=492993520&oldid=489194682 for examples).

"Take it to WP:ANI Vasco"? Yes i already have, for the last time (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Anon_IP.28s.29_vandalizing), received the habitual ZERO feedback, whilst the other situations after mine have been (99,99999% of them) duly adressed (not complaining about that one mates, i'm glad that they have).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Vasco, vandalism should be dealt with at WP:AIV, not ANI. GiantSnowman 16:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Bertrand FA Cup

4 apps in the FA Cup this season, surely eligible for a medal/honour? Please see Talk:Ryan Bertrand#FA Cup. GiantSnowman 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Century Club category

On CfD, we have been deleting categories with arbitrary numerical criteria, such as Category:300 saves club in this nomination. I've nominated Category:FIFA Century Club for this reason here. I do not mean to suggest the Century Club is unimportant; instead, I think List of footballers with 100 or more caps covers the subject in much greater detail. Your comments are welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perth Glory FC end of season awards

As far as I can see, this article should be deleted but I'm at a loss to decide how. Should it go to an AfD; if so, on what precise grounds? Any thoughts would be appreciated. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTSTATS will do. – Kosm1fent 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone point out a couple of good examples where this sort material has been integrated into a club or season article? As a heads-up, there are a couple of other similar A-League articles. Hack (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between the article that is being proposed for deletion and say this one: Sir Matt Busby Player of the Year? If it's OK for a club like Manchester United, it's OK for a club like Perth Glory. However, if we're deleting one, we should delete the other. I don't have a view one way or another, just making sure we apply the same rules to everyone. TonyStarks (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree about the "consistent" rules on this. For better or worse, Manchester United attracts more coverage than Perth Glory, or most other clubs for that matter. It stands to reason with significant coverage being our inclusion criterion, that ManU perifery is more likely to be notable than the perifery of other clubs. That being said, I haven't looked at either of these articles in much detail, so its quite possible that the ManU article should be deleted as well in spite of what I've just said. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
We're not really comparing apples with apples here. The Perth Glory article contains all of the annual official awards whereas the Busby award is one of several post season awards. Oddly, from a quick search there seems to be more WP:RS coverage of the PG awards than the MU awards (though this could be due to my location). Hack (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of details of County FA within club articles

Below is a list of 940 clubs that have applied to enter one or more of the English FA Cup, Trophy, Vase and Youth Cup Competitions. You will notice that the relevant county that the clubs are affiliated to is prominently displayed.

See FA Competitions List 2012-13

A year ago I tried to provide details of these affiliations within some club articles (e.g. Bungay Town is affiliated to the Suffolk County FA) but found that such details soon got deleted on grounds that it was "not constructive", "not noteworthy", "not relevant" etc.

At the time I accepted the deletions in good faith as the official view but still find the issue grinds given the important role of County Football Associations. What is the general view on the inclusion of affiliation details?

League Octopus (League Octopus 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)).

Currently a lot of clubs have "the club is a member of the Fooshire County FA" tacked on the end of the lead and not mentioned anywhere else. I'm not sure if it was yourself that added these (haven't been through to check) but I personally feel that if this info is in the article, it should not be in the lead, as it is not an essential part of the basic overview of the club, plus of course WP:LEAD states that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." i.e. it should only be in the lead if it covered, preferably in more depth, in the body of the article. So to sum up, if it is to be in the article, I personally think it should be in the body and only in the body.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this info could be easily added to articles through categorisation as "Fooian County FA members". Number 57 20:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Could it perhaps be made part of the infobox as well as being a category? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't think that's necessary - especially as it would only apply to English teams. For things like infoboxes we don't really want any more bloatage. Number 57 08:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I did add the reference "the club is a member of the Fooshire County FA" etc to the lead but certainly would now avoid taking such an approach following my broader understanding of how articles should be club formatted. We all learn from informed debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. In my view if an author wishes to include details of a club's affiliation with the County FA (along with achievements in the organisation's cup competitions) in the main body of the text this should not be actively discouraged/deleted. There is in my view nothing wrong with the including County FA affiliation details providing that suitable references are added. As an alternative (or in some cases an addition) I do very much like the idea by Malpass93 that affiliation details could be included as part of the infobox. This is relevant to virtually every club in the world as they will be affilated to their local FA. It also provides a great way of establishing the part of a country that a club comes from. League Octopus(League Octopus 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)).
If there is a reliable source which Verifies the claim that is relevant to the club, then we should not remove it. However, the questions remains whether it should be in the lead, or the main body, or both. Any of the two latter are fine by me. GiantSnowman 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Season articles for Regional Football Leagues

The 2010–11 Primera Catalana, a tier 5 Spanish Regional League, has been put forward for deletion on the grounds:

Season article for a regional association football league season. While the league itself is notable, its single season are not, therefore the article fails WP:N. It is also unreferenced, therefore failing WP:V.

I have noticed that there are a number of similar Regional League articles which seem to be acceptable:

I find it difficult to establish why a single season for a regional football league should be accepted as notable in two leading football countries but not in another - in this case Spain. I acknowledge that poor referencing is an issue but I would have thought that virtually every regional football league will have some reasonable coverage in their regional newspapers. Spanish/Catalan editors would be able to confirm or reject whether this is the case in the Catalonia region.

It would certainly help me with my future work to determine whether it is worthwhile producing well referenced season articles for Regional Football Leagues or whether such work is likely to be abortive. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)).

I don't see why we can't have individual season articles, as long as they are well referenced of course. If the league is notable, it's individual seasons are notable. TonyStarks (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - just because a league is notable doesn't mean it's season is. That's like saying a player deserves an article because his team merits one - ridiculous. If it meets WP:GNG it stays; if it doesn't, then it goes. Simples. GiantSnowman 10:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Totally disagree if a league is notable then clearly their season is. I see no basis to that answer whatsoever other than a link to an Essay which isn't policy. Its not simples as you put it.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it would be really useful to determine a consensus here since the issue does not seem to have been (fully?) discussed. A quick search on the season article task force talk pages revealed nothing on the issue; however, I vaguely recall some discussions on the topic in here, but am not sure about the outcome of these.
My proposal for notability criteria would be: 1) WP:GNG 2) Season belongs to the top-tier league of a country 3) Season is part of a level of play conducted by the national association or a similar nation-wide organization and/or part of a league with at least semi-professional status.
The thought behind the third criterion is that these nation-wide played levels usually attract enough coverage by reliable sources so that sourcing would not be an issue. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the Hessenliga used to be a higher tier, and the NOFV-Oberliga a tier-one league before later restructuring. In this instance, the NOFV-Oberliga is supraregional and I quite enjoy updating the season articles. Jared Preston (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How many times does this have to be brought up the answer is all the time. Its getting ridiculous because its on a subject that to be quite plain will never be able to be subjected to a project policy purely because there are two many ifs and buts. Leagues change their statuses top can become bottom leauges or can go amateur. Its something that is so variable that its not straightforward, quite frankly its time this is put to bed, if the league is notable and the article is sourced what is the problem the articles provides, the answer is nothing. Also given GS comments and League Octopus comments and others previously its rather clear that this will never be put to proper consensus either. This project really needs to get its act together and stop the fighting over petty issues. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not easy to write a policy but I think that the following short paragraph covers most eventualities when placed at the end of the "League Notability" section:

Season articles may be prepared for leagues that meet the above league notability criteria providing that their competing clubs are notable. Where it is appropriate to maintain a historical sequence of season articles, exceptions may be made where the status of a league has changed.

In a an English context the first sentence ensures that season articles could not be prepared for leagues such as the Central Midlands League, Teesside Football League and Bristol and Avon League as their competing clubs are not notable. The wording also works well in other countries even at a Regional League level by establishing that season articles can only be prepared if the constituent clubs are notable.

Jared Preston and Edinburgh Wanderer have rightly highlighted the problems caused by the changes in status of a league. This I have recognised in the second sentence of the policy. This policy wording would enable a sequence of articles for the Northern Football League back to the league's amateur days. It also assists decision-making in the event of the status of a league being lowered in more recent times. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)).

I think I've said this before somewhere, but I don't see why a cut and dry policy on notability of league seasons is necessary. This is one of the few instances in which general notability is very clear. The way I see it significant coverage for the purposes of league seasons means coverage that goes beyond merely reporting the results. If such coverage exists, a league season is notable. If not it isn't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Going back to the original example, 2010–11 Primera Catalana, please can it be moved to AfD so that this issue can be properly tested with a current example. I removed the PROD some days ago and provided a reason but it has not been activated as an AfD. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)).

A source for Colombian football

Hello everyone, maybe you already know but I'll tell you anyway, it can be useful: at the website Colombia.golgolgol.net you can find many news on past editions of the Colombian football championship. Here's how to find them: first, select the team you want to search information about, example: Independiente Medellín. Then, go to the section titled "Estadísticas": you will find three sub-sections, titled "Torneo actual", in which you will find the current championship statistics; "Acumulados", in which you will find the club's topscorers and players with most games played; and "Torneos Históricos", the most important section: you will find a menu on your left. Click on it and a whole world will open: all championships, with players statistics: all games played and goals scored. For every team, and every edition of the championship. This was incredibly useful for me, as I used it to complete the careers of all the players who played in Colombia and had an article on it.wiki. You can find an incomplete list of teams and seasons here. --Triple 8 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, golgolgol is an excellent statistics database for the Colombian league. I've always had the problem of linking to particular pages because it used java (I think) to produce the statistics pages. Do you know if it is possible to make a link to a permanent page with the player statistics? Jogurney (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I have the same problem. As far as I know, there's no way to create permanent links to pages, that's why I always link the club page: it's the easiest way to reach the statistics page. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season

Would anybody be opposed to having a Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season? The idea would be to put all club season articles into the category for clubs that get into any of the qualifying, playoff or any stage in the final tournament of a UEFA European tournament. Kingjeff (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I would be against it. I find it completely unnecessary for an annual club competition. Clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, etc. will have 50 of these categories for every season they played in Europe. TonyStarks (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that Kingjeff is suggesting putting the club season articles into these cats, not the articles on the clubs themselves, so it wouldn't involve adding fifty cats to FC Barcelona..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about the articles like Real Madrid C.F., FC Bayern Munich or Chelsea F.C.. I am saying that Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season would go into articles like 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season, 2012–13 Real Madrid C.F. season and 2012–13 Chelsea F.C. season. Kingjeff (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To add to my suggestion, there is already categories, like the one I suggested, for domestic season by country. It might be good to have one for clubs who qualify for European compaetition. Kingjeff (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to try it and see if it adds anything but I suspect it will be a big undertaking and it could be perceived as a categort too many. --Brian (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this but I'd just like to know what the point of it is? What does it actually do? Also the name suggests it is all clubs that are part of UEFA. Not just clubs who are competing in UEFA competitions. Not every club in European competition will have a season article so it will never be completed, maybe a template or different format would be better so we can see the redlinked ones. Apart from that I think its a decent idea but probably not ready to implement yet. Adam4267 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've sent this category to CfD. I really don't see the point in it. If season articles were to be created for all clubs that compete in UEFA competition next season, as they could conceivably be, there would be about 200 articles in that category. Seems a bit like overkill to me. – PeeJay 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Adam4267, I'm open to a better name for the category. Kingjeff (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3, you would have to delete all the categories related to club seasons by country. This article was created under the same logic. Kingjeff (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Categorising the club seasons by country was necessary to avoid having thousands of club season articles in one uber-category. Categorising them together because they are competing in UEFA competitions is unnecessary by that token. – PeeJay 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I also fail to see the point it serves (maybe i'm getting the picture all wrong), and i personally do not like overcategorization that much. To "add insult to injury", i also do not see any purpose in articles like "CHELSEA 2010/11 SEASON", or "BENFICA 2008/09 SEASON", i thought that went in the club's article period, in the HISTORY section. Discussing things is the way to go though, keep it up JEFF and y'all! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahly S.C.

I proposed that the article be moved to Al Ahly S.C. (without the dash between Al and Ahly) but so far I have only received one comment. Considering it's one of the biggest and most successful clubs in Africa and the world, I was hoping to have more people provide their opinion on the request so that we can make the most informed decision. The move request can be found here. I've also contacted a couple of Egyptian users that have done some work on the article recently to inform them of the discussion. Thanks in advance. TonyStarks (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FK Šumadija Aranđelovac

Can an admin restore the article, and delete/merge with FK Šumadija Arandjelovac?

The club played in the Yugoslav Second League from 1971–72 to 1979–80 season. Also they have reached the second round of the 1973 Yugoslav Cup and quarter-finals of the 1975–76 Yugoslav Cup. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As the person who requested the most recent deletion, I can tell you there's not much restore. The article consisted of an infobox, and a sentence saying that the subject is a Serbian football club, but nothing else. If you have sources to verify that the club has played in the second league, then feel free to recreate the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, nothing worth restoring - however the new version of the article (notice difference in accents) is without sources or a claim to notability. Could be a candidate for CSD - I'd suggest that Dr. Vicodine attempts to improve it ASAP. GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, it was deleted twice, I didn't if there was more information in the original article. I'll put a redirect in FK Šumadija Arandjelovac to FK Šumadija Aranđelovac and recreate the article with the info about participating in the Yugoslav Cup. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I am back. Allow me a couple of days and I will properly expand the article. The club is one of those minor clubs well known localy, and they have an official website with extensive history section, I just have to find it, and I´ll add the important stuff there. FkpCascais (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, their official website went down (www.fksumadija.com)... BTW, great job Dr. Vicodine! FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding the article, FkpCascais. Too bad that their site went down. Unfortunately, wayback machine doesn't have that page archived. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Andys Stats

Does anyone know about this site? It seems to be a pretty comprehensive list of stats, appearances etc from england and scotland over the last few years. Would it be reliable though? Adam4267 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing on the site to indicate who Andy is, where the data comes from, how it's fact-checked, etc, so I can't see it standing up if challenged at, for example WP:FLC. Is there anything on there that couldn't be gained from more established sites which have been confirmed as reliable........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There's some decent information on the Scottish Lower Leagues which is hard to find elswhere (some of the stuff here and club attendances etc.) However, I agree it's probably not reliable and having a short look around some of the current SPL stats I can see offhand they are wrong or haven't been updated. Adam4267 (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there anyway to contact Andy, find out who he is & where the info comes from? GiantSnowman 13:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Contact andy@andysstats.co.uk. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 OFC Nations Cup squads

Hey guys, having a bit of an issue with David-golota over how the final product should look. He seems to be under the impression that an article like say UEFA Euro 2012 squads in its current form (which is of course incomplete at this point) is what the OFC squads should look like while I have attempted to inform him that a complete article like say 2010 FIFA World Cup squads provides a better example of what we should be striving for. I have attempted to talk to him but he has simply ignored me and has in his edit summaries made it seem like I am simply reverting "his hard work" and telling me to go away. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers, --Spartan008 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What'S the main point here? That he took caps and goals of transfermarkt and nft? The ordering by numbers? Both your versions look pretty much look the same. -Koppapa (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
For me it's really both. Now I could be wrong but I don't think it's right to post caps and goals when a full count of each cannot be given which essentially is the case for all the teams except New Zealand. It is extremely difficult to get an accurate number for these smaller nations for whatever reason. Secondly, I was also under the impression that we order the teams by squad number, not by position. So these two items are what the conflict is stemming from and I was just hoping someone could see reason and back me up on this one as my attempts to talk to the guy have failed. --Spartan008 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The Fifa squad tables are sortable. That schould be a good option. As sorting by position is more natural than by number for me. -Koppapa (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The point that I'm really trying to make here is that listing squads by number seems to be the standard as I have never encountered an article on squads for a competition in which players are not listed by squad number. The guy seems to be bent on undoing changes I make because he's hung up over the fact that it undoes most of his work and he he takes it personally. Reasoning with him has gotten me nowhere. --Spartan008 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There are a few squad listings with players listed by position, though this tends to be where numbering is incomplete or non-existent. You'd struggle to get consistent numbering on previous OFC Nations Cup tournaments because often the same player wore different numbers over the course of the cup. Hack (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Rangers EBT case

Hey folks,

As you may or may not know, BBC Scotland ran a documentary last night covering the alleged misuse of an Employee Benefit Trust at Rangers F.C.. The evidence in that documentary resulted in an IP running to the articles of all of the players mentioned in said investigation and adding a bit of boilerplate to that effect to the article leads. I've reverted for now, but this is likely to be an ongoing issue now that there is evidence in the public domain. Exactly how, where and when to mention the matter in the individual BLPs is something we're going to need to discuss. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be unfair, in fact a BLP violation, to include any of these allegations until Rangers are found guilty of illegally using EBTs. Even then the individual players would not technically be guilty of anything I believe, so again it would seem a BLP violation unless the players were found guilty of anything. Although I think having an article about this seems like a good idea (I might start one soon) and it could be said in the players' article that they were at Rangers during the time of EBTs, or there were allegations that they were given an EBT by the club. Still the court's job is to decide if Rangers used EBTs illegally, even if they did we can't know which players were given illegal EBTs and which were given legal EBTs. So I think it would be best to wait and see what happens with Rangers then maybe have a link in the players' article to the main Rangers financial issues article.Adam4267 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. So there are ~60 BLPs which are going to need closer monitoring for the next few months. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I know this has naff all to do with football, but Employee Benefit Trust really shouldn't redirect to a page about employee stock options, which is a completely different concept. James1982 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite right. I thought that was odd. With any luck someone will step up to fix it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
How can it be a BLP violation if it's all sourced to the BBC? Or the newspapers who have published details of Marvin Andrews' EBT side contract. The BBC has even published which of them had "side contracts" and which didn't. They themselves did nothing wrong, it was Rangers who ought to have paid income tax on the payments if they were contractual, as reported, rather than discretionary. The "wee tax case" which lined the pockets of Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer was conceded, but Craig Whyte failed to pay up. It's all well sourced, if you want an excuse to keep all this off the relevant articles you will need to come up with a MUCH better one than BLP. 176.253.28.0 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
BLP is not solely about sourcing. The majority of the articles in question presently have rather short lead sections: placing a large addition paragraph in every one of the leads in question implies that the players are more notable for the EBT issue than for anything else in their playing careers, which is plainly undue weight (an NPOV violation, and thus a BLP violation). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It's on a similar theme, but I think this report in the Daily Record that Stefan Klos was one of the highest paid players in Europe while at Rangers is more specific and relevant to his career. James Morrison (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
No doubt, but it'll require more care than just adding some boilerplate to the lead of his article (which is currently two sentence long). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about addition of competition logos to season articles

