Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Strømsgodset Toppfotball as a separate article?

Hi,

"Strømsgodset IF is a Norwegian multi-sports club from Gulskogen in Drammen. It has sections for association football, team handball and bandy, but is best known for the top-level football section known as Strømsgodset Toppfotball, which currently plays in Tippeligaen, the Norwegian top flight."

Should I create a separate page for Strømsgodset Toppfotball? In Norwegian football, investors are not allowed to own a sport club, but they can own a separate joint-stock company that can compete on behalf of the sports club. Thus, Strømsgodset Toppfotball competes on behalf of Strømsgodset IF, Stabæk Fotball competes on behalf of Stabæk IF, Vålerenga Fotball on behalf of Vålerengens IF and so on. It seems like most other clubs have two separate articles.

The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has separate articles for Strømsgodset Toppfotball and Strømsgodset IF, and the Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia only has an article for Strømsgodset Toppfotball

I was reminded of this oddity yesterday, when UEFA drew the 1st qualifying round for the Europa League. While their website now refers to Strømsgodset IF, their TV coverage refered to Strømsgodset Toppfotball.

If I go ahead, do I move the current article to Strømsgodset Toppfotball, clean it up (it's mostly about the football) and create a new page for the multi-sports club?

Cashewnøtt (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's acceptable. We have multiple articles on clubs that run separate departments (see for example {{FC Barcelona sections}}). Number 57 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Strømsgodset IF is mainly about football. Create articles for less notable sections. SLBedit (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Full name stuff

Does anybody know if Ikechukwu Uche and his brother Kalu Uche's full names are for real? According to BDFUTBOL.com (reliable source) they are, but I had a user in the former removing it with the summary "false name" and no proof backing up their removal.

In a related note, I have seen BDFUTBOL add a second surname to several Yugoslav footballers (see for example Nenad Gračan, where he is named Nenad Gracan Stanisic), but that's not common is it? Maybe User:FkpCascais can shed some light in this second paragraph.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

They probably are genuine, I know lots of African people have 4-5 names (it's something like they use fathers' and grandfathers' names). reliable sources supporting it would be appreciated though. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Template

Is {{2014–15 La Liga Team of the Year}} notable? SLBedit (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if {{2014–15 Premier League PFA Team of the Year}} is notable, I'd say that one is too. – PeeJay 09:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandar Kuzmanovski's page

Hi all. I'm here because this footballer, Aleksandar Kuzmanovski, it's a fake and it must be eliminated as soon as possible. Worldfootball.com, Transfermarkt.co.uk, Vardar 2011-2012. Sorry for my english, i'm an italian user. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this Soccerway profile, most likely not related. The only source is probably WP:SELFPUBLISH. SLBedit (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There is also this Aleksandar Kuzmanowski playing lower league football in Germany. Not sure I would call it out as a hoax, there could be some major confusion as there are footballers by that name out there. Also the user also created this page with similar sources which seem genuine, so it seems more likely that the page given as a reference for the player simply no longer exists. Nonetheless, the player clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and also WP:GNG, so I have prodded. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for having proposed the article to be deleted (I'm the one who noticed this odd page on Italian Wikipedia yesterday and signalled to everybody). Actually, the contents from the user involved in this case may be not genuine at all, as the unique reference reported in the football articles he had created is a personal blog that seems managed by himself, so it isn't a reliable source. --Mess (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Costa Rican League

Does anyone know if the Costa Rican Primera División is a fully-professional league? The article about it uses the word "professional", but without a source. Basically, I'm trying to review Draft:Alejandro Gómez Bermúdez, and it hinges on if this league is fully professional. I guess the answer is no. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's the top flight league of a country, it passes notability guidelines regardless of being professional or not. - J man708 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: No it doesn't, lots of top leagues aren't fully professional leagues, so their players aren't notable. For example Bosnian top-flight players keep turning up on Wiki and getting deleted for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Absent sources confirming full professionalism, we cannot assume that it is. For the moment a claim to notability per WP:NSPORT is unverified and therefore not valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say anything about the word players? I was talking about the validity of the league itself, which fully professional or not, warrants an article. That seemed to be where you were going with the first dozen words of your query. As for the validity of the player you mentioned, it's generally a case by case thing. I would say in this case, the page doesn't show any real notability and few secondary sources. - J man708 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Because I actually wanted to know "Is this player notable enough?" However, this basically boils down to "Is Costa Rican League fully professional (as defined by WP:FPL) or not"? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Then be more direct? The player doesn't seem notable. The issue I have here though, is that the article creator has found him to be notable enough to create an article over. Normally I'd poke and prod about and ask the creator as to why they believe that the player in question passes notability and should have an article. A check of the creator's history shows that not only are all of his edits on just this article, they all took place over the space of two hours a month back. I don't think this article will be missed if it were deleted. Should the player surface in the future, we can easily utilise the current draft as a template and overhaul it from there. So, long story short? Quite a few players in the league will warrant articles, but this player doesn't appear to be one of them at the current time. - J man708 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A very good question. Looking at how Costa Rica has performed over the last few years in Champions, there's little between the results of Costa Rica and the two MLS countries (USA and Canada); Mexico is further ahead, and everyone else is further behind. And also look at the current national team squad; this team is ranked 14th in the world and (just) over half their players are in the Costa Rican Primera División; even 9 of 23 in their World Cup squad played domestically. One would then suspect that the league IS fully professional. However the evidence remains elusive - though I suspect a diligent editor could find it. Really, this is a subject for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. The last discussion was inconclusive and can be found archived here where I suggested that [1] was a possible reference. In the end of the discussion, there were clearly no objections to adding that source to WP:FPL, however it never happened. Nfitz (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So Alejandro Gómez Bermúdez has just been accepted at AfC by @Sulfurboy:, which now means we need to decide whether or not he passes WP:NFOOTY ASAP. I say no, because I've not seen a definitive source that says the Costa Rican football league is a WP:FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I did a little work on the article and believe it satisfies the GNG. Gómez is one of the top-rated goalkeepers in the league and features regularly for one of the top clubs (and one of the few club that are likely fully-pro). He hasn't played a full international but has participated in major tournaments at youth level. It's fairly easy to find coverage in the Costa Rican press (e.g., La Nacion, Al Dia and Diario Extra) so I think this article can be fleshed out when someone has the time. Jogurney (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by your topic of interest, e.g., control-f "WikiProject Football."--Lucas559 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Seasons

Recently there has been a flurry of activity around deleting season articles for clubs who don't play in a fully pro league. Thus far this has (as far as I'm aware) only involved articles relating to teams who have never played in a fully pro league, but how should we handle season articles for teams who now play in a fully pro league and have done for the vast majority of their existence but at one time did not? An extreme example would be 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season - on the one hand it's Man United, but on the other they did not play in a fully pro league at the time (or indeed in any league at all)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think each one has to be taken on its merits. I feel that in this case (and in many more), the content is both verifiable and encyclopedic in itself: you would expect to see it in an encyclopedia of football, so you would expect to see it here, but do you merge its content into another article or make it stand alone. For example: Does it have potential to be GA/FA/FL (featured list)? Is there room in a parent article, such as History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945) to merge all the seasons? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. An extreme example in the other direction would be to create, say, 1964-65 Irthlingborough Diamonds F.C. season on the grounds that they later merged with Rushden Town to become Rushden & Diamonds, and who played professional football from 2001-2005. I think we can use common sense to differentiate between these cases without requiring a single rule. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweden national under-23 football team

Hi, should Sweden national under-23 football team be split to have it own olympic article like for example Portugal Olympic football team? Currently we link to olympic articles for some teams (using Template:Fbo) and for some teams we use template:fbu to link to youth articles. For sweden they had an old U23 team that got defunct in the 70s but when the olympics started for youth teams we continued on u23 article. I dont mind doing the work if it is okay to create olympics article. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, Qed237. One option is to merge the Sweden U21 article and the Sweden U23 article and create a Sweden Olympic football team article as you said. But then I think that only the Olympics from 1992 should be included, because the earlier are included in the Sweden national football team article. // Mattias321 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Jamie McAllister

Hi All, I've had a message from a user purporting to be Jamie McAllister, asking for the new photo I added to be page to be removed. I'm looking for guidance on how to proceed; I would say the new image gives a clearer view of the subject's face, and I'm uncomfortable with the project being dictated to by the subject of an article. Any ideas? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The photo does not violate any guideline about living persons. Proceed normally by keeping the recent photo per WP:UNCENSORED: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal (or inclusion) of content." Furthermore, if Maccajaz (talk · contribs) is Jamie McAllister he should not be editing his own article per WP:COI. SLBedit (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if it was 100% confirmed that the user is the subject, no way should we remove a photo just because the subject says he "isn't happy with it". It's not in any way objectionable or offensive. Is he not happy with it because he looks grumpy? If so, he needs to get over himself ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're going to have to tell Jamie he's stuck with that picture unless he can provide an alterntive on a free licence. Plenty of people have released "official Wikipedia profile pictures" for use here, so if he wants to do the same, I reckon that would be kosher. – PeeJay 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Common courtesy says you should replace it Målfarlig! (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
With what? He's not offering us a new picture to use, he's just saying "take that one down, I don't like it", with no justification of what's actually wrong with it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The one that was there before? Y'know the one which didn't needlessly antagonize its subject. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:MOSNUM

I have opened a discussion at WT:MOSNUM that participants here might be interested in contributing to. It relates to the WP:MOSNUM clause about primary units for personal weight and height of British people, including football players. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Badges of reserve teams

Should copyrighted logos, when no different to the main team, be used on articles on reserve teams? Articles for Spanish and German teams use them, while they are omitted on Portuguese teams. The exceptions should be that Sevilla's reserves have a COMPLETELY different badge, and that Borussia Dortmund's badge is not copyrighted as it is just a circle and plain text. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this so there is a distinct possibility that I'm missing something. That being said, my rule of thumb is to look at the fair use rationale for logo's use on the first team article. Most of the time there's not going to be anything in that rationale that isn't also applicable affiliated teams (reserves, youth, women's, etc.) that use the same logo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If they are non-free, they fail WP:NFC#UUI #17 except in main club's article. I reported a few images at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. SLBedit (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

THE STRANGEST THING IS HAPPENING TO ME!