Short question: Are edits like this okay or should they be reverted due to a lack of use rationale? Thanks in advance, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I'm by no means an expert on copyright law. Personally, I think it should be okay, but I vaguely remember there being a discussion in which we decided that it wasn't. I'll see what I can dig up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The fair use rationale on the image's page says - "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing UEFA Champions League, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." To me that means the image should only be used on the UEFA Champions League and nowhere else, so I think these edits should be reverted. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. thanks. I have reverted the edits in question. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the only page that the Champions League logo specifically refers to is UEFA Champions League. If there were specific logos for each season, those could go on there, but not the main one. – PeeJay 21:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
To allow its use the fair use rationale would need to be extended to include the additional pages it can be used on. There are plenty of logos with multiple fair use rationales included. However there probably is no need here.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

About proffessional league

Myanmar national league is a fully proffessional league.. i was deleted cos they said i didnt play a proffessional league where as i played myanmar national or premier league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For starters, you should not be writing an article about yourself. This violates wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. At present, there is no sourcing to confirm your claim that the Myanmar league is fully professional, and since notability requires verifiable evidence any claim to notability for having played in that league is therfore invalid. If you can provide sourcing to confirm your claim, or evidence that you have received significant coverage in reliable sources, the article may reinstated, but not otherwise. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure as to how to determine the fully professional status of a football league, but this link to Fifa's page on Myanmar may help someone decide one way or another. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

playerhistory.com

I just wanted to give everyone a heads up. playerhistory.com has been taken down indefinitely due to technical challenges. While note exactly reliable, citations from this website are quite prevelant throughout the project and will have to be replaced. Your help is much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pity. Although not reliable, it provided a very useful starting point as to what to look for elsewhere. Anybody know what "technical challenges" are? has it been hacked? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Shame, they had a lot of information that wasn't available anywhere else and seemed like the content became free of late (as opposed to requiring a paid account previously). Hopefully it's not permanent. TonyStarks (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The information not being available anywhere else was actually a problem. You couldn't tell whether it was actually correct or not, and enough of it wasn't correct to make one doubt anything that couldn't be verified elsewhere. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The site was upgraded two months or so ago, with the overall display improving (very comprehensive in stats, and i think all, not only the REGISTERED USERS, were now allowed to consult the data), and now this? Oh well... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have heard that the site is gone for good, the main admin got into financial difficulties and sold all his football books.109.173.212.187 (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
All I know is: After 6 months of programming the admin area was still not functioning as it should be. The founder of the site has lost faith in the programmer. Cattivi (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Still down, and no sign of going back up again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

League parameter in club infoboxes

Quick query regarding when the league parameter in the infoboxes of club articles should be changed for promoted/relegated clubs. I ask as a conflict arose at Blackburn Rovers F.C., with Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs) undoing my edit of reinstating 'Premier League' to the league parameter. I believe consensus had been agreed here that leagues should not be updated until the official start of the new season in June/July. However, I haven't been able to find any discussions relating to this in the WP:FOOTY archive. So, it seems to me there are three possible ways of implementing league changes:
1. Update leagues as soon as they are known.
2. Update leagues when all club's leagues are known (so after today's League Two play-off final finishes).
3. Update leagues on the season's official start (June/July).
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be waiting until the new season. However, so many people make these updates early that I think its really pointless reverting them. They're going to have to be done later anyway so I think its best just to let people do it if they want to. Adam4267 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You can't stop the river. I'd also say leave them (providing they are correct). – Kosm1fent 16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, leave them. It seems extremely pedantic to insist on keeping the "old" leagues until June/July given that I would wager that 99.99999% of football fans aren't even aware of the concept of an official season end/start date around that time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As i said in my revert summary they are no longer members of the Premier League that ended when the 2011-12 season finished you could argue that they are not yet members of the championship as that league term has not started. The majority of people understand that they have been relegated no need for wiki to insist on a key set of dates and be anal about it. Its a totally different situation compared to players and their contract dates to the league if people are going to edit was over it then the field would better be blanked until the new league started look at the edit history's of all the articles Matty went through and changed last night some have been done multiple times its just ridiculous. The only reason i even came across the article was because other valid info was removed from the infobox at the time of the edit. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Blackburn have been relegated, not will be. Instead of reverting until a specific date noone even know about, the best would be to change the |league= parameter at the same time as the |season= parameter (last completed season), which is right after the season ends (last match). Mentoz86 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense to me. Obviously we absolutely want to avoid edits that change a club's league before the season has even finished (as soon a team clinches promotion from the Championship their article is invariably edited to say "Foo F.C. currently play in the Premier League", even if they've still got five games to play in the Championship), but I can't see any harm in the league being changed in late May -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we have given up on the whole concept. I remember we used to insist that a player remain on squad lists until their contract officially ended on 30 June, but really once the season has ended and they have been told they will not be offered a new contract then the player won't be returning to the club so whats the point? As long as all matches have been played then there is no point in making a bis fuss over it, the season is over.--EchetusXe 07:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lost cause (?)

It seems so, given the fact i don't see enough users interested in stemming this tide: runner-up honours in FC Barcelona players continue to be removed without explanation (the main perpetrator an anon "user" from Argentina), over an over again. What the heck, in the last Copa del Rey final, did anyone else see the Athletic Bilbao players being handed a M-E-D-A-L or was it just me seeing things? That's an H-O-N-O-U-R!

Interestingly enough, the other club where that occurs is REAL MADRID, the 2011 Supercopa de España second-place being removed again, again and AGAIN (it is true that the players, in José Mourinho classic fashion, abandoned the pitch and did not watch their opponents lift the trophy, but that's another story)! Can someone assist in this (other than User:Raulseixas, now blocked, boy he could be of use now) please?

Attentively, happy week (and please don't tell me a summary like "STOP REMOVING THE RUNNER-UP IN HONOURS!" is a personal attack because it is not, what shall i do, get down on my knees and beg? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • In a related move (Barcelona player), i think the same Argentinian chap might be clashing anyday with me soon now, because of the following: Marc Muniesa. Suprisingly, he started playing with the first team before having appeared with the reserves ONCE, he was a JUNIOR. Hence, the BARCELONA B side should come second in BOX, am i not correct?

Thanks - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally I would say that being a runner-up is an honour, especially if medals are given out. However, I suppose that for players who have won a lot of things and already have many honours it might be more sensible to leave some things out. Of course you're right about Barcelona B coming second in Muniesa's infobox if he played for the senior team first, that's just common sense. Cheers, BigDom 16:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Incompetent user

Can someone please tell me where I can take my case against an incompetent user? The user in question, User:Maxi1992, continually adds false stats and creates new articles by cutting and pasting articles and barely changing anything, meaning the new articles are about 90% incorrect. I've sent the user plenty of messages on their talk page, warned them, etc. but it hasn't changed anything. Here's his latest creation: Ahmed Messadia. Neither link provided is for the player in questions, I'm assuming the stats are fake as well, the categories are half wrong and the squad template is for another team. I work almost exclusively on Algerian football and having a user doing this just makes more work for me to clean up, as if I don't have enough to do. I know that Competency is required to contribute, I just don't know where to take my case. Any help would be very much appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however, I'm sure there will be several people on here who will be able to advise you better or deal with him themselves. Adam4267 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Competency is where an editor introduces correct information but in the wrong format. Introducing fake/false information is just vandalism. GiantSnowman 10:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
@Adam: I've already been there but I wasn't sure if my case applies, there's no guidelines in the intro to what cases are handled there. @Snowman: I believe that the edits are made in good faith, I haven't seen anything that would indicate otherwise. It just seems like the user lacks the understanding on how to properly edit articles, and looking at some of his edits, I doubt he knows English beyond the basics. TonyStarks (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Introducing factually incorrect information is not a good-faith error. GiantSnowman 14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was the one that suggested that he was Zombie433 but looks like I was wrong, the editing pattern is not the same (although some of the first players he edited were the same). TonyStarks (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable IP edits

I just reverted 75.39.20.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Bulgaria national football team results. They have made a ton of edits in the same area that I find difficult to judge but they seem questionable-- this, for instance. Can someone have a look? HEY VASCO YOU'RE BACK! Drmies (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the Bulgaria national team edits, all the match result changes are rubbish so I'm assuming the rest of it is as well. Thanks for raising the matter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
He's still at it at Spain national football team so I've given him a final warning. GiantSnowman 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Makeover of Portuguese football

Some of you may have noticed that I am seeking to undertake a makeover of Portuguese football on Wikipedia. It will not happen over night and involves a lot of work. There are four issues that I raise with WP:FOOTY.

Naming of Portuguese club articles

There seem to be 3 approaches used in English Wikipedia for the naming of club article titles

Option 1 - Full Title

Category:Football clubs in Brazil - 724 clubs listed!
Category:Football clubs in Argentina

Option 2 - Abbreviated title - without dots

Category:Football clubs in Spain
Category:Football clubs in France

Option 3 - Abbreviated title - with dots

Category:Football clubs in Italy
Category:Football clubs in Portugal

In Portuguese Wikipedia clubs are listed with their full title. Refer - Categoria:Clubes de futebol de Portugal

My initial preference was to use the "full title" but I fully accept the points made by Mentoz86 below and have changed my position.

(talk page stalker)I feel that these changes are too big too read about and not comment on: I'd say use the abbreviated title, but feel free to leave the dots out. There is no need to use the full official name, the best thing would simply be to use the COMMONNAME, but as many of those are ambigous there should be some consistency (e.g. abbreviated club name). I must admit that when I read an article about a Portuguese/Spanish-speaking club (especially in South-America) with the full name as article-title I get confused what is their real (common) name. But as I've said before when we talked about Finnish football: I'm all for foreign-language (in this case, Portuguese) league-titles. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I now favour the second option of an "abbreviated title - without dots". This is the approach that I have followed in Sweden where I have prepared articles for around 500 clubs. It is also the option followed in Spain. The lead option we currently use for Portugal "abbreviated title - with dots" looks very "gappy" and I do not favour it. There are a few big clubs in Portugal that use their full name e.g. Sporting Clube de Portugal and I leave open to question whether these should be abbreviated?

Naming of Portuguese league season articles

I would like to see the use of Portuguese names in all league season articles e.g. 2010–11 Segunda Divisão and not 2010–11 Portuguese Second Division and 2010–11 Terceira Divisão and not 2010–11 Portuguese Third Division. This approach conforms with the position taken in Spain. Looking at the main sources for Portugal I gleaned the following:

Segunda Divisão / II Divisão

Soccerway - http://uk.soccerway.com/national/portugal/ii-divisao/2011-2012/promotion-group/
RSSSF - Third Level 2007/08 - http://www.rsssf.com/tablesp/port08.html
futebol365.pt - http://www.futebol365.pt/competicoes/default.asp?comp=iidivisaonorte
Soccer Library - http://soccerlibrary.free.fr/por_ft.pdf
ForaDeJogo (English version) - http://www.foradejogo.net/competitionsnew.php?&language=2

Portuguese Second Division / Division Two

Soccer24 - http://www.soccer24.com/portugal/second-division-zona-sul/
ZeroZero (English version) - http://www.footballzz.co.uk/edicao.php?id_edicao=24171

Terceira Divisão / III Divisão

Soccerway - http://uk.soccerway.com/national/portugal/iii-divisao/2011-2012/group-c---promotion/
futebol365.pt - http://www.futebol365.pt/competicoes/default.asp?week=22&comp=iiidivisaoA&epoca=2011-2012
ZeroZero (English version) - http://www.footballzz.co.uk/edicao.php?id_edicao=24485
Soccer Library - http://soccerlibrary.free.fr/por_ft.pdf
ForaDeJogo (English version) - http://www.foradejogo.net/competitionsnew.php?&language=2

Portuguese Third Division / Division Three

None found to date.

I therefore make the case that Portuguese names should be used as they mirror the main sources. This will mean changing the title of 2011–12 Portuguese Second Division, Portuguese Second Division, Portuguese Third Division and one or two other pages. In the other 40 or so pages the Portuguese name is used.

Naming of Portuguese District Football Associations articles

All 22 Portuguese District Football Associations articles have derived English names. I am not aware of other sources using English names other than those that take feed from Wikipedia.

In reality all Portuguese District Football Associations are all found with Portuguese titles e.g.

Associação de Futebol de Aveiro / AF Aveiro

http://www.afaveiro.pt/
http://www.zerozero.pt/associacao.php?id=7
http://www.footballzz.co.uk/associacao.php?id=7 (ZeroZero English version)
http://www.foradejogo.net/teamsaf.php?af=6 (ForaDeJogo English version)

There are no English titles which suggests we should not be inventing one especially for Wikipedia. I therefore propose that the article titles are changed to the full Portuguese title in this case e.g. (Associação de Futebol de Aveiro)- rather than the abbreviated version (AF Aveiro).

Task Force guidance

Portugal does not have a Task Force and there does not appear to be enough editors to consider forming a Portugal task force. I have consulted Vasco Amaral and Secretaria on the above issues.

Secretaria has yet to respond and Vasco Amaral states:

thanks for your invitation, i will help in any way that i can (the fact that i am planning to retire any day/month soon notwithstanding), here's my two cents on the issues; 1 - i don't think the full name of clubs is warranted, we have FC Barcelona and not Futbol Club Barcelona, SD Huesca and not Sociedad Deportiva Huesca, etc etc, so it should be C.F. União de Lamas, the full name would appear in box/intro; 2 - this is the ENGLISH WP, so the season articles should be in English (2011/12 SECOND DIVISION, etc), but since i see there is stuff like "2011/12 LA LIGA" or "2010/11 SERIE B" already, obviously i am the minority so you can do it in the way you proposed, i don't think you will have any problems whatsoever; 3 - similar to "2", i think it should be BEJA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, in English (example, you have Royal Spanish Football Federation, not REAL FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE FÚTBOL. Kind regards as well, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it is not in my opinion feasible to form a Portugal task force I have been wondering whether it might be possible to expand the Spain task force to form an Iberian task force overseeing Spain, Portugal and Andorra? If WP:FOOTY is supportive perhaps this is something the Spain task force members might like to give consideration to. It would avoid any future duplication of resources and would enable a pool of expertise to be available to Portugal and Andorra. At the same time it might ensure greater consistency of approach.

League Octopus (League Octopus 09:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)).

Tools

There is any tools for editing (copy paste) table or league statistics from other website?*Annas* (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go into the html page and copy it (right click, view page source on Firefox). But I highly doubt that would work because they probably wouldn't use the same code as Wikipedia. Also copying all or part of it would mean there would need to copyright attribution so probably not a great idea. You could also try saving it as an image and uploading it. But again there could be copyright issues and it might not look right. I think the only way to really do it is to make the table yourself on Wikipedia. I really can't think of a shortcut, sorry. Adam4267 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's possible to paste into openoffice/excel and let oo give you wikipedia table code. -Koppapa (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988)

What's so significant about this random league game? No records were broken, it didn't have such a huge bearing on the title race, there were no other notable incidents during the game nor was it voted as the greatest in competition history. VEOonefive 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see evidence of notability, I'd suggest taking it to AfD. Some of the above match articles you have linked to will need renaming as well. GiantSnowman 15:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The notability I can see from the lead is, "A week later the two teams met at Hillsborough in an FA Cup semi-final" but that does not hold much substance itself; Liverpool won the league fairly comfortably that season. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the rationale is that it was a very good performance, apparently one of the finest according to some quotes. That doesn't seem a good rationale to me and on all other accounts there is no evidence of notability. I'd defintiely say delete. Adam4267 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Although there are four citations on the claim that the performance was "the most memorable from a team considered to be one of Liverpool's best", three are from the club's official website (not independent), therefore all we are left with is the fact that one journo considered it the club's fifth greatest performance, which seems an extremely weak claim to notability. The claim that the performance is considered to be one of the best in English football history is completely uncited. I'd say delete, personally.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have prodded the article. Number 57 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

57, you should let User:ArtVandelay13 know you've prod'ed it, I think he/she's still active. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The Prod has been removed; next step is AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. —WFC— 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome user

Recently I've been clearing the mess behind Jimis77 (talk · contribs) edits. He's been enlarging club logos and player images beyond natural size [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and apparently doesn't want to talk about it (never answered the notice I left him on his talk page). Also, he's moved pages with no explanation and no logical basis ([8] – apart from the correct Potouridis move, which at least had logical basis). The similarities of this user's name with the name of an old friend's sock are disturbing (Mitsos and Jimis are nicknames for Dimitris + a repeated two-digit number) and they were both showing similar behaviour on Commons (uploading copyrighted images of players and subsequently being blocked [9])

What is putting me off from reporting the user to WP:SPI is that he is not editing predominately Olympiacos F.C. articles anymore, but Greek football articles in general, which means that either it is another Greek user who unfortunately shows similar disruptive editing behaviour as our old friend (which makes sense, because a lot of his edits are actually constructive or not harmful), or it is Antony1821 who learnt from his old mistakes (broading his editing scope and using two accounts to remain discreet – not on the same time however, one is now blocked). What do you guys reckon? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Does he respond even after being repeatedly warned and/or questioned? NO. Is he a sock extraordinaire? YES. Block/ban more than granted in my opinion. By the way, what is the difference between a BLOCK and a BAN? I have seen banned users (i.e. User:Pararubbas) continuing to create sock after sock after sock, "mi no comprende". --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Sock or no, his/her editing is clearly disruptive and should be stopped. If you don't think he/she is a sock, then WP:ANI is definitely in order. @Vasco, a ban is the decision to disallow an editor to edit all or some part of Wikipedia. A block is a technical mechanism used to prevent editing and may be used to enforce a ban. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sir Sputnik, I'm contemplating whether to send him to SPI or ANI, as I fear I don't have enough evidence to clearly make a connection at SPI. Shall I give it a shot there nonetheless or take him directly to ANI and raise my suspicions there? Thanks. – Kosm1fent 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
SPI, I'd say - less dramatic. GiantSnowman 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Beattie

I am having issues on this page with a single-purpose, dynamic IP who is definitely the same individual (uses exact same wording, all trace to Hull), and who I suspect is the 'Rob Finch' writer mentioned in the edits, who is trying to promote himself and the book he has written about/with Beattie. Talk page communication isn't working, and neither would a block, given the dynamic nature of the IP. Can anybody provide any other advice/suggestions? GiantSnowman 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection. Then the IP can't edit it. Adam4267 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly an option, but not a long-term one, and there probably hasn't been enough disruption to merit it - if it was taken to WP:RFPP I bet it would be dismissed. GiantSnowman 16:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it would get protected, there's no harm in trying anyway. The person would probably stop and leave it if they couldn't edit the page but if they did come back and wouldn't stop then I don't see the harm in that page being permanantly protected as IPs can't really contribute much to a retired footballers page. Adam4267 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tried it, don't have high hopes to be honest. GiantSnowman 17:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this is good. [10] – Kosm1fent 19:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's hope his spelling, grammar and use of capitals was slightly better in the book......... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The disputed Rob Finch story is supported by this article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, a different source has already been added to the article. GiantSnowman 19:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I missed that. I shouldn't try to edit and talk to my better half at the same time! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that I don't have Beats on my watch list, but I do know. Will keep a closer eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Top that!