Whenever I go on the article about ANY footballer, I just see the Wikipedia logo, and an entirely black screen. This is whether I am on Chrome or Internet Explorer. If I log out, it reads fine.

What the hell is happening? Has somebody given me a virus to stop me doing my work??

I know this might not be what this talk page is for, but still!!! '''tAD''' (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not all, I've found. Roberto Firmino and Memphis Depay seem to be problems '''tAD''' (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This happened to me at Roger Wosahlo, but just as I was reporting it on ANI, I refreshed the page and it has gone back to normal. The problem did not happen on the mobile version of the site, only the desktop. I wonder whether someone messed with a template common to football biographies. Number 57 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Me too! JMHamo (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything is clear now! Glad this all sorted out! I can remember once when somebody fiddled with the image sizing on a template, making all of them HUGE. I tried manually making every single one smaller until it got back to normal '''tAD''' (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

2017–18 UEFA Champions League and Europa League

Hi, I have been working a lot with Champions League and Europa League related articles and I wanted to check when FOOTY thinks it is time to create the articles for 2017/18 seasons?

It may sound too soon but UEFA has already released the regulations (same for three seasons in a row for 2015-18 cycle) and the accesslist as to what nation will join what rounds (for example nation ranked 50 will have three teams in first qualifying round). The coefficients for that nation rank will be taken from this season and in ten days the first nations could be eliminated and we would know their coefficient in the nation ranking.

Also some leagues qualifies for 2017/18 CL and EL with upcoming seasons that will be created during this autumn, for example "2016 Allsvenskan" will probably be created in the next few months when teams start to qualify for it. Then it might be good to have the 2017/18 season articles to avoid redlinks in the league articles and avoid unexperienced editors create one-line articles.

But it is still not being played for two years (but we have 2018 FIFA World Cup for example) so is it too soon? Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea, but it may be a touch too soon. The 2017 AFC Champions League page currently red links, even though pages like the upcoming 2015–16 A-League season link to it. Maybe a page like this should be created first/at the same time. In saying that Qed, I can't see too many people placing the 2017-18 articles up for deletion, as logic would dictate that they will become useful in a very short amount of time. It's a lot easier to justify larger, multinational sporting competitions having future pages created a lot earlier than national leagues. This is why the Olympics and World Cups always have pages written about potential hosts and rule changes. In my eyes, it seems to be a 49%/51% decision on making it, but I'd have no real beef seeing the page created. - J man708 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
even it is a little bit soon for it.. but I think I understand why @Qed237: wants this .and if it is well sourced I don't think there is a problem with this, especially I was one of the people who followed his hard work in 2015-16 season so I am sure it will be easier for him to do it now rather than waiting for someone to do new researches or even himself doing it again in one year after all we even have an article for worlducp 2022, and in Wikipedia as I understand there is no time limit for articles it just needs to be notable and sourced . Adnan (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I always go with the thinking that if there is enough information out there about it (round dates, final venue) then you can create. Goes for any event. I've created the 2017 Island Games page now Cls14 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that, broadly, an article for a future sports event is acceptable from the point at which the first relevant info emerges. This will vary from event to evet: it could be the access/entry/eligibility list, the location and dates of the final (or tournament), or the start of the first qualifying competition. Whether an article is really needed at this point might be a different question, but certainly once you have one of these then deleting would seem to be a waste of time. To 'Wikilwayer' for a minute, the key WP:notability question would be - are independent, reliable sources writing about it with some level of significance yet? The answer for 17-18 would seem to be 'yes' ([2], [3], [4]). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say wait until next year. Right now, we don't have the finals venues confirmed, we don't have the number of teams each association could provide confirmed (Italy could overtake England) and we don't even have the round dates confirmed. I think it would be best to wait until next year. Valenciano (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for all the replies, currently I have the articles in two of my sandboxes, ready for action. Final venues and if Italy overtakes England might take a year and that is too long (2016/17 was created in december), but I can understand everyones thoughts. Qed237 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

England at the FIFA World Cup

Football writing people, here is one uncompleted article, that you could work on. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Major/minor honours

There's a bit of a kerfuffle at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry about the distinction between major and minor honours in the comparison of the two clubs' successes. Apparently, the Community Shield, the UEFA Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup aren't considered major enough to receive the same recognition as competitions like the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, Europa League and Cup Winners' Cup (and all predecessors). A side effect of this is that it happens to put Liverpool ahead of Manchester United on "major" honours. In fairness, these categorisations are sourced to an extent, but I feel that the sources have been cherry-picked to suit a particular definition, rather than the other way around. Objectively, the Community Shield, the Super Cup, the Intercontinental Cup and the Club World Cup are just as important as the others, especially since you actually have to win something (i.e. one of the so-called "major" trophies) to even play in them in the first place, so the whole idea of major/minor honours is spurious, IMO. Opinions would be welcomed either here or on the article talk page. – PeeJay 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I am definitely against editors have the right to classify any honor as major or minor after all we aren't sport pundits analyst to give such a recognition if it is a major or minor . any trophy is recognized by FIFA, UEFA is a major trophy , any trophy is recognized by the domestic whatever country football association for their trophies (cups/Leagues) is a major trophy and thats it . once we start to give us the right to classify I think this is not just an encyclopedia anymore then . Adnan (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would agree, but another user has provided sources that claim to classify honours into "major" and "minor" categories; even the clubs apparently organise their honours as "major" and "other". Or are you saying we should ignore these? For the record, I'm with you that all honours should be given the same treatment, and not just because I'm a Manchester United fan. – PeeJay 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care about either teams but I care about articles being neutral not to make it as cherry picking thing. I don't know which source he has provided but let's say Liverpool classify their trophies as minor and major It would be neutral to list this at Liverpool or man united article but in other articles who said they are the standard ?
why Community shield is more important than uefa supercup? and who said so? and we should be consistent not using a special policies for Liverpool and Man united. if it is a trophy for other countries it is also just a trophy in England . if we start doing this then Italians can say we consider coppa italia a minor trophy since many team don't take it seriously. lets keep it encyclopedia not a fan contest to show which teams is better . Adnan (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject

what does it mean to be a member of a wikiproject ? I have no idea about wikiprojects and i would like it if someone explains to me. Jallouljalloul (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jallouljalloul: In a nutshell, it's about collaboration to improve the articles on football. JMHamo (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: I see. thanks. Jallouljalloul (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

Guess I think I know the answer to this but just to check:- West Ham's season kicks off next Thursday in the Europa League playing Andorran's finest, FC Lusitanos who are not a pro-club. West Ham manager Bilic has said he will (he may not!) play some youth/Development players. Many of these have never played for the first team and thus no Wiki article. Very little on these guys (mostly 16/17 year olds) to pass GNG, so is playing against an Andorran team in the quals of the Europa League enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL? I ask mostly because If I don't create articles for these guys, there is a good chance someone else will. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Any youth players making their debut in the first qualifying round against a semi-pro team are not notable in my opinion unless they do something amazing that will qualify them for GNG. If articles are created send them to AfD. JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There actually is some disagreement on this issue. The two most widely supported positions are that either only matches in the competition proper (i.e. not in the qualifying rounds) confer notability, or only matches between two FPL-clubs confer notability. In either case, this match won't confer notability to the players who play in it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Egghead06 and Sir Sputnik: A perfect example of this would be this Tom Donegan AfD I just opened. JMHamo (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's really simple, IMO. The round, qualifying or proper, doesn't matter. If Lusitanos were a fully-pro club, the young WHU players would be notable. Since it's not the case, they won't. -BlameRuiner (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Good - the club have already said that Reece Oxford and Lewis Page will play tomorrow so if they turn blue, we know what's happened.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The article for Oxford has already been created today and we haven't even had the game yet! Amazing!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nile Ranger "on the payroll"...