Have a look at this chap that plays in my country (see here http://www.footballzz.co.uk/jogador.php?id=236337&epoca_id=141), a quick glimpse at age (above) and career (right column) will surely blow your mind.

Keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not bad! He's no Paul 'Clean Sheet King' Musselwhite though. I'm assuimg he's never played in a fully pro league, seeing as he doesn't have a page? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like he played for Portimonense when they were in the first division during the early 80s.[11] Hack (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to seeing Hélder Lourenço's WP article! I will try to make sure that there are articles for all his clubs assuming they meet WP:NOTABILITY. League Octopus (League Octopus 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)).
What the heck? That dude is older than my father! – Kosm1fent 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Octopus: other than TORRALTA and PORTIMONENSE, i'm afraid no other clubs should have article, all 200% amateur. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Less of the "old timer", please. He's still many years younger than me! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of the 9 teams that Hélder Lourenço has played for only Casa Do Povo Da Mexilhoeira Grande is not notable:

Anyone diasgree? League Octopus (League Octopus 19:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)).

Please analyse this and give me a piece of your mind if needed, i tried my best! Please note that in REFS #1 and #2, in the Portimonense rosters, he is named as "HÉLDER", so it's not a made-up ref (i don't do that, well, not when there's people watching :)). Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
He also played for Clube Futebol União in 1983-84 if we want to give his complete sequence of clubs. Shame that his appearances are not available. League Octopus(League Octopus 08:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)).
  • I think C.F. União is a mistake from ZEROZERO.PT, in the third source i added to the article (the video part, not the written one), it says ALL his clubs were from the Algarve region. If you notice, União does not appear in the FORADEJOGO profile. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a mistake. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)).
Lamberto Boranga is still playing, and he's 70 years old. I know he had 16 years of "break", but now it seems he has resumed his career in Italian minor regional leagues. He was a good Serie A and Serie B goalkeeper. --Triple 8 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar league is a fully proffessional league

Sir blatter visited myanmar league and made it national league which is a proffessional league now. You can go and read about myanmar national league as well so you see by yourself but i was deleted from wiki cos they said i did not play in a proffessional league and i played with gabros football club in Nigeria though thet have relegated... Please send back my wiki or you give me to submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These are some facts that showed that myanmar national league is a newly formed proffessional league http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2009_Myanmar_National_League http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Myanmar_National_League http://www.enotes.com/topic/Myanmar_National_League_Cup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 07:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

myanmar league is a newly formed proffessional league http://www.myanmar.com/myanmartimes/MyanmarTimes14-277/sport.htm http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Myanmar_Premier_League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup this is another fifa stating http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=mya/nationalleague/standings.html... Fifa deals only with proffessional leagues.. So all these link is to prove that myanmar national league is a fully prossional league... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. First, Wikipedia articles and their mirrors are not used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR, so 4 out of 6 sources are automatically out.
  2. The Myanmar source, even if it was considered a reliable source (I don't know), reports that Myamar is working towards professionalism (“We decided to change the name as the first step toward becoming a professional league", “To have a professional league, we need to be very organised", etc), but it doesn't say if and when the league became professional after all, so it's unclear and therefore out.
  3. "FIFA deals only with proffessional leagues"; so according to you, the American Samoa also has got a professional league? Interesting. Too bad you have to back up that statement with reliable sources. – Kosm1fent 07:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a proffessional league already becoase it was premier league and clubs are been representd by givernment ministries like finance and other things. When they decided to make it a proffessional league the changed the name to myanmar national league then changed the team from government ministries to provicial names and accrue the league the signing of atleast 5 foreign proffessional player and a foreign proffessional coach. Presently, the league wanted to adopt the elegation and promotion strategy by adding other teams.. That doesnt mean that it is not a proffessional.. When they inaugrated it and made it a proffessional league, proffessional foreign players are signed and coaches as well. so i put to you that myanmar national league is a proffessional league cos it replaced the old premier non proffessional league.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No sources for these? Pity. Because there is a reliable source about last year's competition which says that "13 MNL players, including some of the league’s most popular names, have opted to return to their old jobs in government ministries rather than play on in 2011.", which means that there are players in the league who have second jobs and so the league is not considered fully professional. Simple. – Kosm1fent 08:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I get what you said but have the reason for that.. In myanmar, all the male child must be a soldier and when the game wasnt proffessional, all the ministrial parastatals are playing but when they make it proffessional, they have to choose either to work or to play but most of them quite the job for play cos they cant work and play... So anyone who still want to go back for work can go but have to forgo one.. choose one and forgo te other thats cos it is a proffessional... it is not where u can work and play.. if you want to work u work if u want to play u play.. i guess u understand that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you said, but I fail to understand how football works there. I'd wait for the input of more editors. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 08:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kosm1fent i try to show you the links and other things cos i was deleted from wiki cos of that and i have given enogh fact to show that myanmar league is fuly a proffessional league cos u have to understand that in some country journalisma are limited and if the league is not a proffessional they will mention it but the myanmar football federation set up a proffessional league by changing everything about the league and making it proffessional of which that world cup players and national team players are playing their, a pplayer is been transfer from csk mmoscow and he has played top league and even world cup 2002. How can such player with world cup experience and national team players come to a non proffessional league? I can still give u more clue if u need that. Myanmar league is a proffessional league with full proffessionals.. Just waiting for the approve of my article to submit.. if u want to see about thise players i will give u the link.. bOTH EUROPE NATIONAL TEAM PLAYERS PLAYING IN THE LEAGUE... HOW CAN NATIONAL TEAM PLAYERS START TO PLAY A NON PROFFESSIONAL LEAGUE WHERE AS THEE ARE OTHER LEAGUES IN THE WORLD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 08:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These are some national team players that even played Eufa champions league that played and one is still playing in myanmar national league.. People that played top leagues and national team cant be playing a non proffessional league.. You can just check them here..

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bennett_Mnguni http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jevon_Francis http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.bright.igbinadolor.72921.en.html

I couldnt get others but guess u check this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This article from 2009 has some salary numbers. Without doubt there are professionals playing there, but half of most teams are made up of local players. -Koppapa (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You often find the word "professional teams" though. This says 10,000 spectators, live televised matches. I don't know, it might be professional after all. -Koppapa (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
@Alacrityawareness: What are you talking about? Of course professional players can play in semi-pro or even amateur leagues, and the reason why they go to play for such leagues is not for us to judge. However, I think Koppapa's sources both pass. – Kosm1fent 09:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the 2009 article stipulated on foreign players and local players... when they say local players they dnt means unproffessional players but they simply means native players other than foreign.. In myanmar they have lower unproffessional league but a foreigner cannot play it cos it is not a proffessional league.In football world we distinguish it by saying local and foreign... Local means citizen and foreigner is an import.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

i gave all the data cos i was deleted from wiki on the ground that i dnt play a proffessional league.. Now i have shown u the hints what next do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we discuss this any further - hang on a second. What do you mean with "...that I don't play..."? Do you want to create an article about a random player having played in the Myanmar League, or do you want to create an article about yourself? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been bold and added the Myanmar National League to the list of fully professional leagues. However, you should not create your autobiography yourself. Ideally, you should have someone else have it done for you (Soccer-holic, he's talking about himself). – Kosm1fent 09:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

i created about myself but was deleted on a reason that i dont play in a proffessional league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

someone created it for me but i update my goals and change of clubs.. Now that it is deleted can u bring it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alacrityawareness (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

All of this is a little confusing so here's my take. Myanmar does have a "professional league" and have improved their football system to the point where they are hoping to have a spot in the Asian Champions League by 2014 or 2015. One of the key criteria for entry into the ACL is that a minimum of 18 players are under contract to all clubs in the league (a previous WP:Football discussion agreed that meeting this criterion constituted a fully pro league). Until the last year, teams from Myanmar had only competed in the third tier AFC President's Cup but now compete in the second tier AFC Cup. While a greater level of professionalism is required for the AFCC, there is no requirement for a fully pro league under the AFC competition criteria. So far I have not seen anything that suggests that the Myanmar league is fully pro but I am still looking. Hack (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those criteria. If there is a reliable article reporting why Myanmar was not admitted into the Asian Champions League yet, and if one of the reasons is MNL's fully pro status, I think the issue will be settled. – Kosm1fent 06:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like they were keen to join ACL a couple of years ago but I can't find anything about the outcome or if they even applied. In this Myanmarese article from 2009, it suggests that the league established in 2010 was planned to be semi-pro. Hack (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no rofessional league in the country, the desire to establish the MNL as a professional league, as the Myanmar Football Federation (MFF) seeks to make the league professional.. Borderline, probably semi-pro.-Koppapa (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The clubs that possible to play in Asian Champions League is only from Japan, China, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, India and some Middle East countries (based on AFC criteria). If playing in AFC Champions League become indication of fully pro league, many national league (Malaysia, Hongkong, Vietnam etc) should be noticed as not fully pro.*Annas* (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to have a fully pro league and not be eligible for the ACL. Hack (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, for example the I-League in India only plays in the AFC Cup but is considered fully pro. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
They were represented in the 2011 ACL but were excluded in 2012. Hack (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Aiden McGeady

Can some people please help me keep an eye on Aiden McGeady. His nationality description in the lead is being changed. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am just wondering. Why not just say that he is a "Scottish born Irish international". That seems to make more sense. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Because it's misleading, confusing, and generally daft. See also the four-and-a-half-million previous discussions on similar cases. The present wording is certainly troublesome as well. Adam4267, there is a long RfC on this issue on the talk page from near enough three years ago which you do not appear to have commented on at all, so why exactly are you a) edit warring over it and b) running off to ANI to report people? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well Chris I reverted the user(s) because they were changing the version that had some degree of consensus, per WP:BRD. I also didn't "run off" to ANI, I informed the user on his talk page that he shouldn't change it and if he wanted it changed he should go to the talk page [12]. As for the RfC, its pointless because changing it on one page is usless and we need to decide on what our policy should be on this issue. Whether I commented on it or not (I was aware of it) is irrelevant in my opinion so I don't see why you are bringing it up. Adam4267 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The first step in dispute resolution is taking it to a talk page, not heading to a notice board to get backup. "Raise it on the talk page" is not an appropriate response when there is nothing in the way of a clear consensus on talk (indeed, the most ardent proponent of an unambiguous "Irish" is long, long gone). As for "stable", the article had avoided pointless nationalism for two years until this misguided edit and your own questionable followup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with what you are saying about how I handled the situation but its not really important as the issue is the wording of the lead. I think this is something that definitely needs to be discussed and I certainly feel we need a rule which will implement a clear and importantly consistent new wording. Adam4267 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We do indeed need a rule, and the first premise of any such rule should be that phrases which oversimplify descriptions of complex or contentious nationality issues should be avoided. If an individual represents Fooland, he must be, by some measure, Fooian, but it does not follow that his nationality can be adequately described as Fooian. Kevin McE (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, where sportspeople are conserned on Wiki it is only their sporting nationality that is relevant to their notability. As Chris would point out (and has) it should not be in the first line. Sports bio's are moving away from general MOS gudelines IMO.
@Kevin there are no rules concerning it there are only guidelines. Over simplfng it? Or over complicating.
Adam Put forward a good idea, if anyone caught it, [[Republic of Ireland national football team|Irish]] instead of the other pipes to ROI, Irish people or even Ireland. Any thaughts? Murry1975 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there are no rules: I was agreeing with Adam that there should be some (although I think I would disagree with him over the nature of a rule). I fail to see how omitting nationality from the opening sentence is over-complicating it. I do not believe that the hidden link is a good idea: most people read the text rather than chasing the links, and to describe assume that somebody's national identity can be reduced to the one word Fooish, just because they represent Fooland at a sport, is, in many cases misleading. There might be a case to be made for saying that Tim Templeton is a [[Fooland national football team|Fooland]] international footballer who also plays for Manpool Rovers in the Lumpian Premier League, but if Tim has a Fooish paternal granny (and an Enscotelsh paternal grandfather), was born in Grovia when it was part of Hattria, but was raised in Ignerlad by a Jumpovian mother and her Klavian partner (who adopted him after his parents divorced), before setting in Lumpyland (where he now has sufficient years of residency to qualify for citizenship of Massive Entity, of which Lumpyland is a constituent country), then while it is not untrue to call him Fooish, it is a very partial truth. Partial truths mislead the reader, and that can never be proper in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If only sporting nationality is relevant, then instead of saying he's an Irish footballer why don't we just have something like "Aiden McGeady is a footballer who plays for Spartak Moscow and the Republic of Ireland national team"? Then in the body of the article just have a line such as "Although born in Scotland, he is eligible to represent Ireland due to ..." BigDom 10:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely: some editors' sense of national pride leads them to be unsatisfied with that, and editwar against it. Kevin McE (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, enough moaning about the plague. Now that everyone's stopped edit warring, can we agree to restore the lead warning to the post-RfC consensus which had held for most of the last three years? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Silly question

Hi! To avoid problems I'll ask. Apperance in one friendly game – does it counts to be notable [to write an article]? --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, nooooo. (Look at WP:NFOOTY) Cheers. – Kosm1fent 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
International friendly or club friendly? Important difference. GiantSnowman 16:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah (silly me). The only friendly game appearances that count are senior international ones. – Kosm1fent 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
International friendly (transfermarkt). --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
What player are we talking about? Avoid using Transfermarkt by the way when dealing with senior international football, use national-football-teams.com instead. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An international player would certainlt meet WP:NFOOTBALL; the aim would be then to bring it up to WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks guys! --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kosm1fent, national-football-teams.com usually takes days, if not weeks, to update international appereances, so it is definitely not much usefull when dealing with recent matches. You can replace it whith soccerway.com, but anyway the transfermarkt link Edgars2007 provided here is a match report which is not user generated thus more reliable than the user generated content like transfers, height, birthplace and such. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

www.foradejogo.net

If any of you folks wants to replace this web with its English version in any given player, you don't have to access the site to see how it's done, you can do it manually: after the player (example here http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=198304260001), just add "&language=2" after the last digit (without the quotation marks). It's also valid for managers.

All this in the recent light shed by WP:ELNO, that "forbids" foreign sources as external links. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't absolutely forbid foreign sources in external links, just discourages their use. You'd be on stronger ground if you used it as a citation as per WP:NONENGEL. Hack (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a radical change to how we operate at WikiProject Football...

Hi guys, I know there have been lots of discussions recently about changing our rules, conventions etc. As there have been for a long time. I strongly feel that the way we are operating at the minute is completely inefficient and a huge waste of everyones time. We have the same debates over and over agin and nothing ever gets done. Or some headway is made but new people join the debate and decide they don't want it. Or progress is made then the issue runs out of steam.

A while ago there was a proposal for a WikiProject Football consensus page. Which would have all our consensuses and would ease some of the debates on here. However, it didn't happen due to a mixture of things. I strongly supported this but now feel we need to take it a step further to try and get ourselves operating more efficiently and consistently. I think the problem is we are lacking any form of structure.

Basically I am suggesting we organise ourselves into a more 'government' type organisation. Not that I'm suggesting we appoint Ministers who makes all our decisions. But I think the main thing is we need to be more organised. Having a list of our policies is important (a constitution, if you will), we may also need 'ministers' to oversee certain things. I'm sure there are many other ways we could make ourselves more efficient. For example, there is a suggestion above to organise people to research things. Is that something we could feasibly do at the moment? I don't think we are organised enough for that sort of thing. I think at the moment we are an Athenian democracy, everyone meets up at the centre of the city (this page) to shout at each other and nothing ever gets done. We need to be more of a Representative democracy. In effect we need to organise the people that regularly contribute here and to other important discussions so things actually get done. I'm not suggesting we run the place and that if you don't contribute here your opinion isn't valid, but I think we need a bit more leadership so things actually get done.