Could I get your opinion on this edit.. When have we ever used the term "on the payroll".. ridiculous IMO. JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, completely inappropriate wording. GiantSnowman 11:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: It has been reverted again. Could you please take a look. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User warned for violating 3RR. GiantSnowman 15:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
He isn't actually playing for the club, so what is a better terminology? Would hate to offend. - NewTestLeper79 talk 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
... "is contracted to" would work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"who plays for" is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
He's on a self-imposed exile, so this is a false statement. - NewTestLeper79 talk 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Guess the point is we have never done this for any footballer. Not long term injured, not contract rebels, not those like Carlos Tevez who refused to take the pitch, not even those just seeing out their contracts. They have all been designated as "who plays for".--Egghead06 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. NTL79 is just trying to push a POV and we won't let him. GiantSnowman 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Must be the correct way if it has never been done before. Like when I started to add career appearance and goals totals to infobox. They got reverted for a long time and, oh my, would you look at this?. - 18:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Help

I've a problem with the article FC Admira Wacker Mödling. Please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaviYuahanda (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Was it the squad list format? If so, I fixed it. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaviYuahanda (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Doubts

Is "Portuguese giants" and "national powerhouse" considered WP:PEACOCK? SLBedit (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I must say that those expressions are predominantly used by 84.90.219.128, and if it's peocock, what would be more appropriate?.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We can use "Portuguese club" or "Portuguese champions". SLBedit (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed from tons of articles. SLBedit (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Should [[Category:CLUB players]] be added to a player's article when the player did not play any match in the first team? SLBedit (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes I used it in several articles, but I: 1 - have seen much much worse in terms of POV/PEACOCK, and I don't consider this to even be POV (Benfica, Real Madrid, Bayern are not high-caliber teams? I think they are. However, I must respect the general consensus and try to abide by the rules, will be more careful from now on); 2 - was not the original inserter of said expressions, OK Mr. TOS? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also "national giants" to be removed. SLBedit (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of "local giants" too. SLBedit (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What about "player X joined Y champions"? SLBedit (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And what about "joined the defending champions", how is this puffery? SLBedit (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

'Defending champions' is not puffery, if it relates to a league, but it may be if it is a lower ranked trophy, like the Charity Shield. That is for discussion on the article talk page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It related to the top tier league until MYS77 removed it. SLBedit (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Describing a team as "defending champions" is just a statement of fact, I can't see how anyone could dispute that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Aron Rodríguez

Found an article for an Aron Rodríguez earlier and I don't think this person exists. Think it may be someone creating a Wiki page for themselves, or a fictional video game player. The editor has included 'sources' which are extremely questionable, including one to an obscure child actor from Colombia on IMDB. Even if this person was real, his football 'career' would be non-notable. Can others take a look and advise on deleting? Kivo (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kivo: deleted as a hoax, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

AFC Champions League map

On the map that is currently used for the AFC Champions League For some unknown reason, central Kazakhstan has a random oval shape inside of it, as seen below. Could someone possibly edit this out? Thanks! - J man708 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that oval represents Baikonur which seems to be Russian owned but rented to Kazakhstan. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Quick question: why are Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka all blue while India is red? Is that for political/diplomatic reasons, i.e. so that clubs from those countries don't have to play against clubs from India and China? – PeeJay 15:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Presumably the east-west split is somewhere slightly to the east of Bangladesh, and therefore India is defined as being in the east (as its easternmost part is beyond that line). Number 57 16:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Urgh, the Ruskis seeming still own most of the Soviet Union, huh?
It is indeed a West and East split, which goes all the way from the Group Stages (A-D being West; E-H being East) and continues all the way into the Final, which is where the two zone champions play off. This means that there won't be a CL Final containing teams from only one country, although a country could own all four Quarter Final places from its own half of the bracket. - J man708 (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Cardiff City Ladies

Aren't Cardiff City Ladies F.C. and Cardiff City FC (women) the same club? If not can anyone suggest better names? @Koppapa: as creator of the latter. GiantSnowman 17:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, they play in different leagues (England 3rd tier and Wales top league). One is afflicated to the men's club, the other is a separate women's club. I agree the women's section would benefit of more text, like when did the club decide to start a women's team. Was it a started from scratch, or was an existant women's team affiliated? Maybe i find some info. -Koppapa (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs clarifying in the articles, and the latter article will need re-naming... GiantSnowman 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I just re-read the article and saw Ladies were the women's section of Cardiff F.C. too until 2003. Considering though their honours came mostly after the exit and the new section has won a national championship i guess two articles are warranted. But the first will be added the second's articles history. -Koppapa (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Copa América/2015 Copa América Final

I'm out tonight, so when the game has finished and both articles are updated, could somebody nominate them to WP:ITN, including a portrait of the winning captain?

Example:

In association football Argentina/Chile (captain Lionel Messi/Claudio Bravo pictured) win the Copa América, defeating Argentina/Chile in the final

'''tAD''' (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Premier League released/retained lists

Just a quick case study of the Premier League's released/retained lists: Wes Brown was named as a player to be released by Sunderland A.F.C. at the end of the 2014-15 season, which led to people removing Sunderland from the "current club" field in Brown's infobox, etc. However, Brown has been re-signed for another year, which meant re-adding all the info to his article. I therefore would recommend that we remain vigilant when it comes to released/retained lists, as even players specified as "released" don't actually leave their club until 1 July each year and can still be re-signed. – PeeJay 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the exception rather than the norm. The vast majority of players on the released list do leave the club, so this not really an issue IMO. JMHamo (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's an exception, I'm just saying I think it's reason enough to keep a player listed under his "current" club until 30 June each year. – PeeJay 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
But the Wes Brown example used was changed on the 1 July. Anyway.. JMHamo (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Euro 2016 qualifying tables

I've noticed something about Euro 2016 qualifying Group E. At the moment, England are displayed as being guaranteed a 3rd place finish in that group, marked with an (x). However, it is possible (only just) that England finish 4th in that group. It would involve a highly improbable chain of events, but nevertheless it is not a mathematical certainty that England will finish at least 3rd. I checked on the edit page, looks like there's some sort of algorithm in place to calculate the tables, so there must be an error in there somewhere. Unless I'm missing something huge, that (x) needs to be dropped, as England need 2 more points from that group to fully guarantee a 3rd place finish. 82.2.105.83 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

England has secured a top 3 spot as Slovenia and Lithuania/Estonia can not both pass England. The winner between Lithuania-Estonia has to win all their matches to pass England (including match against Slovenia) and in that case Slovenia can at the best reach same points as England but lose on head-to-head record. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mos Flag

I plan on starting a discussion at Mos Flag however since when did we start allowing flags to be used in club season articles in friendly sections. I'm fully aware that I have steered well clear of here for a few years but when I was active there was discussions not allowing this. In club friendlies they are not representing their county unlike in international competition such as the champions league. The flags are implying where a team usually plays not what nationality someone is or who they are representing. Can see no justification for there use for friendlies. Blethering Scot 16:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've raised this as a Request for comment at MOS Flag to get a definitive answer to this. We have a bad habit on this project of skirting around other policies and guidelines for our own advantage. Flags shouldn't be used to replace text and especially not where they are not indicating nationality or representation of a country. There use in friendlies is neither.Blethering Scot 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion link - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality. GiantSnowman 17:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GS. Can you clarify for me your view, as its clear consensus here has changed.Blethering Scot 17:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Flags in articles

Hi all, sorry to bring this up as I know it has been discussed a lot, however a user has recently gone through a number of season articles removing flags from teams engaged in friendlies. I tried to discuss with him at his talk page, however I got a fairly belligerent response and he "banned" me from his talk page. He has since blanked our conversation. However this policy page [[5]] states that this article [[6]] complies with the flag guidelines. The revisions appear to be in contravention of that, I do not wish to engage in an edit war so I'm bringing it here example article edited [[7]]. Does anyone have any advise. Paul  Bradbury 16:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Showing ur ineptness again aren't we. See 1 section above.Blethering Scot 17:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your personal attacks, please try and be nice, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. Paul  Bradbury 17:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks. You couldn't even edit my talk page properly. You ignored what you were asked to do and ultimately I had to do it for you. Personally that puts you in a low regard in my view. On top of that u didn't check this page before posting to see if it had been raised by me. Blethering Scot 17:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are personally attacking me. I didn't need to raise here in the first instance for consensus as that exists and is documented as indicated above, I was trying to engage with you to understand why you thought it was wrong, I apologised for the multiple edits on your talk page. As for the sections, I did check and you had not posted when I started my post, however given we were both editing different sections no edit conflict would have occurred I expect I was simply slower than you. Paul  Bradbury 17:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with you on all fronts. Consenus here at my last point of editing this project was clear that they shouldn't be used in non competitive friendlies. I pointed you here to discuss which would of been the correct thing for you do. Instead u kept posting at me and accusing me of things. Sorry but won't put up with that. It's my opinion that it's use is skirting the good will of the flag policy at the very least if it's correct consensus on this project has changed. It certainly needs re clarified. Can u not see that Manchester City is not representing England in a non competitive friendly, nor is England Manchester City's nationality they just play there. There is nothing this flag is doing that text can't do, not a thing. It's using a flag for flags sake. Blethering Scot 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Blethering Scot: @Pbradbury: both of you please stop the childish bickering, and I suggest you reserve your constructive discussion for the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality. GiantSnowman 17:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where I should put this, as it's relevant both to this section and the one above, but the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy linked to by Pbradbury is purely someone's personal essay, and is not nor has ever been project policy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks, thats confusing but helps. Paul  Bradbury 18:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Given its title this should be deleted or moved to a user page. It has no place using the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football prefix as it leads to the believe its official, and given it not been edited since 2011, its not going anywhere. This does need clarified once and for all, so would appreciate you all comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality. Blethering Scot 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of the "flag policy" page now at debate, I need to clarify it was never received or understood to be an "editors essay", as falsely claimed by Struway2. The page instead summarized the consensus reached at this WP Football forum, during multiple "Flag standard" debates conducted over the course of the first half of 2011 (and back then it was accepted as such, with its creation being received by the WP Football forum as a good idea, as this special "flag guidelines" page had been build in a neutral way simply reflecting the outcome of the multiple repetitive consensus debates conducted at the WP Football talkpage for "flag use"). The WP Football forum needs to collect the result of its multiple "Flag policy" consensus debates conducted over time, as a point of navigation and steering point for multiple editors to check with as a starting point in case future "flag use" disputes erupt. Otherwise the arguments for our "Flag use" debates seems to repeat themselves endlessly, being restarted and repeated over and over again, without learning anything from the previously conducted "consensus debates". The now disputed "flag policy" page, is a WP:Football consensus page intended to summarize the flag use guidelines (as a more detailed subset of flag use guidelines for the football related articles - being compliant with WP:MOSFLAG). As I have not contributed actively to WP Football in recent years, I am not able at present to report if some of the more recently conducted "flag use" consensus debates have changed the old "2011 consensus" at the WP Football forum. However, I insist its still relevant to keep this page visible here at the WP Football forum. It should never be deleted, because as I argued, we clearly have a need for such football-related "flag guideline" page to be visible at the WP Football forum. As the "2011 page" was a first attempt, it might need, though, an update to reflect the outcome of the more recent "flag use" consensus debates conducted at the talkpages of "WP Foootball" and "Manual of Style/Icons" (i.e. the latest opened by Blethering Scot). But to spur such update work to be done (by some of the active WP Football members), the deletion of the page recently proposed by Blethering Scot, is not the appropriate tool now to be used. Danish Expert (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Transfer tables

Hi, an dispute at 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season where I need more input. On "transfers out" I think released players should be listed as "released" and not their current club. An other editor disagrees, saying that was not how it was done on older tables. But as I said these tables are not for current clubs? Then we should go back and modify many old tables afterwards, it makes more sence listing them as how the left, if they were released they were relased and not sold to another club. Qed237 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was the other editor and just tried to update the page but he keeps on reverting my edits even though they are valid stating his own personal opinion that released players table should not be updated with their present clubs. I did what I could do to improve Wikipedia looking at the past tables and I am not a new user just to edit randomly. With more than one years experience, I hadn't seen such bizarre opinion presented regarding released players current clubs. We cannot do what he is saying because this would be applied to all football clubs and editing all of them would be ridiculous. Cheers!!! Sammanhumagaint@lk 13:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay so I should go back to old Chelsea article and write "Atletico Madrid" on Fernando Torres (sold to Liverpool) because there is where he is now? What is releveant to the club is how the player left and not what has happened in the future. That info can be read on the player individual article and has, in this case, nothing to do with manchester united as the players were released and did not belong to them. Qed237 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
My point is only that for example, in 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season page released players (example George Brady) has been updated with his current club and I also did the same in the 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season page. And due to three reverts he tags me with a template. And he doesn't notice he has made three reverts as well. Sammanhumagaint@lk 14:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I gave you reasons for the warning. You were the one trying to change the content and did so 4 times (although I reverted three). Also I attempted to discuss, something you failed even if being told you should have opened a discussion. Qed237 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

These players were released; the fact they have subsequently signed with a new club is irrelevant as far as this transfer table is concerned. GiantSnowman 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand but the weird part is that I edit and there is a problem and when Tom Cleverly and Saidy Janko are updated with their recent club no one has an issue. Why? Someone please explain this issue in an easy way so that we all can understand. Sammanhumagaint@lk 15:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the difference to Janko and Cleverly either. Amos' reference is from 1 July, 1 day after the last season ended. -Koppapa (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If those players also were released before signing for a new club, then they should be listed as released as well. I just react when editors change released to a club, but must have missed those. A good idea ould be to add notes to the players, explaining what happened after they were released, if others want that info. Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What I do with released players, is initially list the player as "released" (in the Fee column) and nothing in the Club column. But if/when they join their next club, I list that club in brackets in the Club column, and a note under the table that says "Brackets round a club denote the player joined that club after his Birmingham City contract expired". It may not technically be a transfer out, and people may well think that what a player does after their release is irrelevant to the club/season, but it works for me, and it's harmlessly informative for the reader. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate compromise. I'm of the opinion that when a player who is due to be released signs a contract with a new club before the release date (i.e. 1 July), that counts as a direct transfer of the player's registration effective from 00:00:00 on 1 July as the player is still technically registered to his previous club until that date. If the new deal isn't signed before the release date, the player is technically without a club for however long it takes them to sign a new deal. Since there is no direct transfer of the player's registration, I believe they should go down as "Released" in the transfer table, although Struway's suggestion that the new club be put in brackets works for me. – PeeJay 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been involved in some similar discussions to this one here and there recently. For mine, the brackets system is quite confusing and editors, let alone readers, have often misused it in articles I've seen. For mine the best way to represent a release is by labelling it as such - any subsequent transfer may not happen for a significant amount of time and isn't part of the "transfer" per se although I'm aware some would disagree (as above). Macosal (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal notice: RfC on national flags for Manchester City Football

There is a debate about keeping or removing national flags from "Friendly games" of the Manchester City Football season. As this has the potential to affect many football team's seasonal articles, an RfC has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons (Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality). Please add an opinion either way if this is a subject that interests you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested about the result. SLBedit (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this category appropriate?

Does WP:FOOTY believe this category is appropriate: Category:FIFA Women's World Cup-winning captains? In any case, the flag icons displayed on the category page need to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the category, but the flags must go. SLBedit (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: WP:OVERCAT I would say - definitely a candidate for CFD. GiantSnowman 11:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
GS, I think this falls under the non-notable honors rule for categories: is this an honor that defines the subject person? Given its honorary/temporary/transient nature in many cases, I don't think so. If y'all think this needs to be sent to CfD, it's better if a WP:FOOTY editor nominates it. 16:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: there's also an equivalent category for the men........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a good category. Does it include squad captains if they don't play? What about if the captain goes off during a game and someone takes over the armband? I'd go for deletion. Number 57 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine the captain would be the person wearing the armband at the toss of the coin as in the articles listed at Category:Lists of association football captains. Hack (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Costa Rican Cup – Need of an specific bracket

Hello, mates.

I've created an article about the 2015 Costa Rican Cup, which has a knockout format featuring 20 teams; all of them starting in the same first stage. Normally, the number of participating teams in knockout stages are based upon a Power of two (that means, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc...), which is not the case of this particular tournament.

After reading the official tournament rules published by UNAFUT (In Spanish), it seems they solve this issue by using a "best loser" rule, in which a team can still qualify even after losing a stage, but having scored more goals than the other losing teams in that particular stage (if there's more than one team having a same amount of goals, a draw would be held to determine the qualifying team). This happens in two stages of the tournament (2nd and 3rd).

Another problem with this tournament is that its 1st and 2nd stages are just one-legged (and so does the final), while the third stage and the semi-finals are two-legged.

In brief, the tournament goes this way:

  • First stage: 20 teams played this one-legged stage. All the winners advanced to the next round.
  • Second stage: 10 teams will play this one-legged stage. All the winners plus a losing team (with the highest amount of goals among the other losing teams in this stage), will advance to the next round.
  • Third stage: 6 teams will play this two-legged stage. All the winners plus a losing team (following the same rule of the previous round), will advance to the next round.
  • Semi-finals: 4 teams will play this two-legged stage. Nothing unusual here, the winners will obviously advance to the final.
  • Final: The last two teams will play an only match at the National Stadium.

Certainly, this is a weird format for a tournament, and as you might see, the 20 team bracket template isn't useful for this specific tournament. You can see the official bracket here.

Since I'm not experienced with templates (especially those involving brackets), I am addressing to the community for help creating a template to solve this issue.

Greetings.

--AndSalx95 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe Module:RoundN may be used, but not sure how. I no one else have looked at it by tomorrow I will take a look. Now I have to sleep. Qed237 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work. Use a 32 bracket and skipmatches. Use headings above matches as description like best loser of round x. Also mixing two-legged matches and one legged ones isn't a problem, see e.g. this test. But is the bracket fixed from the beginning or can it only be created after the semi-finals are drawn? Then maybe a retrospect bracket isn't really needed at all. -Koppapa (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@AndSalx95 and Koppapa: I have set up an example at User:Qed237/sandbox5 but there are also several other ways this can be done. As Koppapa say, we can however not add it until we know what teams will meet in the future rounds. What to you think of the test version in my sandbox? Qed237 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, we should wait for further rounds to be played so we can add the bracket, which, by the way, looks great, thanks! --AndSalx95 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@AndSalx95: Okay great. Let me know when it is time to use it. Qed237 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