I don't know if this is too radical or I'm just being crazy. But I think its a good idea. So any comments welcome. Thanks guys Adam4267 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In fewer words, I think what you're trying to say is that we would benefit from one page which gives an approximate summary of where we are on the major issues (resolved or not), and that we could also do with a few clerks to help manage discussions.

In principle I agree with both of those things. A one-page summary could help, but only if it goes out of its way to make clear that it is merely informative, and should not be used as justification to enforce things for which there is weak/no consensus. Otherwise we would be moving closer to facist dictatorship than representative democracy (although the former would be preferable to inviting people to vote on an issue without providing any substantive input). Clerks whose role is to try to keep discussions moving would also help, but how many of us can truly describe ourselves as neutral on a given issue? —WFC— 02:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue of having a page where most of the frequent discussions would be placed had poped-up several times, and same as Adam4267, I also strongly supported it. I also agree with WFC about the possible missuse of that page as the only way to enforce certain decitions in cases where we lack consensus or where general policies are not clear. However, what I imagined back then was something more like a collection of collapsable discussions on each issue that frequently pops-up, and then we could more easily see where we stand on each of those issues. I also find myself often citing discussions which I have hard time finding here, and this will solve that matter.
Regarding clerks, I kind of feel them unecessary, as we already have a number of admins present here, along with a number of responsable senior editors, so I kind of feel that despite all we have been working quite fine. We could allways do better, of course, but I can´t see how will that work in practice. FkpCascais (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to start a "settled consensus" page then be my guest: we've needed one for a long time. I'd strongly oppose introducing officers or any other hierarchy as I've never seen it to have a positive effect in any WikiProject since I first registered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
We should definitely have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus page; let's try and get that sorted before trying to overhaul how the Project operates, not that I think it needs it anyway. GiantSnowman 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont know about the consensus page as I was not here for previous discussions but I am a strong supporter of revamping some things on here that have been major topics. For example the Fully-professional leagues or the notability rules overall and maybe being more clear, like maybe adding a coach criteria to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability and adding new rules for "pro" league status to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. That is really all I want to see changed here. Oh and a request, I would like to see continental wikiproject Footballs (Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/UEFA task force). I don't know but I feel that would help many users like me who really only edit pages in one region talk and maybe work to make the pages within that region better. I know an Asian Football Confederation page would be loved.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN definitely needs to be brought up to scratch, to match NWP:NFOOTBALL, and include clubs/seasons etc. as established by consensus. GiantSnowman 13:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think a consensus page is definitely a good thing to introduce. But I do think we need to try and change the way we establish consensus. Basically after an issue has been raised and widely agreed that something should be done (like the current issue with FPL) I think we need to actually work towards implementing a change. The model that Wikipedia uses is quite good. Differing solutions are raised, and people can vote for/against or give feedback. I think having discussions for the sole purpose of acheiving a consensus is a good step forward. That would also be a good thing to list on the overall consensus page so people can look through one page detailing all the for against and all other points, also how people feel/vote on the issue. Rather than having several sepeated discussions. I think it also makes things more likely to get done as on this page things tend to run out of steam when they move towards the top. On a dedicated discussion page hopefully we would be more likely to work towards a solution and get it implemented. With the issue of 'ministers', or whatever you want to call them, I meant it more in a beurocratic way than in a decision making way. For example were we to have people researching whether hundreds of players across tens of different leagues were notable, then I think having one or two people overseeing that whole operation and then reporting the findings back to the Project as a whole would be beneficial. Similarly for things like AfDs or new articles, having one or several people responsible for overseeing that could be beneficial. We really already do that but its just in an informal manner. Just a note, I don't think the project needs and overhaul or anything like that (maybe the title I gave to this discussion doesn't reflect that, oops :P). I just think implementing one or two new things and maybe making formal many of our informal things could be benefcial for making the project run smoother and more efficiently. Adam4267 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As a starting point, how about a dedicated page for discussions which are likely to be long term, complimented by something along the lines of {{WPMILHIST Discussion alerts}}? On this talk page, the biggest battle we face is reminding people that a particular discussion is ongoing. —WFC— 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah! ... I mean, I agree with WFC, that should be a good start. FkpCascais (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having a page that can track key discussions, which I guess would include issues such as notability, nationality/use of flags, and reliable sources. By having them in a single place it is easier to see a range of views on the topic, and probably easier to try and bring them to some kind of conclusion. New users can then be pointed to the page as and when queries arise.Eldumpo (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So basically an FAQ page for the football project? Hack (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about a place to actually have longer term discussions. One which we advertise with a template like the one above, and which we archive manually to keep discussions on the same topic together. —WFC— 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/List of consensuses page. The discussion page could feasibly just be on that talk page. However, I feel whether we have that on the talk page or on its own page how we actually structure the discussions is important. I think we need to move away from the way we do it now and maybe look at having them more like an RfC discussion (example). Where we have; an outline of what the discussion is for, initial ideas for what to do, voting, deciding how to implement the new idea, voting. I think if we have a better stucture to our discussions then we can get through them quicker (because we don't have to constantly repeat things) and are less likely to get sidetracked. It also makes it easier for late entrants to the discussion who are able to look over all the issues much quicker and also for people who want to revisit the discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok so tomorrow I'm going to create the consuensus page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/List of consensuses. I'm not really bothered about the name so if anyone thinks a different name is better please say. Looking at our above discussion on FPL notability player criteria I only feel more sure that a more structured approach is needed to our discussions, as our current method does not work. So I am also going to create a discussion template, based on the RfC discussion pages and what I said above. I personally feel that having an individual page for each issue is the best way to go, whether that be a subsection of the WPFootball Consensus page, or standalone (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Player notability discussion page)) I'm not sure. However, others may feel having one page for all consensus discussions, whether that be on the talk page of the main consensus page or on its own page, is a better idea. Adam4267 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Before we go ahead and start/name a page, we ought to be clear exactly what it is going to contain, and try and get consensus for that. Whilst a page name can be amended, it's best we aim to get the right name from the start. If the page is to be a central point for where discussions on notable points takes place, then 'List of consensuses' is not the right name. Eldumpo (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine I will wait a little longer, but not indefinitely, before starting the page. Here is what I think a dicsussion page should look User:Adam4267/WPFootball Consensus discussion template. I have used the discussion on player notability criteris as a base. Adam4267 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The list of consensus page is without doubt needed as we are constantly covering old ground although the name isn't a big deal it can be changed. In regards to the consensus discussion template do you really think we need to be that rigid, its quite a leap from where we are now. Although given as someone as already decided to call me a school kid once today maybe we do need to be that rigid because the infighting in this project is something else.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Adam - were you thinking that more than one topic would be discussed at this page, as I think that could get quite lengthy. It might be best to have a central page that lists the various discussions/issues, and then have links to individual sub-pages where the detailed discussions would actually take place?How then would we deal with 'agreed/settled issues' - would that be a separate page again? Eldumpo (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest all discussions to be inside collapsable boxes, with the discussion title being presented at box title. I also suggest to have it organised in a way that a title is presented, exemple "Football nationality", and then all past discussions ordered chronollogically in collapsable boxes, and at bottom to have a written consensus - Consensus: Xxxxxxx , if existing, if not, leaving the space empty, or having a clear "No consensus". I think that the collapsable boxes are fundamental for the page in order to have it all inside that one page, which is definitelly preferable in my view than having several different pages.
  • Issue - discussion(s) - consensus
Something similar like when a report at ANI is closed, admins certainly know what am I refering to. FkpCascais (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

FOOTYN

I think getting this project more organised and regimented is a great idea, and a page of accepted practices according to consensus is certainly required. I think the best way to make this happen is simply to get the ball rolling - once we're started, it's easier to carry on. I think WP:FOOTYN is a great place to start. I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page there about updating the notability criteria. Contributions would be appreciated. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate football managers by nationality-tree

I recently created some Category:Association football managers by club in Denmark and Germany, and when adding those cats to the articles I realized that while we have a Category:Expatriate association football players by nationality-tree and a Category:Expatriate football managers by country of residence-tree, I couldn't find a Category:Expatriate football managers by nationality-tree. I would say that it would be natural to have such a tree, but is it any reason we don't have it, or could we start working on such a tree? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just start Category:Expatriate football managers and expand it if need be. There is no need to propose creating 200 empty categories for future expansion. That said, weren't we supposed to be doing away with all this "expatriate" trivia as part of the general drive to rid the project of needless and usually-unsourced nationalism? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Chris, no need for expatriate player/manager categories. GiantSnowman 10:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, Category:Expatriate football managers would be a little overkill, as most of them are already sorted in Category:Expatriate football managers by country of residence. While Expatriates by nationality might be unneeded, I believe that Expatraites by country of residence is a useful category and noone can really argue where a person have lived. Just thoght it's a little weird that expatriate by nationality exist for fotballers, but not for football managers. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The players category shouldn't have been created in the first place. it would be a foolish consistency to repeat that mistake with managers. Category:Expatriate football managers by country of residence is already overkill. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually support the ones found here: Category:Expatriate association football players because it often makes it easy for me to find a plauer which I know that has played in a certain country. But all other "expatriate categories" including the Xian expatriate footballers are unecessary. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais. I think the Extpatriate footballers in Country X categories are pretty useful and I actually use them quite often. TonyStarks (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA 2012

There is a discussion on the talk page of the UEFA Euro 2012 article, co-hosted by Poland and Ukraine, on the proper way to treat controversies and concerns around the event which may be of interest to this project: [13] [14].VolunteerMarek 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User creating a lot of articles for non-notable players

This relates to Matthewcressey1 (talk · contribs), who keeps creating articles for Chelsea youth players which promptly get deleted - please see his talk page for details. He has now created an article for Jamal Blackman twice, and I'm going through the process to get that deleted for the second time, but it's starting to become a pain. I'm not an experienced editor, so could someone more experienced please let me know what I should do in this situation? Should I contact the user, beyond the usual deletion notification, or failing that, is there someone else I can get in touch with? I'm not making any assumptions about the guy's motivations, but I'm a bit tired of wasting time on these deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the 4 or 5 noted on his talk page the only articles he has done? Is he responding on talk pages? I'm not the most experienced with this kind of thing either but there are people who have dealt with users like this before who will know what to do. It looks like GiantSnowman has already notified him not to do this (in an informal manner) so maybe telling him that what he is doing wrong and to stop doing it would be the best thing for now. Adam4267 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Last article creation in violation is up for AfD and looks like deletion. If he continues, report to AIV for prompt admin resolution. -- Alexf(talk) 17:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Bela-Vista (football club)

This article had been the subject of an interesting and evolving debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bela-Vista (football club) in which late evidence had been put forward on notability. Last night I amended the Bela-Vista article in an attempt to meet understandable concerns expressed by GiantSnowman. I was somewhat surprised and disappointed to see that my amended article has been deleted over-night before anyone had the chance to review it. Surely there is room for a bit of flexibility when new information comes forward at a late stage in the AfD process? League Octopus (League Octopus 07:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

You probably should have updated the AfD debate saying that you have added new information to the article and asked users to reconsider their vote given that new info. That way an admin that would come along to close it would instead read your message and keep the debate open a bit longer. TonyStarks (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Bela-Vista (football club)" was the wrong title for the article as I have discovered that the proper name of the club is "Grupo Desportivo Vitória Bela Vista". Is there anything to prevent me from introducing this article under its proper title or would it be considered bad practice in the circumstances? League Octopus (League Octopus 08:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC))
If you intend to improve an article and show notability, I have no qualms restoring it at Bela-Vista (football club); you can then move it as you see fit. GiantSnowman 08:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The club's new name doesn't appear to give it more notability than before. G4'd. – Kosm1fent 09:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the article to Grupo Desportivo Vitória Bela Vista and look forward to the continued AfD debate. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC))
Of course, me too. :P – Kosm1fent 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
CSDed. League Octobus, your 'new' article was entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a shame that the choice has been made to stifle debate one this one as it is the first case that I have come across where WP:FOOTYN was met but the decision was made to delete. It would have been helpful to highlight the deficiencies with my amended article because there must be other examples where a middle/lower tier club has competed in their national cup but there is very little in the way of sources available to create a decent article. Am I right in thinking if Grupo Desportivo Vitória Bela Vista had had a website where we could have obtained a potted history, club details (colours, logo etc) there would probably not have been a problem? Or are there more deep rooted issues? These sort of issues I would like to bear in mind to avoid any abortive work in the future. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).
This is a terrible case of double standards. Just like League Octopus says, I can't remember an example of a club that met FOOTYN being deleted either. Not saying that I agree with that guideline in any way, in fact it's complete garbage in my opinion, and Bela Vista probably didn't meet the GNG. But when several past AfD debates have determined that English clubs, whose articles contain no more useful information and provide no more sourcing than the one that's been deleted, don't even have to have participated in the FA Cup (the FA Vase is not the English national cup competition, no matter how much some people would love it to be) to be eligible for an article, there's something fundamentally wrong. BigDom 15:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think FOOTY is good only when we don't rely on it too much. Yes, it needs to be amended, and yes, clubs which stretched FOOTY to its limits should be deleted IMO. – Kosm1fent 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not know a lot about São Tomé and Príncipe but the impression that I get from the website for their national football association - Federação Santomense de Futebol is that they are not highly developed. Should we be discriminating against teams in countries where the internet may not be so advanced and where clubs may not yet have websites? League Octopus (League Octopus 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).
Since when is having a website a valid indication of notability? Bear in mind that GNG requires third-party sources. – Kosm1fent 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I just took a look at their website, and I seriously can't stop laughing... It doesn't even work. xD – Kosm1fent 16:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly not the first 4 of 6 the clubs nominated here were deleted despite the fact they passed WP:FOOTYN & that was only last month. In fact all the WP:FOOTY members voted to keep. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so people are complaining about an article which was deleted because it didn't meet WP:GNG or any other guideline/policy? The essay it technically met is a) opinion and b) not fit-for-purpose. Yes there is consensus that football clubs are notable if they play in the national cup, but consensus is open to change (thankfully) and having an article which can't say anything other than "played in the preliminary round of the Cup in 2003" is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 17:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading this debate carefully in particular the Dunloy etc decision I now understand why we are seeing a slightly more "robust approach" to the AfD debates by some of the admin contributors. The key concern that I have is that to move away from WP:FOOTYN as our cornerstone will lead to numerous inconsistences and does not bode at all well for the future. I am also intrigued about the role played by a "super admin" over-ruling WP.FOOTY members in the Dunloy case. Do we have any say if a "super admin" (what is the correct title?) intervenes in an AfD debate? League Octopus (League Octopus 19:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).
Two quick things - firstly, we shouldn't scrap FOOTYN atogether, we should replace it with more substantive guidelines supported by consensus and policy. Secondly, yes, if you disagree with an AfD decision you can try at WP:DRV, and if you feel an admin has acted inappropriately/abused their tools try WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was one of those that voted for a delete, but I don't think I would have voted the same after League Octopus' additions to the article. Unfortunately, I did not change my vote before the deletion was closed. To recreate the same article is a little inappropiate, I believe the right thing to do would be to take it to DRV. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I said I would restore the old AfDed article which could then be improved & moved; League Octopus decided instead to create a whole new article, which opened with talk page comments and was already tagged with CSD. As I said before, completely inappropriate and no surprise it was deleted again. GiantSnowman 08:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought that I was following the correct procedure (as per the comments of GiantSnowman at the beginning of this debate) and was being completely transparent. I could always recreate the article with a new abbreviated title "GD Vitória Bela Vista" but will be guided by others. The basic problem as an editor is that as sources in São Tomé and Príncipe are so spartan (probably evidence of low internet take-up) it is very difficult to write a creditable article. Nevertheless my amendments should have been properly considered in my opinion. League Octopus(League Octopus 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)).

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009)

This article was deleted nearly a year ago for not being notable enough. Our old "friend", User:Imlikeaboss, has now attempted to restore it along with the assertion that the match was named as the best game of the first 20 seasons of the Premier League. I am inclined to agree with this assertion, so I wondered if an admin would mind restoring the pre-deletion version of the article. Failing that, it should probably be deleted on speedy criterion G4. Cheers. – PeeJay 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the article history, and am happy for you to work on the article now that a more credible claim to notability has been found. GiantSnowman 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've started expanding the article with some background and bits on the team line-ups. I will add some more references later. 03md 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sergio Ramos

I know the action was done most likely (or entirely) by vandals/people who can't be bothered to know/investigate what a B/reserve team is, but i'll leave the note here just in case there are doubts still persisting...

as WWW.BDFUTBOL.com keeps creating more stats for Segunda División B (as well as Segunda División) seasons, it is now clear that he played for Sevilla Atlético in 2003-04 (see external link #2), so it should not be removed.