International goals

PeeJay2K3 removed international goals from Ángel Di María, then other users added it back. If Lionel Messi lists international goals, why not list Di María's? SLBedit (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OSE, your argument is not valid. We had a discussion here a couple of weeks ago that said lists of international goals shouldn't be included in player articles. If a player has scored enough goals, perhaps a standalone article such as List of international goals scored by Pelé would be appropriate? – PeeJay 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay then let's start removing international goals. Where exactly is the dicussion? SLBedit (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95#International goals. GiantSnowman 17:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this one warrants a bit more discussion (maybe an RfC?). I personally think they are a valuable inclusion, and furthermore I'd suggest that there is a very strong consensus through editing to include these given how pervasive/widespread they are. Given that I wouldn't just go ahead deleting them without some more substantial discussion. The discussion being referred to had only a relatively small number of editors involved (not all of them agreeing) and I suspect that there are many out there who would not share the opinion (myself included). Furthermore, nobody discussed the actual content of WP:NOTSTATS at all beyond its title, and most of the discussion seemed to veer around between slippery slope arguments on both sides. I doubt that's enough to put through this fairly significant change. Macosal (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The article for Pelé's international goals has been created. SLBedit (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made articles on international goals by two national record holders, Mkhitaryan and Falcao. I'd welcome more articles being made on other national record holders, especially Klose, who is also the World Cup's top goalscorer '''tAD''' (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe something similar to what they do with cricket or tennis achievements could be a good idea here: list them on the main article until a certain number of goals is reached, at which point a stand-alone article should be created? Macosal (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Further discussion needed here. The goals for the likes of Jimmy Greaves, Kevin Keegan and Robbie Fowler and others all removed today all to be reverted due to lack of consensus to remove.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a (club) "footy" fan, so my only suggestion here is that a formal RfC should be held about this to determine the consensus on it once and for all... Beyond that, I bid you all adieu! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree to this to as per Egghead06, Macosal et al above., this needs proper discussion and concensus vian RfC. Unfortunately some editors out there seem to think if two people here discuss and agree something its concensus and they then have authority to undertake mass edits and then blast at anyone who queries their overzealous behaviour.Tmol42 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tmol42: - maybe you should start the RFC then, rather than edit warring with editors who are acting in good faith? (and yes, the previous discussion did indicate a clear consensus for removal, although that is now not the case given this ongoing thread). GiantSnowman 09:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure 8 years of editing is a stronger consensus than a contested discussion over a couple of days between a few editors... Status quo is clearly to include, if anyone disagrees then it should be they who start the RfC. Macosal (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, the grandafther rule doesn't apply here. "Lots of people do it" is such a weak argument, as well... GiantSnowman 12:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Macosal (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. GiantSnowman 12:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep agreed. But per WP:BRD it's those arguing that there has been a change to consensus who should discuss it if they so desire, not the other way around. Macosal (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bryan Ruiz Fulham goals

Bryan Ruiz goals - which source would you trust: Soccerbase says 12 league goals and Soccerway has 11 for Fulham. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't trust either, but in this case, Soccerbase are right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Struway2: Spot on as usual Struway. I've made the update to the article. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
For UK-based players I tend to go with Soccerbase over Soccerway, as a rule of thumb. GiantSnowman 13:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Need admin help in renaming a club

FK Spartak Zlatibor Voda was ever since the beginning called FK Spartak Subotica, but in summer 2008 the were merged with FK Zlatibor Voda and changed the name to FK Spartak Zlatibor Voda. Zlatibor Voda is actually a sponsor. it is a bottled water company. However, in summer 2014 FK Spartak returned its name to the historic FK Spartak Subotica (Subotica is the city the club is from). They even changed their website from http://www.fkspartakzlatiborvoda.com/ (where you can see the announcement that they are changing to a new website) to http://www.fkspartak.com/ . Honestly, it passed a year already, and I was lazy to ask it, but now it is really time to move FK Spartak Zlatibor Voda to FK Spartak Subotica. FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Done. It also appears that the article was moved in 2008 using cut & paste. I have merged the histories too. Number 57 22:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Many many thanks! FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland Internationals Women

Is this team (or any of the other sides in the league) notable? --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The league is not FIFA affiliated and appears to be regional so from that standpoint not really, it may have garnered significant coverage. So far however I have not been able to find evidence of that. The league also appears to be defunct as of 2013 (no updates to its website or twitter account since then. Paul  Bradbury 13:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF

Hi all, so I am currently having a different point of view about the WP:INFOBOXREF rule with User:Målfarlig!. We have had some reverting on several articles, such as Luciana Maria Dionizio, Fabiana da Silva Simões and Andressa Alves da Silva. We had a discussion but it seems we could not reach to an agreement on this topic. Basically he keeps on adding references to the infobox, which I edited since it failes WP:INFOBOXREF and moved the source into the body or lead of article. Basically I did not deleted any source nor content, but simply moved them to other sections. User:Målfarlig! seems to disagree and simply ignore the rules that I mentioned. I would like to know what you guys think about this. Thanks! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Places of birth for a start shouldn't be in the lead, so it would be appropriate to link that in the infobox if it didn't appear otherwise in the article. Hack (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that and have edited the articles above to have the info as a separata section. MbahGondrong (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you were right on this one. The information was not originally included in the body of the text so it was appropriate under WP:INFOBOXREF to include the reference in the infobox. You've then added the places of birth to the lead, which per WP:BIRTHPLACE is incorrect. Hack (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Originally I was wrong by putting it in the lead section, thats correct. WP:INFOBOXREF also states "However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article", which is why I put the birth place now as a separate section, not on the lead. MbahGondrong (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The ref used in the Fabiana da Silva Simões article doesn't specify that the places listed for each athlete are places of birth. Hack (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not quite sure about that since I don't understand any Portuguese. Anyway thanks for fixing the source for Fabiana da Silva Simões, and I saw you tagged already the other s. Hopefully the provider of the reference can explain. MbahGondrong (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"(by adding the demonym of Bahia, her home state)" in the first sentence is excessive. SLBedit (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Apprentice of the Year

Thoughts on {{Football League One Apprentice of the Year}} before I take to TFD (or not)? I've never even heard of the award... GiantSnowman 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Appears legit [[8]] Paul  Bradbury 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But is it notable for a template, as a youth award? My guy says no. GiantSnowman 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure about that one, it's a tough call, part of me says no, but part of me says yes. I am having an internal debate with myself about some of the youth stuff. For example Real Madrid Castilla and its ilk are for all intents and purposes no different to the premier league U-21 sides yet under WP:NFOOTY says its players are notable and the Premier League ones aren't. Anyway bit of a tangent. I think given its league one and youth its not really notable, if it was premier league or la liga I would probably say it was. Paul  Bradbury 20:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 11#Football League Apprentice of the Year. GiantSnowman 15:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Brazil by club

Any reason Category:Footballers in Brazil by club is entirely broken down by state cub-categories? GiantSnowman 18:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to leave them in subcat and main cat, or a A-Z list with long and short name. Matthew_hk tc 18:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it should be in both sub-cat and main cat - I thought that was usual... GiantSnowman 19:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

De Mistwedstrijd

What is the community's opinion on this article? Is the match worthy of having its own article? It certainly is a remarkable match, but I don't want to do anymore work on it, until I know for sure it meets our notability criteria. Would be a lot of hard work wasted. Thoughts please. NapHit (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick glance - it looks notable to me. I would suggest it's renamed, however - that is a Dutch term (this is the English-language Wikipedia!) and you can't identify it as a football match. GiantSnowman 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup players

Take two: is this category deemed overkill or not? If so, it should be deleted no? I see that the creator, User:Joeykai, has not received any message in his page regarding this matter, so methinks the category is to stay (thus not being considered overkill even though it clearly is in my humble opinion)?

Attentively, happy Saturday all --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not create that category. User:Ulof4 created it.Joeykai (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, youth competition categories are overkill I think. GiantSnowman 18:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"soccer" vs "football (soccer)", again

I noticed that Mariner2222 (talk · contribs) has gone through a slew of articles and changed "soccer" in opening sentences to "football (soccer)". I've asked the user to maybe respect WP:ENGVAR, but Mariner2222 didn't think it was an issue. Anyway, a massive wave of changes like this probably requires a discussion. I think it unnecessarily brings a foreign English variant, and puts "soccer", a perfectly acceptable (and not to mention more precise) shorthand for "association football) as secondary to the other, less frequently used (at least in North America) shorthand. Mosmof (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia has to be as clear as possible. These athletes teams are searched for by international audience, hence the names in both variants. American's soccer isn't independent of world's football. Besides, most NFL athletes are described as being American football players, not simply football players. Mariner2222 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing unclear about "soccer". It's an internationally accepted shorthand for "association football", just like "football" is an internationally accepted shorthand for "association football" (though "soccer" is preferred in places like Australia, Canada, and Ireland). In any case, it's define that you were WP:BOLD with your edits, but once I brought up my objection, you should've slowed down with the edits. Mosmof (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
that's your POV, being in a non canadian/US nation at the moment, where soccer is never used, I can safely assume soccer is only used in US/Canada. most people wouldn't even know what soccer is. Mariner2222 (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Mariner2222 - you are wrong; we use either 'football' or 'soccer' depending on ENGVAR, not football (soccer). GiantSnowman 12:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation". Therefore in articles about American subjects we should use soccer. TIES is part of the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. Not sure much more needs to be said...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add.... the idea that nobody outside the US/Canada would "even know what soccer is" is frankly laughable. Kevin Keegan certainly knows...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to raise the issue of Mariner2222's recent edits changing "soccer" to "association football (soccer)" in articles about American teams and players, but I see the WP:FOOTY brain trust already has this problem well in hand. FYI, other American sports editors have already reverted all of Mariner2222's edits per WP:ENGVAR. Enough said. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

the name of the game is not soccer. that's false information not engvar. also, i hear this has been debated multiple times. my solution would end that problem permanently. if you can move past your jingoistic attitude towards a name you've given to the sport. Mariner2222 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually the English gave it this name; and they don't call it "football" everywhere anyhow. How about we change all the articles to "football (calico) (soccer)"? JohnInDC (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) By your logic, we should not be referring to the game as "football" either, because that's not its name......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

yeah. it's association football. so what will it be? association football, or football (soccer), since soccer alone is definitely not the correct name of the game. it's a regional nickname, similar to footie, that is confusing to any outsider. Mariner2222 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit War and 3RR notices - Mariner2222 continues to make these changes, even during this discussion, and has been given appropriate notices regarding edit-warring and 3RR on his user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that I don't love the soccer / football flare-ups, but I have blocked Mariner2222 for a little bit just to cool off. Whatever peoples' opinions on nomenclature that is not the way to deal with it and after the Australian furor a while back I really don't see a great deal of appetite for a productive debate again so soon. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
And you fail to realize i'm not forcing a soccer vs football(at least didn't initially), my solution would've had both nicknames as football (soccer)Mariner2222 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Soccer" links to "football". SLBedit (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
yeah. so does football (soccer)Mariner2222 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
His block expired and he's right back at it again, sigh. JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If the page is in American English, we use soccer, which links to football. No need for "(football)". SLBedit (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No. association football is the correct term. football and soccer alone are regional nicknames. and can be confusing to outsiders. Mariner2222 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No, see WP:ENGVAR. That's really all there is to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The name of the game was originally 'football'. It became association football to distinguish it from Rugby football but no-one refers to it as association in the same way that rugby is used for that code. When I was growing up football and soccer were probably used equally as shorthand for the game. Soccer seemed to fade from the (UK) vernacular of the day once the American leagues were established, but it is still widely recognised in my experience. To claim that it is merely a local term for the game cannot really be correct. Eagleash (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"Soccer" should be used in the articles about players from where that term is used (such as United Stats, Canada, Australia, etc) and "football" should be used for the rest of the articles. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
US and Canada - fine. Australia - more controversial. GiantSnowman 09:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just use association football through out? Sport and politics (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not the common name in any territory -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It removes all confusion and allows access to all worldwide who want to read about the sport. Sport and politics (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not natural to say "association football" in speech though, particularly when it's known by a different name in a territory where a particular dialect of English is spoken. – PeeJay 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final

Did wiki project had any previous discussion to make this template a speedy deletion? Even i supported Inter, there is no reason to let these final template flooded into player article. Matthew_hk tc 18:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a past discussion on this, but can't find it - non-notable to me. GiantSnowman 19:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I was sure this was deleted not so long ago. Looks like someone felt the need to bring it back. – PeeJay 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Inter Milan vs Internazionale (again)

I thought there is consensus that the name of the club's article (except for add-ons like FC) should be used in the infobox as per WP:COMMONNAME. In Xherdan Shaqiri‎ an editor is changing the names from Inter Milan to Internazionale again. I have not preference for either name as such, but I would expect that the name of the club's article is the correct one. Is there something wrong with this assumption? --Jaellee (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it should be Internazionale. The club doesn't even call itself that. Ever. Can we please do another move request? – PeeJay 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I to think article should be at "F.C. Internazionale Milano" (piped to Internazionale in league tables and matches). That is how UEFA and Soccerway does it and it is their real name. Qed237 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
But current consensus say to use "Inter Milan" which may confuse readers with "AC Milan", which is an other reason to move article back. Qed237 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO, it's no more confusing than Dundee F.C. and Dundee United F.C. – PeeJay 23:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Or the women of Cardiff City FC and Cardiff City LFC. :-D -Koppapa (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The current name is Inter Milan and that is what should be used, so mass-changing to Internazionale is disruptive. However I would support a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 06:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd really be glad if the article would be moved to a name that can be used without problems. --Jaellee (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The club's name is Internazionale, therefore, we should be using that. SLBedit (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the article name is Inter Milan, therefore we should be using that. If you disagree then you need to change the article name via WP:RM. GiantSnowman 12:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes as everyone say, article is at "Inter Milan" so that is what we currently should use, but there are several users that want the article moved, me included. Qed237 (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything special to do for a move request? I saw on the talk page that such a move request has already failed several times. --Jaellee (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jaellee: Not really, just follow procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move and provide a good motivation as to why page should be moved back. Look at old requests and see why the were failed/successful and also try and find guidelines and sources to support your case. Qed237 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I requested the move at Talk:Inter Milan#Requested move 5 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaellee (talk • contribs)

@Jaellee, PeeJay2K3, Koppapa, GiantSnowman, and SLBedit: I pinged those involved in this discussion to notify about the request at Talk:Inter Milan#Requested move 5 July 2015. Hope I did not forget anyone. Qed237 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Does anyone else intend to contribute to this discussion? Even if you support the article staying at Inter Milan, it would be interesting to hear what a wider selection of WP:FOOTY members think the article title should be. – PeeJay 09:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Results details

Hey, articles like this should be avoided, am i correct? Kante4 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, any pertinent information should be included in a season article, no need for a separate 'results' page. GiantSnowman 14:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirected, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 Hereford F.C Season

Any opinions on WP:N of this club season article? Level 9 on the pyramid is usually a tad too low to warrant a standalone article, however is there any coverage I am currently not aware of which would give the subject notability after all? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should be deleted. Take it to AfD. Qed237 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Hereford F.C. it seems like this is their first season ever, but I dont think that is enough. In that case we could create many seasons for new clubs, without any significant coverage. Qed237 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The article has been PRODded in the meantime. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Soccer-holic and JMHamo: Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015-16 Hereford F.C Season after PROD from JMHamo contested without explanation. Qed237 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Men's Football at the 2015 Pacific Games

Men's Football at the 2015 Pacific Games has received a bit of attention in the last day over New Zealand's disqualification for an ineligible player. Some eyes on these pages would be appreciated. Hack (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced seasons trying to show team position by week again

A discussion at Talk:2015 National Women's Soccer League season. We have some teams that have played 9 matches, others 10 through 12, yet there is a chart that shows position by "weeks". Feel free to discuss. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand what's deceptive about recording the standings for each week? For 1951 National League tie-breaker series people say the Dodgers "By August 10, ... were 12+1⁄2 games ahead of the Giants and 14+1⁄2 games ahead of the Phillies." The half-game clearly shows that they had not played the same number of games. However, I can't imagine anyone saying, "Talking about August 10 is misleading; tell me the standings after the Dodgers, Phillies, and Giants have played the same number of games." People understand that, mid-season, teams haven't played the same number of games, and it will be evened out by the end of the season, if necessary. Jjwyatt (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

International goals should be kept

Lately User:PeeJay2K3 has been going around removing the international goals section in many articles claiming that the debates here and here prove a clear conscientious on removing the goal section when in fact no clear conscientious was ever reached in these debates. International goals are fairly notable and generate significant media coverage, in my opinion they should be kept. True Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it an oligarchy where just because two or three editors get together all of a sudden it is set in stone. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried myself removing Andros Townsend goals but someone kept putting them back, even I understood that's was the consensus about removing them. anyway again I agree with what User:PeeJay2K3 is doing , It is just too much stats which if someone is really interested with can EASILY see when they click over national team source so not sure why do we need to list them at the encyclopedia? I hope we can get a clear cut consensus anyway to avoid this discussion in the future , I think this is the third similar topic in last 90 days I believe .Adnan (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Your argument has some validity but in my opinion international goals are an important aspect to one's career, there is significant coverage of international goals in the media, and the fact that all recognized international games are professional, therefore qualifying it for WP:FOOTYN which is enough to override the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If an individual player's international goals have been subject to significant coverage then create a separate article e.g. List of Pele international goals. If they haven't then there is no reason (per WP:NOTSTATS) to include them other than WP:ILIKEIT. GiantSnowman 17:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree, Inter&anthro. I've never seen international goals listed by any other media, except perhaps players' autobiographies. A list of international goals isn't exactly standard fare among football stats. A year-by-year list of international appearances/goals (see Ángel Di María#International) is probably fine, but a list of all a player's international goals has always seemed excessive. I've suggested it before, and it's been accepted for some players, but I think the best step is to create an article such as List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton for any player who has scored a significant number of goals. – PeeJay 17:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
As above (Peej, GiantSnowman) - the list of goals goes from the 1 cap wonder (Francis Jeffers) to the potentially amazing near double century level (Abby Wambach). It is not a consistent category of measure, covering friendlies (which typically are not notable in and of themselves) through to the results of major tournaments. As a raw statistic they are common enough, but the actual individual games are often inconsequential (and rarely of significant note). For instance while Wayne Rooneys 49 or so goals is an important total - who he scored his 11th and 18th are likely irrelevant. It also raises the spectre of "if we're listing goals, why not every cap?" or why aren't the clean sheets of Mohamed Al-Deayea important? So, in conclusion it can be overkill and leads to unnecessary arguments. Any significant goal / appearance should be dealt with as part of their career narrative. Koncorde (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think international goals add some interesting visual to the article and removing them would make the article seem rather bland, but there seems to be a concenciuos around you editors to remove them and my personal opinion doesn't matter for squat. Following up on the Abby Wamback article though could it be possible to list Notable international goals such as those scored at major international tournaments (ex FIFA World Cup, UEFA European Championship etc.) in the main article and then have a separate article for the international goal stats if it is significant (such as for Wamback or Pele)? Inter&anthro (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If you're going into a goal by goal record, it's better to do it in a separate article entirely as the notable goals will be dealt with in the body of the text. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, there pretty clearly isn't a consensus to remove these. An RfC has been suggested many times. Whether RSs use similar lists is entirely irrelevant in my opinion - although Wikipedia is entirely supported by reliable sources, that doesn't mean it's format has to be dictated by them! Also as suggested above, I'd advocate keeping them in until a certain number is reached, then splitting into a separate articles as is done in tennis (20 finals) and cricket (15 5-wicket halls etc). Anyone claiming that there is a consensus to remove need only look here to see that there isn't. Macosal (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this sort of information is useful and interesting. Clearly having them within individual articles is not to everyone's taste. Rather than lose this info by just deleting it, I would prefer the creation of "List of international goals scored by xxx" approach. There are already 14 such articles and they don't take a huge amount to start, a description of the player and a list of goals - e.g. List of international goals scored by Ian Rush.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed - as said above however, I feel that they should only be moved into their own articles at a certain number. WP:NOTSTATS suggests that statistical lists in text articles shouldn't be "long and sprawling", discussion could help assess what number that should be (I don't think players with only a few goals warrant their own goal articles, nor is this overly cumbersome to retain on the player's page). Macosal (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of the term "side".