Another story: his 2011 Supercopa de España runner-up HONOUR keeps getting removed, a bit tiresome but what are you goin' to do about it? Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Directly cite it - whack some ref tags around the external link and place next to the info, to avoid any future doubt. GiantSnowman 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Just add it to the storyline, at least that way it is referenced in the article. The Sevilla section currently reads: "Born in Camas, Seville, Andalusia, Ramos began his career at local side Sevilla FC, emerging through the club's youth system alongside Jesús Navas and Antonio Puerta. He made his first team – and La Liga – debut on 1 February 2004, coming on as a second half substitute in a 0–1 away loss against Deportivo de La Coruña." You can add the fact that he played for Sevilla B in between those two lines, just add a ref and you're good to go. TonyStarks (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigurvin Ólafsson

I've just created this article, but there's something I can't work out. According to the Icelandic FA website, he had a short spell in England in February/March 2000, but I can't find anything about it anywhere. Does anyone know if he did indeed come to England, and if so what club? He didn't play any matches so it seems likely it might just have been a trial or something like that. Cheers, BigDom 12:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Independent (4/3/2000) he was on trial at Stoke City together with Thor Kristjansson. The paper misspelt his surname as "Olafson". The name of the article in the paper was "Football: THIS WEEK'S TRANSFERS". Number 57 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, the misspelt name probably explains why I couldn't find it. I'll add a line to the article. Cheers, BigDom 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Transfers don't officially take place until July 1

...we all know, but what about friendlies already taking place with the new players? [15] (Scholz and Köz are new signings). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered myself about such cases as well. Once players join the new teams and start training with them I saw most cases being already added to their infobox/carer´s sections. Now, I am not sure what the rest here thinks... FkpCascais (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
As official status goes, they are trialists. (i.e. players not under contract who have been invited train and play in unofficial matches) Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry this is a bit long-winded, but it's a myth that transfers can't take place until 1 July. FIFA regulations permit an association's transfer window to begin straight after the last match of the season, see here, where Article 6.2 says "The first Registration Period shall begin after the completion of the Season and shall normally end before the new Season starts", and Season is defined for the purpose of those regulations as "the period starting with the first Official Match of the relevant national league championship and ending with the last Official Match of the relevant national league championship" (Definition 9, and the explanatory note at the bottom of page 5 of the PDF).
In the Football League, section 40.6.2 of their rules says "Transfer Window shall mean either: (a) the period commencing at midnight on the last day of the immediately preceding Season and ending at midnight on the 31 August next following; or (b) the period commencing at midnight on the 31 December and ending at midnight on the 31 January next following.", where Season is defined as per FIFA, i.e. "Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match and, for each Club, ending immediately after the completion of the Club's final fixture of the League Competition or, if the Club is participating in the Play-Offs, the final Play-Off match for that Club." The Premier League rules say much the same: Definitions p.75 and Section M.2 p.158 of a 500-page PDF file. As an example, Birmingham announced the signing of Nikola Zigic in May 2010, and the transfer was officially completed on 11 June, as confirmed by the FA registrations list for June 2010. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The corollary to this is that contracts don't finish until 30 June: many international squads are being listed with players as free agents, and are constantly, erroneously, reverted to this status. Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That isn't absolute, some clubs now only give contracts to 31 May (probably to save money). James Morrison (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it even formalised? I wasn't aware that player contracts were under any stricter regulations in terms of duration than any other employment contracts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In England, Football League and Premier League standard contracts terminate on 30 June. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, indeed. "Contracts may be for any period expiring on the 30 June in any year". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Club Notability in England - need for a proper policy re FA Vase

The debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldland Abbotonians F.C. is in my view highlighting the need for a definitive decision whether clubs competing in the FA Vase are notable - in my view we just need to come off the fence and make a sensible decision.

I have highlighted the following recent decisions:

Clubs that have played in the FA Vase in the past have been accepted as a cut-off point for notability for English non-League clubs:

Clubs that have played at Level 10 (Step 6) have been accepted as notable despite not playing in any national cup competition:

Before another "ad hoc" decision is made surely it is better to sort out a consistent policy in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

I have been thinking about preparing an article for Frampton Athletic, Division 1 of the Bristol Premier Combination, who have played one game in the FA Vase back in 1984-85 - refer http://www.fchd.info/FRAMPTOA.HTM. I do not want to waste my time! Please can we not sort out some definitive guidance? League Octopus (League Octopus 17:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC))
Other than purely statistical ones, what sources were you intending to use? Ultimately, its the quality of available sources that decides things. Looking at Frampton's website, they just play on playing fields, so that doesn't bode well. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The FA Vase isn't required as a determiner in this case - consensus has previously been that playing at Step 6 of the pyramid confers notability. Number 57 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. Clubs which rely on FA Vase participation alone to justify notability doesn't make sense and need to be taken to AfD. – Kosm1fent 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice at Darlington F.C.

This page still has an old edit notice relating to a content dispute in Autumn 2011. Since the page hasn't been protected since then, could someone with admin powers remove that? Valenciano (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Where in the article? I have not seen said notice. -- Alexf(talk) 14:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Open it in the edit window, you can't miss it... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah! It was an Editnotice. I was looking into the article, not editing. Done. -- Alexf(talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Football Transfer Sources

I am having a problem for I-League transfers for 2012-13 season and that is sourcing. Mainly with the non-English sources to show that this player moved to this club. It is hard because the non-English source says this player moved to this club and then an English source says that he moved to another club. Now I dont know what the rule is on non-English sources or sourcing overall when it comes to transfers so I hope someone can shed some light in this situation. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If available, sources in English are preferred. But if they are not available, or the non-English sources are of higher quality than those in English, then using non-English sources is fine. Sometimes including a translation of the relevant part in a footnote can be helpful, but its not mandatory. See WP:NONENG for more details. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. This actually helps a lot. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Javier Mascherano - playing position

There is an ongoing edit war on Javier Mascherano's playing position, alternatively changing between defender as he plays in FC Barcelona, and midfielder as he plays for Argentina and used to in other clubs. Before starting to admonish warring editors, or taking more drastic measures as protecting the article, I would like for people from the Footy project to please take a look, get involved and come to a consensus. Either one, the other or both positions. Once a consensus is reached, the instructions can be put into the article as hidden comments so violators are forewarned. Thanks for your help. -- Alexf(talk) 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, can't the article just say he plays both positions? "plays as a central defender and defensive midfielder" ?? Is it really that hard ? TonyStarks (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No it is not hard and I agree with you, but due to the edit war, I preferred to get opinions from the Wikiproject, which knows more than I do. I have already warned the users. Will proceed with the labeling on the article. -- Alexf(talk) 22:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Up until 2010/11, that i know of, he played exclusively as a DM. Last season, with great success, he played as a stopper, even relegating Gerard Piqué to the bench. As TONY puts it, both positions should be referred, and the ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL UTILITY PLAYERS category should be added as well methinks. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Editnotice created for the article. Thanks for your comments. -- Alexf(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mijo Dadić

Ugh, one of the worste exemples of WP:WEASEL and prmotional tone I have ever finded. One user even thought that by adding a Soccerway source he could simply eliminate the unsourced and tone tags... FkpCascais (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not even Sherlock Holmes will save us on this one

José Belman, according to both Portuguese websites (he spent ages in my country with C.D. Nacional), he played for Gillingham.

However, User:ChrisTheDude, a solid Gills fan, has revolved the web and/or club archives looking for evidence he represented the club, found NONE. I am Portuguese but am more and more inclined to go with Chris on this one, that info must me incorrect. Should we not leave that season blank in both the box and the text (maybe just a trial)?

The article stands pretty much unaltered (for YEARS) other that my inputs and Chris'. Any further inputs mates? Thanks in advance. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I also attended every Gills home match in the season in question, and am sure that I would have noticed any mention of such an exotic (by Kentish standards) signing. I'm unclear as to what you mean by "both Portuguese websites": surely the country has given rise to more than 2, but the Jose Belman article only references one which is Portuguese. So we are left to consider the reliability of the sources that do place him at Gillingham. One of them states, "The footballzz.co.uk grows with the contribution of all users," which suggests that it is, like Wikipedia, reader sourced info and therefore not of the highest reliability; the other, ForaDeJogo, has a mission statement that scarcely engenders confidence in the highest editorial standards, especially in relation to non Portuguese players at non-Portuguese clubs. Delete claims that are not verifiable by a reliable source. Kevin McE (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your inputs Kevin. What i meant by "both Portuguese websites", is "the two Portuguese websites present in the player's article", not the country's entirety :) I'll remove the (supposedly, if not surely) wrong info then (based on your input + Chris'), if anyone disagrees upon reading this stuff (or more if it comes), please "undo" me. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Interesting" approach

Anon IPs from Egypt, engage in the following: changing player positions just because and inserting STUBS. Addresses include this (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.238.6.23), this (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.35.233.92) and this (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.238.30.72), in Pascal Cygan, which as you can see has a fairly big "piece" and has several proper references, he STUB'ed it (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pascal_Cygan&diff=482200891&oldid=481120618)!

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Éric Abidal

More edit-warring involving overall good-faith editor User:Marcospace, i come to his aid. The player is not retired! I elaborate: he was on the 17th, but please have a look at this Spanish news report (here http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/eric-abidal-volver-terrenos-juego-175158261--sow.html, 14 days after the aforementioned available source, on the 31st), he seems to be recovering no? I think both the EPSN source and this i (intend to) add(ed) should be kept, reaching a storyline compromise in the lines of "he retired on X date, only to return to football Y days later".

I'll also take this the article's talk page, whilst i try to find some more sources, especially sports-related. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Abidal never announced his retirament. He never gave an interview and there is no record on the official Barcelona home page.- --Marcos Pace (talk) 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Primeira Liga seasons

User:Secretaria, lovely userpage, but i don't they'll write a summary to save their lives, nor will they respond to talkpage interaction, has been replacing several seasons of the competition with another name.

Should all seasons not have the same display (as in La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A), that is to say, name ALWAYS the same followed by years), for coherence purposes? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean changes like this one, moving 1959–60 Primeira Liga to 1959–60 Primeira Divisão with edit summary "Changed to proper name at the time"? Those moves don't seem unreasonable to me, assuming Primeira Divisão was the proper name at the time. In English football, we have 2003–04 Football League First Division but 2004–05 Football League Championship, and if there were any second-tier season pages before 1992, they'd be of the form 1903–04 Football League Second Division. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
NEVER seen an summary by this user, i admit it (i may be what you folks want in terms of attitude, but i'm not a liar), so i'm surprised. About the discussion at hand, yes i see your point, but for instance La Liga was Primera División for several decades, and ALL the seasons here are named in the former's form. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Must admit, naming of league season articles isn't something I've ever taken any notice of, was only going by the way the English ones are named. La Liga seasons might be so named to avoid having some sort of disambiguator on Primera División. Is Primeira Divisão unambiguous? Anyone else have a view? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The changes made by Secretaria are absolutely correct and complement the work I am undertaking on Portuguese football. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)).
In my view La Liga seasons shouldn't be named so when the same didn't exist yet. -Koppapa (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Koppapa - in Spain Primera División seasons should be used until La Liga took over as the common term. League Octopus (League Octopus 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

2012 Taça da Liga Final

Hi,

I need help applying the kits for the teams involved in the 2012 Taça da Liga Final. I don't know what to do. Gil Vicente's kit for the final was yellow. User talk:Alexgreene87 12:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the shirts? You just gotta play with those RGB codes. Try this or google something. -Koppapa (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason the Benfica kit didn't display was because you had a "1" on the end of the parameter names. That's right for the first kit in a club infobox, but for a free-standing kit you don't want it. As for Gil Vicente, if the whole kit is yellow, just add the RGB colour code to the shorts and socks parameters as well; Koppapa's already done it for the shirt. If the shade of yellow is wrong, then use the link that Koppapa posted above to get the code for the correct shade. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully professional leagues

Initial comment resolved. The rest is just feeding a troll. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should Malian Première Division be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues? Currently no league exists for Mali. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources claiming it's fully professional. – Kosm1fent 07:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the definition of fully professional? I assumed it meant the top league of the country. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
In reality it means a reliable source stating that the league is 'professional', and which doesn't say it's part-time, semi-pro etc. Therefore, it does not cover all top-level leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, should we get real and remove Scottish First Division from the list? Given that a pathetic part-time pub team Cowdenbeath F.C. will be in it next year. Two other pathetic part-time pub teams (Airdrie United and Dumbarton) are currently playing for the right to join them. When we consider existing part-time minnows like Raith already in the league, and Morton's stated intention to turn part-time next year, how ON EARTH can this division be considered "fully professional"??? 176.253.6.67 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No. GiantSnowman 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Full disclosure, that this was brought up in relation to an on going afd, found here, should have been made. I'll reitterate my comments from the afd, the matter here is less the status of the Malian League and more the absence of reliable sources, one way or the other. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't get your definite "no", Snowman. The current sources provided for the Scottish First Division only show the professional status of the clubs. Naturally, if all clubs in a league are professional, the league is considered fully professional as well. However, if a (verifiable) semi professional club joins the league, wouldn't that league cease to be fully professional anymore? – Kosm1fent 16:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death at WT:FPL; the IP above is 99% PorridgeGobbler (talk · contribs) who seems to have a personal vendetta against the SFL1. GiantSnowman 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean this discussion? I see. Still, without a solid source covering the whole league, the notability issue of Scottish First Division players will come up many times in the future... Cheers. – Kosm1fent 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's comment on content, not contributors. Cowden = part time. Dumbarton = part time. Raith = part time. Ayr = part time. Morton = part time next year. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
That's nice. Seeing as WP:FPL is just a guide for players meeting WP:GNG, I'm sure that community consensus will determine that SFL1 should remain on the list, regardless of a few players having part-time jobs or whatever. GiantSnowman 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's get Malian Première Division on the list too then. I wonder if half the players there have day jobs and beer bellies? 176.253.6.67 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Does the MPD get the same TV/media coverage as the SFL1? I think we both know the answer to that. GiantSnowman 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
So what? They are still demonstrably part-time. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, that's nice. But FPL is basically a list of leagues which gives a claim to notability if you play in them, as determined by community consensus - it just happens that we've also agreed that being fully-professional is the same. But non fully-pro leagues (such as the Veikkausliiga) are included due to the media coverage the league, and therefore the players, get. The same is with SFL1. GiantSnowman 18:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the IP to a point, the SFL1 is not fully-pro and shouldn't be on the list of fully pro leagues. His hyperbolic arguments and comparison of the league to the Malian Premier Division (and if it is Porridge Gobbler then include personal attacks and racial insults) are annoying and unnecessary but that shouldn't make his point invalid. However, in my opinion the real problem is our notability guidelines and I think that if our guidelines were that leagues are notable because they (or the players in them) have demonstrable notability (rather than a certain number of players have a second job) then arguments like this wouldn't happen. Although I do believe the SFL1 should be on a list of notable leagues I don't believe it, or any other league, should get in just because there is one or two sources saying it is fully (or close to being) fully professional. Adam4267 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Perceived vendettas, our own prejudices, "common sense", other leagues, the list is ludicrous anyway etc. etc... All completely irrelevant. Are teams like Cowdenbeath and Dumbarton full-time professional? No, of course not, they're teams comprised entirely of part-time players with day jobs. Should SFL1 be on this list? Not in a million years. It really is that simple. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Although I agree with you to a point, you still seem to find it hard to make an argument without hyperbole (comprised entirely of part-time players with day jobs). Wikipedia guidelines are just guidlines anyway, we don't have to follow them to the letter and we know they will never be perfect for everyone so we can change them if there is a problem. As GS said above, Community consensus is most important in deciding this. It seems like many people believe the SFL1 is a notable league so that is more of a community consensus than the opinion of you. Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Er, that's not hyperbole it's just the truth Adam. No offence, but you two or three guys in the Scottish Football taskforce can try to invent your own wee notability "consensus". In doing so you can make a total mockery of WP:NSPORT. What you can't do, however, is make part-time diddy teams into full-time pro teams. Objective editors will realise that. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, there are 22 Scottish task force members [16]. You can use terms like 'diddy teams' and 'invent' all you want but the only person you'll convince with them is yourself. I would suggest you stop it and try to discuss things in a more neutral and reasonable manner so we can come to a "consensus". If you will actually take the time to read what I said above I never said the teams were full time, I just said that I think the players that play for them are notable. That's the whole point of the discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't. The point is that a demonstrably part-time league is wrongly listed at WP:FPL – the project's list of fully professional leagues. You seem to be talking about something else. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you know why we have that list of leagues? Adam4267 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, why we have it is irrelevant. I'm interested in correcting a specific error on it: the presence of SFL1. That's what we are talking about here. No amount of excuses will change the fact thatI SFL1 is largely part-time and should not be on there. How you guys justify wasting your time and effort on all these non-notable players afterwards I don't really care. Just get it off the list, or change the criteria of the list. 176.253.6.67 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"largely part-time"?! Now I know you're trolling. Nonsense. GiantSnowman 21:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Three (four next season when Morton revert to part-time) of the ten teams are comprised of part-time semi-professional players. Therefore the league is NOT "fully professional". Everything else is just waffle. 176.253.3.135 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if that's all true, 4/10 is not "largely." All of those clubs - being semi-pro - will still pay players (some full, some partly). But you're missing the point - community consensus determines whether or not the league remains on the list (as it has), not one editor with an agenda. GiantSnowman 10:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Community consensus or not, surely the only criterion for a league to be in a list of "fully professional leagues" is that the league is fully professional? I know why the SFL1 is kept on there, but maybe then "Fully professional leagues" isn't the best name for that page. BigDom 10:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It has a nicer ring to it than "if you play in these leagues then you are considered notable"! GiantSnowman 10:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, really the list ought to be renamed 'List of professional football leagues'. If a number of SFL1 teams are now semi-pro maybe that league's inclusion on the list ought to be fully debated again? Eldumpo (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem seems to be the title of the page. WP:NSPORTS is designed to provide a guideline of sportspeople who play at a level sufficient to presume notability, and NFOOTBALL has chosen "fully-pro league" as one way to identify that level of play. As has been noted, if the coverage of SFL1 (or the Malian league) would typically result in footballers playing in the league havign sufficient coverage in reliable sources (of a non-trivial nature), then we ought to identify this to make it easier on editors trying to determine which types of biographies are likely to be notable. We shouldn't be stuck on the concept of "fully-pro league" except that has been this project's best guess as to the appropriate level of play to satisfy NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(editconflict)But it's not really a list of professional football leagues. It is a list of leagues in which players are assumed to meet WP:GNG. Leagues should be on this list because the players in them are notable, not because the players train a certain number of times a week.
I think we should have people look into the leagues and see whether players playing in them are actually notable. So you could research some random players in a league and if the majority meet GNG then the league should be on the list. For example, I looked into a couple of random players from SFL1 and English League 2.
Two Dagenham and Redbridge players and two Morton players, both teams finished just outside the relegation zone this year. Damien McCrory of Dags probably just meets GNG, there are several sources in the article which probably surpass routine coverage and a quick google search shows more [17]. Matthew Saunders article doesn't show him meeting GNG and a quick google search [18] would suggest he probably doesn't meet it. From Morton, Thomas O'Ware's article probably justs passes GNG, however, there are many articles shown on a news search [19]. Michael Tidser's article would suggest he meets GNG and there are plenty more articles on a news search [20].
Although that isn't an extensive search and doesn't cover the whole league I think that's the general idea of what we should be doing. Obviously not every player in every league (even the Premier League) will meet GNG so we should be looking to establish whether the average player in the league meets GNG. I think we should be also looking if the average article of players in the league meet GNG, because I think too often we have articles of players who don't meet GNG but can stay because they made an appearance, there's no point having articles on players who may meet GNG but the articles don't show that. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a stats database and having loads of stubs on players in a league which may be fully professional isn't really the point. Adam4267 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You do know that google will bring back different results depending on what country you are in, right? No offence, but this project has far too many UK editors, whose idea of research is 2 minutes on google. That leads to a cultural bias which is completely skewing our idea of relative notability.
I don't know who left this comment but as I said above that was only a quick google search and not proper research. Obviously it would be helpful if local editors could search for their own leagues but that doesn't mean people in other countries can't do it. Adam4267 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the basis of what you're saying, and what you've tried to do by looking at sample players. Further to my comment above, this list should ideally be renamed 'List of notable football leagues' or similar, and we should move away from relying on a league being 'professional'. Given that the list, in reality, is used to give an automatic pass to player articles, then each league added should be done so on the basis of whether a (decent) sample of players meet GNG. We've had this discussion before... Eldumpo (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - there are non fully-pro leagues that should remain (SFL1) and some fully-pro ones that should be removed (Malaysia?) We could also then add other semi-pro top-level leagues if appropriate. GiantSnowman 08:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole idea of "fully professional" was to give a bogus objectivity to this enterprise. What you are suggesting now, if you are serious, is even more ludicrous. Notability criteria this subjective will NEVER be accepted by the rest of the wiki. Wake up. I am glad people have finally had to get real and admit SFL1 is semi-pro. However you dress it up, playing for Cowdenbeath or Dumbarton etc. should never confer "presumed notability". When these two sleeping giants met in a promotion clash in November 271 people turned up. This was Saturday 3pm KO in a championship winning season. These guys only get pocket money for playing in their spare time. Cowden's ragamuffin assortment of college kids and anonymous journeymen play in a dilapidated ex-speedway track with one rickety stand. Meanwhile we have players in England playing for a full-time salary in proper stadiums in front of actual crowds who get deleted. 176.253.16.78 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
So what. The population of England is ten times that of Scotland, comparing them is ridiculous. Anyway when Dunfermline played Raith Rovers last season, 11,052 people turned up to see the vagabonds and ragamuffins which you so despise. That would be equivalent to an attendance of 110,520 in England. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think few teams in the Championship get over 100,000 people at one match. Also Dundee had an average attendance of 4727 that season. This would place them third in the EPL average attendance for that season. Scotland has in proportion to population, by far the highest attendance at football matches in Europe. Which is why there is so much media interest in Scottish football, which is why Scottish players in SFL1 would most likely be notable. I don't think there is much point in you participating in discussion further (although I'm sure you will) because you clearly do not understand the point of the discussion, have an agenda against Scottish football and don't understand how Wikipedia works (Notability is established through reliable sources, not the opinion of a random IP). Adam4267 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't go into the discussion if the specific league is a FPL, but I think it's important to remember that any changes would be retroactive: if we decide that playing in Scottish First Division does not warrant an article, every article made in the past should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that even the Football League was not "fully professional" until well into the 1950s. Be careful what you wish for. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, playing in a FPL during "the amateur era" also grants notability. I'm not wishing, I'm just saying that removing a league from the list might lead to big changes. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes obviously there are consquences. However, I think we need to look both at whether the players meet GNG and how good the quality of the article on Wikipedia is. The English League 2, in my opinion, might not meet GNG. Of course I haven't done a detailed research so maybe it will but I think it might not. But seeing as the majority of articles are good (generally stub or above) and some players will obviously meet GNG then keeping it would probably be the best option. Whereas maybe a league that technically just meets GNG but the majority of articles are micro-stubs would be best for deletion. However, when I proposed a change a while ago I said we should have three tiers of leagues, 1 - Automatic notability, 2 - Probable Notability, 3 - Unlikely Notability. So players in number 1 leagues (say, arbitrarily, above 75% of researched articles meet GNG) would get an article. Players in number 2 leagues (say above 50%) should get an article but must be shown to meet GNG in the article, even if its just through one regional source. Players in number 3 (say below 25%) must be shown to meet GNG through several national sources if they are to have an article. I think having something like this where it is left up to users discretion is necessary because I think a problem with our system now is that your either in or your out and there's no grey area. Of course a three tiered system might be impractical or might have flaws but I thinked its something that should be considered. Adam4267 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to bend over backwards just to accomodate Scottish First Division. Let's keep the list but make it accurate by removing this and other semi-pro/part-time leagues. If the individual players can meet GNG (unlikely, imo) then prove it on a case by case basis. What we don't need is more lame stub articles for Scottish "footballers" who spend their day jobs saying: "would you like fries with that?" 176.253.29.176 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reopened discussion