The term "side" is used in several articles and is not readily known to those outside the sport either as participants or fans. It should be explained in the glossary. Although WP is not a dictionary, if the term is used in WP then it should be explained.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Messi honours

PeeJay2K3 believes that runner-up honours should not be listed and says there is concensus about it (see the discussion). But where? SLBedit (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the most relevant recent discussion, not sure there is consensus here. [[9]] Paul  Bradbury 22:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I believed that there was a consensus that they shouldn't be included too but couldn't point anywhere specific. That said, looking back there have been numerous discussions on this, none of which have had a clear cut outcome that I can see. Macosal (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the runner-up honours should be reinstated as it is useful information to the readers. SLBedit (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but to me they end up overcrowding honours sections with something which is not really an "honour" (and is often not the easiest to source). Further, it raises a whole bunch of other questions (eg how many league games does a player need to play if medals aren't handed out anyway? What about smaller tournaments with only 2-4 teams?) which aren't easily answered. Macosal (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably no consensus can be reached for all players or clubs. It's a case by case basis. Messi probably doesn't need all runner-ups. Other players sure. -Koppapa (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: why make exceptions? SLBedit (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Did we not decide that players with many honurs dont need to list runners-up also as i gets to much and is not an real honour? I dont see why Messi would need runners-up. Qed237 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
How much is many? SLBedit (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase an argument from WT:CRIC, Wikipedia articles should be predominantly prose-based, with supplementary sections to help summarise the key points of the article. Any time a player participates in any competition, provided it's sufficiently notable, it should be noted in the prose of the article, not just added to a (usually unsourced) list of honours. If anything must be added to a list of honours, it should only be times when the player actually won the competition. If we start getting into times when the player came second, we start getting into dicey territory: some competitions award medals for second/third place, most don't; if we start distinguishing between competitions based on the awarding of medals (or even making up our own criteria), we'd either end up with a gross inconsistency by only listing a select few runner-up "honours" or we'd have to list them all, which would lead to some being listed without good reason. But then there's a third option: not listing any runner-up "honours", which avoids the problem altogether and rather sticks more rigidly to the correct definition of what an honour actually is. – PeeJay 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not listing runner-up – in all articles – would be the best option. SLBedit (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
While this may be the easiest way I am not sure it is the correct one. An olympic silver medal is notable, a league cup one maybe less so, it may not be easy to do it on a case by case basis, but actually it's the only really relevant way to it. The core of the issue being, is coming second notable, olympics - yes, league cup - no (IMHO). I don't think you can blanket it, it is all about context. Sometimes it may be the case that the runner up was significant. I don't think we need to make up hard and fast rules about everything. Each case should be taken on its merits. Thats the Wikipedia way. Paul  Bradbury 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If finishing second in any competition is so notable to a player's career, it should be mentioned in the prose of the article. The honours section should just be for things the player has actually won (i.e. finished first). – PeeJay 10:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: Aren't these domestic runner-up honours overkill? SLBedit (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:CBF profile deprecated

The template mentioned above is deprecated, as the website does not contain any player profiles anymore. What should we do to it? MYS77 ✉ 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 08:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Appears that they've moved to a javascript format and have done the usual thing of breaking all the links. To see what I mean, go to the http://bid.cbf.com.br/ website change the date to 01/01/15 and hit 'Filtrar' then wait for a list of players whose contracts were amended on that date. Site hasn't been updated since 10th May 2015 and that was to mark a number of players as released or transferred. Doesn't appear to be any meaningful way for us to link to individual records anymore. Nanonic (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The website went offline. But before removing the template, a conversation table of CBF id and respective players should be created, may be by me. Matthew_hk tc 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Ilias

Do we have any Accrington Stanley supporters in here? If so, have they heard of a guy named Christopher Ilias who is supposed to have been playing for the team between 2006 and 2009? Or, given that there currently also is a BLP-tagged article named Christopherilias, which more or less is the same article, can this article even be speedied under some criteria? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No record on Soccerbase of any player with the surname Ilias playing in the English Football League within the last 20 years... almost definitely a hoax. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The bit in the article that says "Ilias helped Accrington Stabley (sic) win the league in 2006, 2007, 2008" kinda gives away that this is a hoax............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fb si player unused parameter

I have noticed that no one uses {{fb si player}}'s parameter ni ("nationality as international player (if different from nb)"). Instead, "Second nationality: COUNTRY" is added to notes. Why? SLBedit (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And why isn't written "Second nation"? A country's name is not a nationality/demonym. SLBedit (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably noones knows that parameter. Even the template itself isn't included on more than 500 pages. -Koppapa (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

National Team Badges being removed.

I noticed that User:Marchjuly has been removing national team logos from national team articles as the logos on the page were not for the team but for the football federation and that since the national team is a child entity it should not be used in the article. Instead, the logo of the team specifically should be used. Personally, to me, that is bull***. I mean, the teams wear the logos on their kits for gods sake. When the AFC or FIFA release tournament brackets or graphics on television they use the India FA logo to depict the national team, if not using the flag. Same for all other national teams. I just want someone to look into this... also I have not seen a discussion on this at all yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the logo per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Since the logos are licensed as non-free, there are restrictions on how they may be used. All 10 of the criteria specified in WP:NFCCP need to be satisified, including WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c. A valid non-free use rationale for these various uses cannot be written because of No. 17 of NFC#UUI. In addition, the stand-alone Wikipedia articles for each national federation can be wikilinked in the individual team articles, so the image is not needed in the team articles per WP:NFCC#8. If no stand-alone national federation article existed, I could see the use of the image satisfying WP:NFCC#8; Otherwise, I think the reasoning given in No. 17 is quite clear regarding usage. No. 6 of NFC#UUI probably also applies because the images can essentially be linked to by wikilinking to each federation's article.
There are precedents for this such as WP:NFCR#File:USA Hockey.svg as well as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#University of Sydney logos and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:FC Porto.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:SL Benfica logo.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, in addition to other examples in the NFCR archives. I'm not trying to be disruptive, but I believe copyright concerns should take precedence here. - 05:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for reference, the recently archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#Badges of reserve teams is pertinent to this discussion since it involves No. 17 of NFC#UUI. The specifics are slightly different, but the reasoning is the same. There would be no issue if the logos that I removed were freely licensed like File:Federata Shqiptare e Futbollit.svg or any of the other logos found at c:Category:Association football logos by country, but they were not so WP:NFC applies. Some of the removed logos may have been incorrectly licensed as "non-free", and might actually qualify as "{{PD-USonly}}" or "{{PD-logo}}", but those are different discussions and each image needs to be assessed independently of the other. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would raise the following objection to Marchjuly's rationale (although I note that from a technical standpoint there is nothing inherently wrong with their actions):
I would question the extent to which these actions really help fulfill the second element of the WP:NFCC rationale, namely, To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.
I'm just not sure how using a logo to illustrate the teams that exist solely under the auspices of a given federation instead of just the federation increases legal exposure in any real sense. I would appreciate some linking to discussion where it was made clear when these rules were agreed upon how the use of parent logo to illustrate child entities genuinely increased legal exposure in a practical sense. For example, is it realistic to consider that enWiki has greater legal exposure to the FA by using their logo to illustrate all their official teams, particularly when the FA do so themselves on the shirts of those teams?
If this cannot be shown, then I would reach the conclusion that this argument is purely bureaucratic as it has no substance in the real world and would therefore have no objections to editors WP:IARing in this instance, as there are clear opposing arguments that the presence of illustrative logos enhances the reader's understanding, namely that it assists in providing assurance to a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject that they are at the right article and that the logo and the team are in many circumstances inalienable (see references to players representing England as "wearing the three lions"). As such, I would call the validity of UUI#17 into question as a universally applicable rule. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, there's nothing wrong with discussing the NFC, but that seems to be something that needs to be discussed on a community-wide basis, i.e., at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions, and not something particular to this or any Wikiproject, especially since it involves the use of copyrighted content. Don't community-wide policies/guidelines typically take precendance over local consensuses per WP:CONLEVEL. No. 17 of UUI is not particulary targeting soccer (association football), but applies across the board to all subjects. If an exception can be made for a national football federation, then why can't a similar exemption be made for a telecommunications conglomerate, a national university, an automobile manufacturer, etc. The lack of individual branding for each national team does not mean that the national brand for the association should be allowed to used in team articles any more than it means that the logo for Mercedes-Benz should be alowed to be used in articles about the cars it makes.
Personally, I don't see how an article titled "English national football team" or "England women's national under-17 football team", etc. can be mistaken for anything other than what it is and I don't think there is any danger of a reader with no prior knowlege of the subject being confused about the article they are reading just because the article has no logo. The "three lions" logo is discussed in some detail and sourced in The Football Association, so it seems to be significant enough to the reader's understanding per WP:NFCC#8 that removing it would be detrimental. In the team articles, however, no such discussion takes place and the only time the "three lions" or "young lionesses", etc. is mentioned is in the infobox as the team's nickname. In such cases, I don't see how removing the image is detrimental to the reader's understanding of the team in any way, especially since the main association's Wikipedia article is wikilinked in the same infobox. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17 because it better for the community as whole to determine how and when No. 17 should be applied since WP:NFC is a community-wide guideline. I've tried to word my post as neutrally as possible and hope those who disagree with my position will also comment. There is a better chance of resolving this in a way that will stand the test of time if enough editors from both sides of the fence participate and talk things out. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So... are we going to come to a conclusion here? The India badge is still removed while others remain, that is harshly unfair and I do not like the lackadaisical attitude towards this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv needs admin attention