I think that's a harsh comment Chris. There were some good points raised by various posters, and the apparent anomaly is an obvious one to be questioned. This issue is not going to go away. Eldumpo (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't go away, but it can be resolved without such a negative influence who is content to disrupt & wind-up other editors. PorridgeGobbler (talk · contribs) - for that is who it is - was previously indeffed for socking and harrassing other editors. He was unblocked, lasted a few months, and then got a short block for further disruption - creating an article then immediately AFDing it to make a POINT about the SFL. He lasted a further month after that before abandoning his account and continuing his actions with IPs. GiantSnowman 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
GiantSnowman and Chris Cunningham have a huge conflict of interest here. And they are both abusing their position as admins by attacking contributors instead of commenting on content. Chris previously told a lie that the SFL1 used to be "fully professional". When I asked him when, he ran away. Will he answer now? Or pretend he is a victim of trolling? 176.253.28.0 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not a conflict of interest. Nor have I used my admin tools in this debate at all, to my knowledge. You'd have more luck with allegations of lying if you stuck to the facts yourself. Secondly, I don't recall having argued that SFL1 belongs in FPL because it "used to be fully professional", but even if I did at some point I can provide significant evidence that my usual position has been that FPL is not strictly definitive of notability and that the level of coverage provided SFL1 (along with some other leagues which may contain part-time sides, most notably the Conference Premier) is significant enough to make an exception for it so as to avoid the unpleasant situation whereby material which could easily be sourced is deleted by a well-meaning editor applying a set of rules too strictly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with some of the methods of the IP user but he does raise a very valid point with regards to the notability of players playing in the Scottish First Division. With all the information he has provided, I can't see how we still consider it as "professional". I've read both this and the previous discussion and in both cases I'd have to agree with him, the league clearly is not fully professional as per our definition. TonyStarks (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the original conversation, SFL! may not be fully-professional but due to media coverage, playing in it is probably enough to grant 'automatic' notability so should remain in a list with other simialr leagues that grant 'automatic' notability. The content of the list is fine; the name is not. GiantSnowman 10:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but who's to say that other top level leagues which are not on the list of fully professional leagues don't have enough "media coverage"? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There may very well be (the Conference Premier undoubtedly does). The problem is with the rigidity of the present guideline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. To summarise:
  1. We presently use a list of "fully professional leagues" to determine presumption of notability, which is arbitrary and mostly of our own devising.
  2. Editors have a tendency to take guidelines too literally.
  3. The Scottish First Division receives significantly more coverage from reliable sources than would be naively assumed from its "not fully professional" status (much like the Conference Premier), owing to various factors such as population density, historical popularity of football in the region, the small size of the present top-tier league et cetera.
Therefore, we should presently include SFL1 in the "FPL" list simply to stop people from wasting the project's time by nominating for deletion the articles of players whom close inspection would inevitably find to pass the GNG. In the long run, the right way forward is probably to rename the "FPL" list to something like "notable leagues" and to use additional heuristics beyond our current guesswork regarding playing budget in order to establish whether or not a league receives enough secondary coverage to consider players within it to be likely to pass the GNG by implication. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all the ip does not tell the whole truth never does. Ayr no longer play in that league, Morton have made no firm decision about going part time, Raith announced they would begin winding down and would keep all full time players on there books but may not recruit more however they have just signed three players who have been signed on fully pro contracts. Cowdenbeath class them as part time however a look on their website shows they do have a large body of full time players. This leaves us with again one tottaly part time team which is Dumbarton and possible Cowdenbeath due to some of their squad. This means we are back to where we were a year ago. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As I, and others, said in the discussion we should be looking to change to a method where leagues are evaluated based on the amount of players that meet GNG. The best way to do this would be to take a random sample of players and research them. Although the FPL criteria isn't awful as 'most' notable leagues are included there could also be many leagues which aren't notable in there. I also think we should have a more flexible criteria so its not so much, 'your either in or out'. This should be more of a guideline to advise people on what players are likely to meet GNG. Rather than a rule acting above GNG which it currently is. Adam4267 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know going part-time (for a club) means training 2 maybe 3 times a week in the evening. Full-time clubs train during the day, often only in the morning. It doesn't mean players can't have part time jobs/study etc., or am I mistaken? Cattivi (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Some full-time players do study, often during the off-season. They rarely have 'jobs' in the convential sense but might have business interests. In the SFL1 the teams that are part-time have full-time players as well so the full-time players train all the time and the part-time players train only some days. Adam4267 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Most professional football players train far less than cyclists, swimmers and many other athletes. It would supprise me if the average SF1 player spent more than 3 hours a day at the club during the week. Cattivi (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Thumperward's comments above - that we ought to change the focus of the presumption of GNG-compliance to people who have played in a "notable league" rather than one which is "fully-pro" (we might want to reconsider the presumption for play in any FIFA "A" international - perhaps to a presumption for play in a competitive international like a continental/world cup tournament qualifier/final or olympic final). The problem is that I don't think it's going to be easy to gain a concensus on what is a notable league. I think the "GNG-compliance sampling" technique described above could work, but it seems like a huge amount of work. Any shortcuts that we could agree on instead? Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
One way could be to create a table, something like below, and people can !vote as to which leagues they feel should be initally included:
User Premier League Ligue 1 Serie A
GiantSnowman Yes Yes Yes
Jogurney Yes Yes Yes
etc. etc. But open to suggestions, as ever. GiantSnowman 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping for something more measurable like TV viewership, matchday attendance, etc. Ideally, we would want to find some correlation between viewership/attendance and media coverage, but I think it's fair to assume that heavily watched leagues will generate significant media coverage of most players in those leagues. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think, as I said in the now hidden discussion, we need to research a sample of players in a league and find out what proportion meet GNG. At the end of the day anything else; viewership, attendances, our own opinions, etc. is not the right thing because we are trying to decide whether players in the league meet GNG. So the best way to determine that is by actually finding out what proportion of players meet GNG. I gave an example of two League 2 players and 2 SFL1 players which I researched above. I think that's the general idea of what we need to do. Adam4267 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a complete re-think. All that is really needed is a retitling of the list. Proposed additions can be discussed as normal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

we've had these discussions before and never get anywhere. I agree change is needed but that will take time although I do disagree with the sampling idea as we really would need something more fixed than random. I think in the immediate we should change the name of the list as It's not appropriate and then work on it rather than take a snap decision. In regards to part time Adam I take it you mean only the part time clubs when you refer to training part time as their are 8 full time clubs. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
just in response to a comment by Mentoz in the collapsed section. Notability is permenant if we have agreed a Player is notable changing the list will have no effect on the past just future articles. You can't go back and delete every article on a player that we deemed to meet criteria just because the league has changed and is no longer notable. This applies to any league in my opinion.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be correct if a league is removed from FPL because it was professional but isn't anymore. If on the other hand we were to take the view that playing in a particular league was never notable, it would be a different story. —WFC— 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Given we are talking about leagues that were fully pro, not leagues that never were notable then my point is correct in this discussion obviously if a league was never notable its a different story but that would be controversial and hard to active a consensus for what is far more likely in all cases is its no longer notable. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The French system

Arbitrary break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should look at the framework the French wikipedia uses, but tweak it to reflect the fact that there is a genuine consensus (even from relative hardliners such as myself) that we should be somewhat more inclusive than they are. —WFC— 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting we use a system which is even too hardline for you. Its far too complicated and looks rather like something we have debated and re debated before and has never got of the ground. So under 21 players in England cat 1 are notable but under 21 players in USA cat2 are not. This is the most county centric system I've ever seen. As a project we already give far too much weight to certain countries as it is cough England. As a first step we clearly need to do as chris said and take it from there because looking at that were never going to get anywhere. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Also how would you determine where a country sits or region of a country in some cases. How do we determine which countries are more notable perse than others. There are actually far more holes in that system than there are in the Fully pro, its open to huge debate and controversy. We need something set in stone but that really isn't it huge holes at every turn.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is the French WP:FOOTY framework run through Google Translate. It looks very complicated, but I think it is better than our overly simple and ill-defined (we've never properly defined "fully-pro") framework. Jogurney (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
EW, if you're incapable of understanding the difference between using a framework and following something to the letter (particularly given that I went out of my way to make clear that we couldn't use it as-is), then beyond a certain point I can't help you. As for your valid follow-up, the traditional way of using a framework is to start with what is there, and discuss what is wrong with it. As for the England-bashing, it's not my fault, or the French Wikipedia's fault, that the Scottish league system is **** (although one area where I do think they have it wrong is international football, where I would personally stick to the English model). Domestically, the French system puts England on a level footing with Italy, Germany, Spain and Brazil, which in theory makes sense, and in practise is actually quite harsh on England, which has a much better developed third and fourth tier than any other country on the planet. —WFC— 22:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
WFC once again you make personal attacks there are undoubtedly people better qualified than me to teach schoolchildren or if you are incapable of knowing the difference. Get your facts straight I'm no school kid nor will i put up with someone trying to force someone to back out of a discussion just because i object to a racist policy. Im extremely disappointed that you cannot discuss rather than make childish remarks you have been told many times not to do this yet you continue rather than discuss the point. Pure and simple there is nothing to work with in that framework its pure discrimination the whole thing. Your making this personal and ill be honest with you i don't give too hoots about what the French wiki thinks about leagues thats there problem. Scottish football is not shit nor are most of the countries that policy would discriminate against which is virtually the majority. That system has no statistical basis or any indication that those leagues are any more notable than others. I mean come on The USA football is extremely notable at this time. Good luck with that system because it will not work here any in way shape or form here its a racist policy heavily weighted to the few rather than the notable majority. Show me where the correlation of notability is in that. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
And WFC you know fine well that this project is heavily weighted towards England mainly because that is where most of out editors are from. We cannot and should not bash other countries down which is all this system does as a project we already marjonalise far too many notable countries because we just dismiss them. This project can ill afford to go further down that route. Also to say England has best developed third and fourth tier than any other country on the planet is highly Pov have you travelled to all these countries and viewed their systems or are you a football expert and know every aspect of football in every country in the world. I doubt it on both fronts you know English football best and your true feelings came out a bit their.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we stop with the histrionics? The French Wikipedia's system is not "racist" and it is discriminatory because all guidelines are discriminatory. I worry that it is too complex, but there is little question that players in the Nicaraguan league receive less media coverage than those who play in La Liga. The methodology Adam and some others mentioned (sampling actual articles for GNG-compliance) would be the fairest method, but can we really do it? A shortcut similar to the French Wikipedia's system would be easier if (a huge "if") we can come to a concensus on which leagues to place in each strata (I think three would be plenty). Jogurney (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Racist is maybe taking it too far but WFC comment and edit summary really take the biscuit and to be honest I'm sick of his comments he did this the last time. . The french version is discriminatory as there is absolutely no correlation to notability whatsoever. It's all assumptions it's overly complicated it's totally wrong to say this countrys players are more notable than the other based on nothing but bias and assumptions. Adams suggestion is a good idea in theory but you could take one batch of players and struggle to make meet GNG and another bunch will pass at ease its too random. What we need is something far more set in stone and not open regional bias or interpretation. A system based on media coverage, attendances and pro status have far more barring on notability. WFC and a few other brought up systems like this before and have never got anywhere. Even I want change but it has to be fair and not allow editors pov to creep in. If someone can show a clear line of notability not based on assumptions or world rankings which show nothing of how popular or well covered a league is then fair enough but that is pretty much what this system isn't. This project has a real problem with change in that it very rarely happens here instead we have editors having a go at each other constantly it's like being back in p1 all over again. It's fair to say most people think fully pro isn't the best but until we can come up with something half decent then there isn't anything better. Just a thought it might be worth whilst given we work on consensus to see how many editors here want to change the system when we might find most want to stay might be worth checking first. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For those of us who have better things to do with our time than get terribly upset over what random people on the Internet think of our national league setups, and who neither speak French nor trust Google Translate, what exactly is the proposal here? From the above it sounds as if fr-WP weights leagues in terms of relative quality, along the lines of the UEFA ranking system. Is that what's being suggested here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, it places each national league system into one of four tiers. The highest-rated tier has a presumption of notability for players competing in D1 (10 matches) or D2 (30 matches), competing in national cup finals, competing in a CL-equivalent continental club tournament and lower-level continental club tournament semi-finals or finals. The lowest-rated tier provide no presumption of notability for players in any of those competitions (the middle-tiers provide presumptions for fewer players that the highest-rated tier).
If followed exactly, there will likely be some controversy because play in third-tier leagues (no matter how well-covered) would never provide a presumption of notability. Also, determining which national leagues belong in which tier will be controversial - especially since competing in D2 only provides a presumption of notability for the highest-rated tier. I do think we could use the "French system" as a framework and simplify it. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely against the system used on the French Wikipedia. It is unnecessarily complicated, and is very arbitrary. For starters, how can you possibly justify putting Brazil in Category 1 and Argentina in Category 2 when both countries are on par in terms of international success at both club and national level? Also, using their guidelines, a U21 international from Argentina is less notable than a U21 international from the big 5 European nations. Yet, I'm sure I don't have to tell you how successful Argentina is at the youth international level. But just in case you weren't aware, Argentina has won the FIFA U20 World Cup 6 times, as for England, for example, (nothing personal!) ? One third place finish in 1993. Long story short, it would years to develop a system that not only everyone can agree on, but also accurately reflected (as much as possible) the current football landscape .. and even that would have to be adjusted every few years based on developments in the game. Our time and effort would be much better spent cleaning up and improving the current articles we have. TonyStarks (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"Our time and effort would be much better spent cleaning up and improving the current articles we have" - I absolutely agree! Jogurney (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I would ask people to carefully consider whether they have the skills necessary to participate in this sort of discussion. Basic literacy, for one. Recognition that we are not an out-and-out democracy, for another. The ability to comprehend that not everything you dislike is automatically incorrect or racist would also help. Secondly, I would ask people vehemently opposed to the French model to re-read my comments. Only a lunatic would suggest that we directly translate the French policy into English, and immediately apply it to this project. Frankly, only a lunatic would conclude that I was suggesting that.

What I said was that changes need to be made to the French system – even I consider it to be too onerous, and I recognise that general consensus here is that we should be more inclusive than I think we should be. My argument is simply that the basic idea behind the French model makes sense, and that we should consider adapting that system in a way that is compatible with our more inclusive approach to players.

Yes, the french have some things which are quite obviously wrong, Brazil/Argentina being one good example, and frankly I agree that our approach to international players is better. But a system based on roughly evaluating the relative strength, profile etc of various leagues, and which most importantly takes into account what individual players actually did, would be more workable than the poorly defined fully pro league system, in which any occasional substitute in a third rate league is deemed notable as long as he and his peers were paid.

Tony's argument about having to re-evaluate is true of any system, and as such is not a relevant argument against change. We get around this in the current system by simply not bothering – to my knowledge we keep no record of when leagues started/stopped being fully pro, where applicable. With the French approach, not bothering to keep track would be less problematic. People who are considered notable from a category which is too high would most likely meet the GNG due to their prominence in their league, while people who potentially miss out because their category is too low still have a GNG argument to fall back on if they are truly notable. —WFC— 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Sarsak

He is in the news as he has been on hunger strike for 83 days having been held in an Israeli prison without charge since 2009. A lot of news sources are reporting him as being a player for the Palestine national team. Has he ever been capped by the Palestine national team? TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

FIFA.com also nothing. I can´t find any single match report that can confirm any Palestine NT appereance for him. FkpCascais (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This article states that he played for the "Palestine national team in Norway". From the context, this would appear to be in 2008 or 2009. There has been no full international between Palestine and Norway (see [21]), so this was presumably some sort of unofficial tour. I guess therefore, despite some press sources claiming that he is a Palestine international, this is not correct and the article about him should be amended to reflect this. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I Googled his name in Arabic and read a few articles. All seem to say the same thing, that he played for his country internationally in Norway but nothing more. However, most articles do say that he is the youngest player ever to play in Palestine's league (not sure if it's the West Bank or Gaza one), making his debut at age 14. TonyStarks (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help!

The page "Iraqi Kurdistan football team" has to be changed to "Iraqi Kurdistan national football team". As you can see, the Autonomous regions of Catalonia, Basque, Occitania, Zanzibar, Darfur, Western Sahra are all referred to as "National", therefore, this page has to be permanently changed to the title mentioned above. If an administrator can help, i would be very glad!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurd-realmadrid (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

But you already did the move two days ago...
I personally think that none of this teams should be named as "national team" as none of them represents an independent nation... Only Western Sahara perhaps. FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem that we have is that when you type it on google, it will come up as "Iraqi Kurdistan football team" as the main title. Then, when you go inside it, it will change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurd-realmadrid (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don´t warry about that, Google usually takes a couple of days to update when such title moves are made. It happend to me on other articles as well. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. These are not "Nations" (independent countries) recognized by the UN for example but autonomous provinces or tribal regions. That they refer themselves to "National" out of pride does nothing here. The Catalonia Footbal team does not represent Spain. The Iraqi Kurdistan team does not represent Iraq. They do not play nor can they qualify for World Cup for example. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf(talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hernán Crespo

Can someone help me out with this page because I rather not get into an edit war and see myself blocked from editing. Basically the problem is that this user (Neogeolegend (talk · contribs)) keeps on saying that Crespo has officially joined Barasat Euro in the Bengal Premier League Soccer which 3 months ago would be true but today is not because officially the league is on hiatus and he has not signed anything yet. So if anyone is willing, just monitor the page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this correct, the source says he signed for them in January and then the league as far as i can see was suspended in February. So part of his edit is correct in that he did sign for the club. Do we have any sources on what happened with the players contracts from there. My suggestion would be to re add his signing but modify the lead to accurately explain. If the league was halted there should be sources on what happened to the players contracts. If I'm reading this wrong as i know you have far more of a knowledge base in this let me know. I know its just because he was winding you up but maybe leave out the brainless bit in the edit summary in future.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry mate. Those things dont work on the internet anyway. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
this comment doesn't make sense what doesn't work on the internet everything I've suggested does. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway the players were never signed. They were auctioned. My view is, sense we have never had any league have an auction before, that instead of writing on the players page that he "signed" for the club we should just have on the league page that the player was brought via auction. Once details of a contract come out then we can add the team to him. [22] [23] And trust me, if me along with other users thought it right then we would have added teams to Robert Pirès or Fabio Cannavaro etc. I think the best course for the player pages would be to maybe leave something about the auction in there career section saying that they were auction and then have a part where it says the BPLS got put on hiatus. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all we can't change history the fact is he agreed to be in that auction and sign to the highest bidder. That happened therefore it is relevant to mention in his career not just on the league article. . We are an encyclopaedia we only add the facts it's not our job to wipe history. The other editor added the info correctly and rightly do edit warring with him wasnt the best idea. All sources seem to indicte that the league is postponed we are not a crystal ball so we don't know what will happen what we do know is was signed by the club unless you have a reliable source to show he is now a free agent and left that club, then technically he is signed with them untill his contract is cancelled or forfitted due to cancellation of the league. I would suggest you take to the talk page of the relevant pages and discuss with other editors. You both reverted each other without much discussion or an edit summary why. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that it was my fault for not putting anything in the edit summary. Anyway none of the players have signed for any clubs. They have been auctioned out. Basically the only connection at this very moment is that Barasat has the rights to Crespo meaning that he is not there player but Barasat are the only club that can offer him a contract which from what I can see has never happened. Also where did I say we would wipe out history. I just said that the best course of action would be to do 2 things...

  1. Have on the league page that the players were auctioned to these clubs.
  2. Have in the career section of the players page that they were auctioned out to this club and maybe add a bit about the league being on hiatus. Dont add anything in the infobox or lead saying that they were auctioned to this club because that is not important for those areas, what will be important is if they signed/do not sign for the club officially.

So until we see it official in a reliable source that this player has signed for this club then we can add it to the lead and infobox. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got the source to show that technically none of the players are signed by clubs... even Crespo. [24] --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ángelo Henríquez

The usual rush to update after dailymail reported Ángelo Henríquez signed for manchester united. Anyone care to help? thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Added to watchlist and will try to request protection. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours or so, there have been over 80 edits, mostly by IPs. Surely, this article needs partial protection until the transfer to Manchester United is confirmed. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Tournament squad templates

So I switched UEFA Euro 2012 squads from Template:National football squad player (goals) to Template:National football squad player as the former is sortable. Someone switched it back, pointing out that template omitted the "goals" column (which I hadn't noticed, I didn't look at the template names, just omitted a "g" in the code). Surely the best of both worlds would be to make the goals template sortable? Is that possible?

Also, while I'm here, I've thought on occasion it might be nice to put in a tournament squad list a player's appearances/goals in the tournament itself. There's space, but the question is whether "pre-tournament caps/goals" and "tournament caps/goals" would be too confusing a concept? Especially as you'd probably want to split starts and goals in the latter appearance column, but not in the former. Anyway, what are people's thoughts on all that? HornetMike (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the ability to sort to the goals template. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ta! HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Zanzibar women's national football team

Resolved

Hi. I nominated Zanzibar women's national football team for featured, with the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar women's national football team/archive1 because I thought it would be the easiest article of about three available GAs about African women's national teams to get passed featured as there were more independent sources for it. I've gotten a little bit stuck. Can anyone help address the comments there and improve the article to help it get passed FAC or at least continue to improve? --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the FAC has now been closed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 players

Someone (who hasn't anything to do) could add Category:UEFA Euro 2012 players to articles (i think that there should be more than 369 players as it is now in that category). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

23 players in 16 squads is 368 players (so someone who hasn't anything to do, could find the one player that shouldn't be in that category) :P Mentoz86 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, then it is much more intereseting :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone who withdrew through injury? --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It was a user talk page. I've removed it. HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Troll at Hull City A.F.C.

Hi, just a heads up over the re-emergence over a malicious, foul-mouthed troll at Hull City A.F.C.. Here are the IP's contributions: 1 and 2. His edits consist of incorrect amendments; first time round he insisted on-loan Péter Gulácsi had left Hull to return to Liverpool, when in fact he remained with Hull, and now he's claiming the club have released a number of players when in fact no official declaration has been made regarding out of contract players. Further, he has a habit of dishing out abuse on my userpage (this and this as examples). Here is a copy of the latest message left on my userpage:

"Thanks for meddling (again) on the Hull City page. The players removed earlier have all been released by the club and are now listed on the official PFA page as free agents. http://www.thepfa.com/transferlist

High time wikipedia had a Hull City fan responsible for the page rather than a York fan who seems intent on running the page as a dictatorship."

I think it goes without saying that this is the type of character we do not need contributing to our project. He seems to use the fact I follow a rival team (York City) as a reason and justification for his tirades. I find this behaviour especially astounding considering the great deal of effort I have put into Hull City-related articles (e.g. Hull City A.F.C. to GA status, List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons to FL status). That he can dish out such abuse to someone who has given this level of effort into something involving his club speaks volumes about his character. If anyone would mind reverting any future edits by this IP at Hull City that would be greatly appreciated, as I'd rather not have any contact with him. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Harsh way to describe their new manager... *reads post*... Oh. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend the IP one bit - he's clearly being very unhelpful, but an unconnected admin or other observer might view this edit summary [25] as descending to the IP's rather low level. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Red mist I guess. Just really got my goat. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it would me too. Maybe it's worth trying to get the page semi-protected if he thinks he can carry on making a mess. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vintage football kits website

Resolved
 – Thanks, Daemonic --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There used to be a really good website with drawings of all kits ever used by [certain] teams in their history, including all the minor changes you'd expect. I thought it was called "vintagekits" but either I'm wrong, or their name has been bought out, or I'm just being stupid. Can anyone help me find it? At the moment, I'm particularly looking for help with some English club sides and Scotland, if that helps. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Try www.historicalkits.co.uk. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Confusing it with Vintagekits? Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there such as site for other European leagues? I'm particular looking for Swedish club kits. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Season article start/end dates

Hi, just a quick question regarding when club season articles (e.g. 2011–12 York City F.C. season) should be regarded as having started and ended. I've tended to use the specific dates of seasons starting on 1 July and ending 30 June the following year. But, I'm wondering whether if it would be better if the season is classed as having ended when the final game has been played? This allows all summer activity to be filed under the one article, rather than separating summer transfers due to the adherence to a rather arbitrary date. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Similar issues have been discussed before (usually with regards to promotion/relegation dates) and in the past, consensus seems to be that the season ends at the end of June. In practice, I think it's best to treat everything that happens after the end of the last game as part of the next season/summer off season period. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep your dates, but don't be bound too literally by them. Players are released as of the end of "this" season, so detail that in "this" season's article; their departure is relevant to this season, not next. If the club signs any new players before the end of June, put the detail in "next" season's article, because their arrival is relevant to next season, whenever they actually sign the bit of paper. In my opinion, obviously :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with Basalisk - although June is technically still part of the 2011-12 season putting transfers made during it as part of that season doesn't really make any sense, signings (and departures) made in June have no effect on the season that has gone before, they are only relevant to the following season so fit better in the subsequent article. Similarly most readers will view the season as ending with the last match so splitting summer transfers across two articles would appear confusing.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Struway2. Contracts for autumn-spring seasons usually begin on 1 July and end on 30 June of the following year, so anything regarding transfers between two seasons for a team should go into the article to which the respective transfers are relevant, regardless of the actual signing date. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kettering F.C.

Does Kettering F.C. meet this project's notability guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't find any evidence for an application to the United Counties League. The make-up of that league for next year is here and here. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If it existed, and if it played in the United Counties League as the original idea suggested, then it might be on the margins of notability. I think the idea might have been to set up an alternative to Kettering Town F.C. if that club were wound up, which it hasn't been (yet). As there's no apparent evidence that the team does exist, let alone admitted to the UCL, then definitely not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that it is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Player born in country x who played for country y

Hi. I've seen some edit warring developing over what is Chris Hughton's nationality (he was born in England, but won a bunch of caps playing for the Republic Of Ireland). I presume WP:FOOTY has consensus over how we handle these things...? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoid using adjectives to describe the nationality in the lead (especially the execrable "English-born Irish" of which the BBC seems so fond) and take the time to fully explain the nationality later on. That's basically all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, that works for the biog. What about on lists of managers, etc, which tend to have flags bunged all over them? --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Go with their football nationality if possible. Hack (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Try to avoid it if possible. Representative nationality is only important in the slightest for active professionals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a clear cosensus for what to do in these situations. I think saying there is is wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there are many editors who would choose to emphasise one aspect of an individual's nationality in order to bolster national pride, and they will probably be able to find journalists operating to a similar agenda to provide citations to back that up. But as an encyclopaedia we are not about choosing one aspect to emphasise, we are about presenting the whole truth without preference or prejudice. That means that if we cannot present somebody's nationality accurately and without oversimplification in one or two words, then we shouldn't try to. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds magnificent, but doesn't help with this, or the section that follows it. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You put Bruce Rioch a Scottish flag, so for consistency Hughton should have an Irish one. Whether managers in lists need nationalities at all is another question. If they do, then the criteria used for assigning them should be defined in the key. And no, I haven't done that at List of Birmingham City F.C. managers :-) though on the players lists, I've replaced the country/nation/nationality column with an international selection column: the players only get flags and countries if they turned up to play for one (or two, or three). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I really can't see the problem with using phrases like "Scotland-born Irish international footballer". It's clear and unambiguous, and doesn't necessarily stake a claim to nationality. Number 57 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is ambiguous, because there is ambiguity as to whether Irish international footballer means an international footballer who is Irish, or a footballer who has represented Ireland internationally. Eduardo is Brazilian, and is an international footballer, thus he could be described as a Brazilian international footballer, and probably has been by some journalist somewhere, but it would not be a useful description of him. This ambiguity would be removed by the phrase Scottish-born Republic of Ireland footballer, but I'm not at all sure that either the emphasis on birthplace, or on international representation, is justified. Why would we describe Eduardo as a Brazilian born Croatia footballer rather than a Brazilian born Shakhtar Donetsk footballer or a left footed Shakhtar Donetsk footballer.
I would however suggest that Yish-born Xish can be justified, when there is no doubt that the place of birth was a temporary relocation of the parents and other than accident of birth there is no other complication in attributing nationality. I suspect that there could be no factual objection to describing Terry Butcher as Singaporean-born English, but Wikipedia lacks large numbers of Singaporean editors wishing to add that description in order to either bolster their own national pride or dilute that of English supporters. Kevin McE (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should be Scottish-born Footballer, who used the ruling of parents/grandparetnst nationally to play for IrelandAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In Hughton's case, I don't see why we can't call him Irish in the lead. He chose to represent Ireland and as such as, preference should be given to his Irish nationality. The fact that he was born in England can still be mentioned somewhere in the intro, especially if it has a line or two about his international career. For me, a footballer's most notable nationality is the team he represents internationally. I'd think cases of players with triple nationality that have yet to play internationally are the tough ones, not cases like Houghton's. Anyways, seems like this issue comes up every cuople of months now and everyone has their own opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally speaking, in these cases I tend to omit nationality from "Player X is a footballer" and go with "although born in Country A, Player X played international football for Country B", and you can tack on "after qualifying through residency/whom he qualified for through his gran etc." if you want. With someone like Terry Butcher, whose parents were presumably ex-pats and moved home fairly sharpish I wouldn't even bother mentioning the fact he was born in Singapore in the lead.
With regard to managers in lists, it's a bit more difficult. I think in something like List of English Football League managers it's useful to have it, as it gives perspective on the make-up of those employed. Going with "footballing nationality" is the most consistent approach, but I do think it's a little daft we're claiming Owen Coyle's Irish in that context. I'd say the majority of people looking at the list will have no memory of Coyle as a player, and would be thinking "Hold on, he sounds pretty Scottish on Match of the Day!" Plus there was plenty of press last season about x number of managers in the Premier League being Scottish (and more specifically, Glaswegian) which that list doesn't tally with. But then, you couldn't go with country of birth as an absolute, because you'd be claiming Terry Butcher was from Singapore. So I think any note in the key would have to be about managers who qualified through another nation through relatives/residency etc. being categorised by nation of birth. HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Managers don't have footballing nationalities though, so really Hughton is English Coyle is Scottish etc. Unless there is some other reason for them not to be called by the nationality of birth, eg Terry Butcher. With players, they do have footballing nationalities so it is correct to say they are the nationality of whatever country they play for. Adam4267 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
THEY DO NOT HAVE MULTI NATIONALTIES. Football players are no different to a bank a bricky etc, there nationally uis the country there born in, but football rules means they can play for another country if they satufy the criteria, there no expections for footballs if there born in england there english full stop the nation they play for does not indicated nationallyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Nationality is not defined soley by place of birth; as an example from HornetMike's message above, Terry Butcher would then be described as a Singaporean footballer/manager. Doesn't work quite as simply as that. But on the issue of what to write in the opening sentences of biographies, I agree with Chris that it should just read "...is a footballer who plays...". The nationality should be detailed later on the lead, which is a more accurate and useful way of demonstrating a subject's nationality in cases of ambiguity. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
no nationally is defined by place of birth for footballign terms, but oin ever other aspect of life it is, its only because fifa has contunied to move the goalpost that now we have peopel with multi nationally but it ainta multi nationally it just the eligible to play for co7utnries, and that is the key ELIGABILTY not nationally, nationally is country of birth, that why someone nationally who is born on plane or a ship at sea ( and potential eventally in space) is very hard to determine and can be argued for many years after birth and this goes for any person not just footballers. i repeat FOOTBALL ARE NOT A SPECIAL CASE THERE LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLDAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Umm no, nationality is not defined by place of birth. Plenty of countries will not give you nationality if you're born there. I was born and spent 11 years in the United Arab Emirates, yet my nationality is and always was Algerian. 80% of the population of UAE is foreign, many born there .. but almost 99% of those people do not have and will never get the nationality. The same can be said about plenty of other countries (Algeria included). So no, nationality is not defined by place of birth, and it has nothing to do with FIFA. TonyStarks (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
nice statement :d so your now saying anyone can claim tobe any nationally wrong but clearly no one here cares and just want to call the nationally by the ocuntry the playr plays for so do so i have put my opinion across im no logner goign to comment since appearntly i am martian :D--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
What did you catch feelings cause I proved your statement wrong? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. TonyStarks (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbBreak

Breaking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hughton represented the Republic of Ireland, therefore his nationality should be included in the lead of his wiki page as "is an Irish former professional footballer". You can't just make assumptions based on his place of birth, because that doesn't reflect his nationality and Chris will always be known as an Irish man, due to representing the Republic of Ireland. His brother Henry, and son Cian have also represented the Republic of Ireland. Wbel (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To declare that he will always be known as an Irish man is pure POV/OR. Our job is to deal with facts, and the fact is that he is English by birth and upbringing, Irish (and possibly other as well) by blood through his mother, and possibly other nationalities by blood through his father. That complex reality cannot accurately be summarised by the single word Irish. Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
He is notable for being a football player and manager. As a player, he represented Ireland internationally. The third bullet in WP:OPENPARA says that opening paragraph should have "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)" and goes on to say "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." My interpretation of that is as a footballer he is notable for being an Irish international, not English. I'm not taking away the fact that he is also English but I don't think that should be mentioned in the opening sentence but later on the opening paragraph. Something along the lines of "While born in English, Hughton represented Ireland .." TonyStarks (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Except that he is not notable primarily for past events: he's still a current manager, and a very high-profile one (currently in charge of his second Premier League team). Indeed, at present he is more likely to be known for his ethnicity (being one of the absurdly few black managers in British football) than for his past national team performances, not unlike the dozens of other players who received ROI caps in their playing days and who subsequently went on to notable careers outside of Ireland (because they're, like, not Irish) after retiring for playing.
Quite honestly, I have no idea why so many people continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by Wikipedia's nationalists on this particular subject, when the alternative (simply omitting misleading statements from the first sentence) is so straightforward.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
A famous example of a football player who played for Ireland, but didn't have an Irish passport: Tony Cascarino I don't know Hughton very well, so I don't know if he has an Irish passport or played for them with an UK passport. Cattivi (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
How on earth do you claim to know what passport a person might or might not have had? That is not generally in the public forum. His mother had every right to take the nationality of her adoptive parents, and that made Cascarino equally entitled. Kevin McE (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case there are sources for it like: [26] Granted an Irish passport in 1996 Cattivi (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Chris: My opinion has nothing to do with "Wikipedia's nationalists", whatever that means. To me, a footballer's nationality is defined by who he represents internationally. Let's take the case of Messi, arguably the best player on the planet right now. He is born in Argentina, he's of Italian descent and he has Spanish citizenship. Should we omit his nationality from the lead since it could be misleading? Obviously not, Messi is Argentinian and you'll rarely find someone that would argue against that. Now, of course, you can argue that Messi's case is different from Houghton's in that he was always Argentinian and went on represent his country of birth .. but still, I think when you have a player that represents a country internationally, nationality should be a straightforward thing. TonyStarks (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that you are personally pushing a nationalist agenda. However, you certainly are lending credibility to those editors who would do so, and you don't appear to be taking on board exactly why that is a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Chris's brother Henry, and son Cian have also represented the Republic of Ireland, doesn't that add any weight to this debate? even commentators refer to Chris as an Irish man. Wasn't Chris at the 1990 FIFA World Cup? aren't you supposed to be a national of that country to represent it? Wbel (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Not before 1996 when FIFA changed the rules. Another example John Aldridge [ http://irishecho.com/?p=50558] Cattivi (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
<reduce indent> OK, let's focus on the facts shall we? FIFA allow you to play for any country for which you are a national. How a country defines nationality is entirely up to that country - FIFA does not get involved. The one exception is with teams that do not represent independent countries. The best known case of this is of course the home nations in the UK, where clearly it is not possible to have English, Welsh nationality etc. The four UK teams, and Ireland, have an agreement among themselves that makes a player eligible for a particular country if: they were born in that country; a grandparent or parent was born in that country; they spent at least 5 years at school in that country prior to 18.Pretty Green (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

With regards to a couple of specific, more pedantic, points:

  • Prior to 1996, you still had to qualify as a national to play for a country. The only change in 1996 was that you had to go through the administrative process of taking out nationality. As is in the article that Cattivi links to, ""Since 1964, if you were eligible for citizenship you were eligible to play for Ireland. You didn’t actually have to take out citizenship."
  • Cascarino qualified to play for Ireland. He later found out that his mother was adopted by Irish people, but this still entitled her (and therefore him) to Irish nationality. Pretty Green (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Cascarino is a notable case precisely because multiple reliable sources have pointed out that he is about as Irish as he is Egyptian. It would be absurd, and playing right into the hands of the nationalists who spend their time pushing this sort of thing, to describe him as unambiguously "Irish" based on his football career. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
That may be true in terms of Cascarino's blood: I would dispute the implicit denial of the right to the nationality of one's adoptive parents. But I agree that it is misleading to simply describe him as Irish. Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not making a judgement here on the suitability of taking said nationality, and it would be quite improper for me to presume to. I'm just pointing out that reliable sources made note of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Matches for the reserve team in infobox

I have a discussion with User:TonyStarks about if the matches of Luca Toni for Bayern Munich's reserve team should be listed in the infobox. Luca Toni (who was undoubtedly playing for the first team) played two times for Bayern Munich II (at that time in the 3. Liga which is fully professional in Germany) to regain fitness after injury. Tony says that adding these two matches to the infobox "... gives the wrong impression and implies that he left Bayern's senior team to go play with the reserve team, which is not true. Plenty of well known first team regulars play games here and there with the reserve team, most notably after an injury, but you will never see that included in the infobox, even if the reserve team is professional."

For German footballers / footballers playing in Germany the reserve team stats are usually included in the infobox, so for me this doesn't imply anything except that he was playing for the reserve team. We both agree that the stats for the reserves should be included in the infobox if the player is mainly playing for the reserves, but I don't think that it is correct to have one and the same match counted for one player (e.g. Diego Contento) and not counted for the other one (Luca Toni). This topic was already discussed a year ago but there were only two responses disagreeing with each other, so no consensus was reached. --Jaellee (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should account for apps/goals in competitive/senior leagues, which the German third tier obviously is. So, it would seem wrong to exclude this information from the infobox. I can think of a few players who have these stats included; Peter Løvenkrands and Dimitar Berbatov come to mind. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Vasco, you're missing the point with your first sentence. I did not say it should not be included because of the level that reserve teams play at, I'm just saying it should not be included for first team regulars who play a game or two with the reserve team. Also, not sure what the "heaven's sake" for, we're having a discussion, I don't think I've said anything that warrants that sort of response. As for the rest of the conversation, let's take France for example. I'll say about 50% of first team players there play games with the reserve team during the season, whether it's in the CFA, CFA2 or DH division (D4, D5 and D6 respectively). Should these stats be included in the infobox of a player? If it was a notable player playing exclusively for the reserve team the stats would be included in his infobox. Yet, you'll never seen an article with that information. TonyStarks (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to add to my message. I had a quick look at the PSG squad. Momo Sissoko, Luyindula, Erding, Sakho, Chantome, and Arnaud all played for PSG's B team in CFA (D4) this season. Last season, it was Ceara, Sammy Traore, Arnaud, Rothen and Kezman. Yet, you will not see this information in the infobox of the players, and rightfully so in my opinion. For me, for senior players, this is the equivalent of playing in a Cup game, it has no place in the infobox. TonyStarks (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "For heaven's sake" was just me saying i thought this was a very clear issue, NEVER wanted to belittle your efforts TONY, apologies if i did. As for the examples you put forth in PSG's squad, i thought the reserve teams in France played in the national championships (in case they promoted), the only example i know where B-teams do not play in any league is in England, they have the RESERVE CHAMPIONSHIP do they not? As per the number of matches played, Martín Demichelis only played once with FC Bayern Munich II, should that be out of the infobox? No.

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Vasco: Like I replied on your talk page, sorry for misinterpreting, we don't have the luxury of tone and body language on the internet, just our interpretation of what's written. Back to the discussion, clearly it's not a straightforward issue if at least two members object to it (me and the user in the previous discussion), that is why me and Jaellee decided to bring it here, maybe a few more opinions can help sway us one way or another. TonyStarks (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Like in Spain and Germany, French reserve teams play in the country's football pyramid, however, unlike Spain and Germany, the reserve teams are amateur and play in amateur leagues, which makes playing for them not notable per WikiProject rules, which is why I don't think French reserve teams stats should be in the info-box like here, for example, but mentioned in the prose like I do myself. — JSRant Away 02:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There was the amusing situation in Turkey a few years ago where a reserve team played in the same league as the first team. Hack (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
@Joao10Siamun: I mentioned the Cadamuro case when the article was first created and I said that I disagreed with listing reserve team stats in the infobox. However, I was reverted and told that that was how we do things, even though that type of information is absent from 99% of French footballers, who all began playing for the reserve team in CFA/CFA2. You work a lot on French football and I'm not surprised to see that you agree with me. TonyStarks (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Toni's Bayern II apps should be included, expecially since 3. Liga is a fully professional league. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I understand TonyStarks position here, in fact, when you add in the infobox the B squad year, name and stats (even if only a couple), it is somehow implied that the player was with the B squad and left the main team, I mean, there is some dubious situation there about possible (miss)interpretations. From what I see, seems to me that we have different practices for different leagues, and seems that it depends about the B team playing in a pro league, or not.
For exemple, recently I had a doubt related to this issue at David Manga. The thing is that Manga was TSV 1860 München player between 2008 and 2011, and he played 3 seasons with TSV 1860 München II although during his last season he got to be in several ocasions a non-used reserve in the main team. Now, how should be displayed in the infobox:
  • Should we focus in the fact that he was TSV 1860 München player who played for their II team and put it like this:
2007–2008 SC Eisenstadt 00000000000000 3 0(0)
2008–2011 TSV 1860 München 00000000000 0(0)
2008–2011 → TSV 1860 München II (loan) 73 (14)
2011–0000 Partizan 0000000000000000000 9 0(1)
  • Or, should we simplify it and make it like this:
2007–2008 SC Eisenstadt 00000000000000 3 0(0)
2008–2011 TSV 1860 München II 0000000073 (14)
2011–0000 Partizan 0000000000000000000 9 0(1)
In response to your last question, no; unless of course the move is explicitly mentioned as a loan. All in all, I think #2 is the most accurate version for Manga. – Kosm1fent 05:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, but then in sequence comes a final question that can create a consensus at least on this matter: can we conclude that if a player has failed to make an appereance for the main team, it is safe to add only the B team in the infobox? FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No, if you sign to play for the first team and fail to make any appearances, your infobox should say, using your example, TSV Munchen 0 (0). Because you signed to play for the first team and made no league appearances for that team. I mean if we're adding reserve team appearances, what's stopping us from adding cup and continental appearances to the infobox? For example, new lines and arrows saying TSV Munchen B 10 (0), Cup 3 (1), Europe 1 (0), etc. To me it's just another cause of over-complicating things for ourselves. PS. Sorry for the general appearance of that last message, I know it's a mess but I'm sure I got my point across. TonyStarks (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
But Tony, B teams do play in leagues, so there is the difference between league appereances for B teams, and Cup and continental competition appereances... For exemple, David Manga played in the Regionalliga Süd against teams such as Holstein Kiel, Chemnitzer FC, VfB Lübeck or even 1. FC Magdeburg. FkpCascais (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what FkpCascais said, the reserve club plays in a league which is part of the main football system. It's not a cup nor international competition. Wouldn't his appearances count if Manga played for another 3.Liga or Regionalliga Süd team at the time? – Kosm1fent 12:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
To me, it seems easy when a player have only played for reserve team, but what about players that have played half of the matches for the first team and half of the matches for the reserve team? For consistency, I'd say we skip league-games for reserve teams for everyone. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Consistency with what? If the appearances are made in a league that is part of that county's football league system I really don't see what the issue is. It doesn't matter whether the appearances come for the second team of a club in a higher league (e.g. VfB Stuttgart II) or for a team operating soley at that level (e.g. SC Preußen Münster); they're of the same statistical and historical value. If anything, removing these appearanes would make biographies more inconsistent as we would be picking and choosing what appearances to include on the basis of what club a player played for. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, we are taking about players that are contracted with the first team, but have played one or more matches with the reserve team, which happens to play in the same league as other teams. It is not needed to transfer between those two "clubs", and hence we shouldn't give the impression through the infobox that the player have played for two different clubs. If there are players that are contracted to the second team, then it would be a different story, but I'm still reluctant to include reserve-team matches because of consistency. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
But I don't see why contractual status should act as an impedement to the inclusion of senior, first team appearances; having a contract with the senior club doesn't make appearances at the reserve team's tier any less noteworthy. Also, I don't see why it should matter whether the impression is given to the reader that the player played for two different clubs. I agree it might be confusing for those unfamiliar to the concept of a reserve team competing in a major league, but would these reserve appearances not be noted in the article's prose anyway? I don't think it should be too difficult for readers to understand what the deal is. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In a perfect world, the infobox only sums up the articles prose. But, this project have 130k articles (with a big portion of player-articles), where 4 of 5 are stubs, with most of those stubs having more information in the infobox then in the prose. If we are to include reserve team matches in the infobox, a minimum should be that it is included in the prose. On the other hand, Template:Infobox football biography says A list of professional clubs that the player has been contracted at, so I can't see any reasons to include German, Spanish or French reserve teams just because they happen to play in the league system. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm, reserve clubs in Germany and Spain are professional as when they can play in leagues which are considered fully professional. They wouldn't be considered fully pro otherwise... – Kosm1fent 18:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait the minute, what about a player who has played both professional and semi-professional football? The semi-professional clubs shouldn't be included?! – Kosm1fent 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Further, I would question whether the "A list of professional clubs that.." note at Template:Infobox football biography is relevant, considerng it's barely adhered to. If it were, infoboxes for players in England, for example, would be limited to about 100 (professional) clubs, when in fact hundreds more (semi-pro Conference National clubs and below) are, in practice, included. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Whops - I didn't read "professional", only "contracted too". I'm not for removing those clubs not professional, but I still think an infobox would be a mess if we include reserve team appearences. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
My mistake that I didn't check it myself. xD – Kosm1fent 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are Germany and Spain the only two countries where reserve teams can play at the professional level? If so, I'd be willing to accept having reserve team appearances for players in those leagues included in the infobox, and removing that information from the infobox of players in other countries (notably France). At least this way we comply partly with the note in the infobox template. Does that work for everyone? Can we at least reach a consensus on that? And just to reiterate again, I'm referring to cases similar to the one of Luca Toni mentioned in the original message, a first team player who plays games with the reserve team while still being contracted to the first team. TonyStarks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a consensus yes. I know that in Norway, and I believe it's the same in other Nordic countries, the reserve teams can play at the third tier which is at amateur-level, but matches on this level are hard to find a good source for, and shouldn't be included. If it's easy to find sources for it in Spain and Germany, and it is at professional level, I guess we can include it. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
As with my comment on the note at Template:Infobox football biography, it shouldn't matter whether it's at the fully professional or semi-professional level. If the infobox stats can be appropriately cited by reliable sources then, in my view, they're good to go. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I agre with all Mattythewhite said till now. So, seems we reached a consensus about adding B team stats when those are in a professional league, like in the cases of Spain and Germany. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be a straight-forward issue where the reserve team also competes in a fully-professional league. I'm inclined to agree with Mattythewhite, on the other issue too: if a player plays for a reserve side in a match that forms part of a national league pyramid (ie, not in a separate league in which appearances are restricted to reserve teams only) then why not include them? Pretty Green (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to confirm: as long as they are appropriately cited by reliable source, we agree to include any reserve team stats, or only the ones played in a league within a national league pyramid? It´s because there are separate reserve team league, as in Serbia for exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_68&oldid=1143712012"