Can some admin look into keep IP editors from reverting FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv to a separate article? The club has assume the club name from the previous club FC Arsenal Kyiv and there is enough information from the club's website that they are assuming the club's history - all the way to 1925. The club wanted to used the same name but the Ukrainian Football Federation forced the club on formalities. However the club is quite clear in where they come from and their emblem has the same name. Also the Ukrainian Wikipedia is also using the same logic Арсенал (Київ). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It definitely is not two articles. The PFL of Ukraine has accepted the name Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv and the team also has inherited the history of the former club. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Really? [10] This article simply says: друга ліга – «Арсенал» Київ (without links to any history of the former club). 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, really! The official standings from the PFL have Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv PFL Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Official site [11] says simply Arsenal-Kyiv. Anyway, try to use WP:RM before copypasting of the text (to save edit history etc). 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrong! From the official site accepting the name of the team is the PFL and the club has accepted it and the history of the former club. История ФК «Арсенал» началась 90 лет назад - 14 июля 1925. History of the club Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It's no reason to violate rights of editors by copypasting instead of RM renaming. Compare also: FC Skala Stryi (2004) and FC Skala Stryi. 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stay to the topic at hand and stop reverting. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please create new section on WP:RM or WP:MERGE before moving the page by copypasting. 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
How about you registering and doing it? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
How about WP:Equality? 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are equally capable of setting up a discussion about reverting.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Your edits were made without WP:Consensus. I only restored the previous situation. 46.200.35.143 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is need your reverts. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have found a next reply: About Arsenal Kiev, I do not see consistency in your logic. FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv and FC Obolon Kyiv we do not merge, but Arsenal Kyiv and Arsenal-Kiev Kyiv we merge. Look at the website of the Professional Football League of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev. So the consensus is 2 vs 1 against you. 46.200.35.143 (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There is enough evidence from the references given that the club is one in the same. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No any evidence. Similar situations (Obolon, Arsenal, Skala) but different solutions, why? 46.200.35.143 (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Those other teams need to get merged as well. Why don't you start? 02:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are very lucky I didn't block you lengthy periods of time for this and this. Can someone uninvolved tell me what's going on? --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, both blocked for this. --NeilN talk to me 02:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wanderson Carvalho de Oliveira

Hi. A quick question, is Wanderson Carvalho de Oliveira notable? Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

He appears to meet WP:NFOOTY and therefore WP:GNG based on playing more than 50 games in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série C 3rd tier Brazilian professional league. Notable however, not sure. I think WP:NFOOTY is deeply flawed. Paul  Bradbury 15:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he is notable per NFOOTBALL, he has played in Série B per Soccerway. Needs improving though... GiantSnowman 15:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
He played his first game in K League Classic on the weekend, so definitely notable. Not really sure if you could call Série C a league. Hack (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Two articles for the same player

Hello to you all, and sorry to come with a similar request than one I did not so long ago. Player Xavier Chavalerin has 2 pages, one with the right spelling and one with a spelling mistake. Correct spelling can be seen on his new club official site, or his official league profile. If I remember correctly, this issue is solved by a simple page redirect but I wanted to be sure before doing it. Thanks in advance for your answer(s). Tuttiseme (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah redirect it. – Michael (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Squads of main competitions

Hello to you all, I'm French, so excuse-me for my potential approximative english. As I was creating pages of all players in Euro competitions in the French WP by using English WP, I noticed that 1964 European Nations' Cup squads has players (these with no pages) that aren't in the sources (RSSSF). Then I see that Special:Contributions/189.214.5.36 has made modifications last year which are as well strange to me. Are these modifications justified ? Thanks --Kiply (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could a footballers official Facebook, Twitter, Instagram ect.. accounts be included in external links? I'm going to assume they are allowed because I just read WP:LINKSTOAVOID and number 9 says social networking sites shouldn't be allowed. However, at the top it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" and a footballer's official social network page comes under that, right?Thursby16 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) @Pbradbury:

I think a social media site is OK if that is in effect really the player's official website per WP:ELOFFICIAL. I would, however, be aware of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and not automatically add every social media site the player has. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. SLBedit (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Dual" national for Yugoslavia and Soviet Union

The caps of Russian for Soviet Union, CIS and Russia Team should or should not break down to respective team, or in the infobox as one item: USSR/CIS/Russia. Same rule apply, for SFR Yugoslavia, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia, should or should not break down to respective teams? Matthew_hk tc 13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Igor Kolyvanov, for example, breaks it down into USSR/CIS/Russia. Although they are successor teams, I think it is actually quite informative to break it down like this. It's not like it's a country changing names (I wouldn't expect to see it split for someone who played for Sri Lanka over the time period when it went from being Ceylon to Sri Lanka). Number 57 13:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Marking all edits minor

JRRobinson (talk · contribs) always marks ALL edits as minor. What can be done? JMHamo (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Warn him. If user ignores the warning. Report it to admins. SLBedit (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
So? If his edits are useful, who cares how he marks them. -Koppapa (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It's incorrect usage. SLBedit (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Omar Sowunmi - notability?

Hi all,
Do four games at Braintree Town F.C. get this player over WP:NFOOTBALL? I can never remember the technicalities to do with lower level teams here. Is Braintree Town fully professional?
Thanks! Pete "the football, football, football, football, football, etc, fan" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

According to [this], no Paul  Bradbury 09:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The National League is not a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian Women's International Goals

Hi all, I would like to ask why the international goal table for Brazilian women footballers have different style as the mens? As example in Cristiane, Formiga,Rosana dos Santos Augusto and Marta. The mens used a more common table, such as Kaká and Dani Alves. Could anyone explain the reason for the womens article having such style? Particularly, I dont understand the meaning of the "#" column on the womens article. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Context - MbahGondrong is engaging in a spate of quite lame wikihounding after I and another editor asked them to put more effort into their poorly-constructed stub articles. See for example Beatriz Vaz e Silva, where they are edit-warring factual errors into the article. There isn't so much a question mark but an exclamation mark over this editor's competence. Målfarlig! (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, enough with your insults and stay in context with your replies. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that MbahGondrong is a Zombie433 sock. They revel in introducing false information in the guise of very short stubs written in pidgin English eg. María Belén Potassa, Shelina Zadorsky. Målfarlig! (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Spaces in Scorelines

There's one editor on 2015–16 Fulham F.C. season that is insisting scorelines should not have spaces in them, and this looks like it may end up in an edit war. In my opinion, having spaces makes the article look better and looks more professional. He's pointing to WP:ENDASH, which I don't think covers sporting events. Just to compare, though, for example, I believe the bottom is better:

11 July 2015 (2015-07-11) Training Match Fulham 3–1 Aston Villa Albufeira, Portugal
19:30 CEST Smith 22'
Kačaniklić 67'
McCormack 86'		 Report Kozák 56' Stadium: Estadio Da Nora
11 July 2015 (2015-07-11) Training Match Fulham 3 – 1 Aston Villa Albufeira, Portugal
19:30 CEST Smith 22'
Kačaniklić 67'
McCormack 86'		 Report Kozák 56' Stadium: Estadio Da Nora

Would appreciate a consensus and feedback on this. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENDASH clearly states "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space". I'm afraid trying to make the page "look better" is not just cause to contravene a well-established MOS guideline. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As I've said already, it's not solely an aesthitic case (or however you spell it). It's more the fact that this is what has been done for the vast majority of footballing articles, and since I took an interest in updating my team's page, Fulham, in 2013-14, I based myself on already existing conventions. Perhaps it should be a - rather than a –, but even so, I doubt the scoreline counts as a "range", rather that it's meant to be applied in the case of prose - so an example like this would be correct as I'm not using the slightly longer dash - my interpretation of this is different to yours. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you think it applies to sporting events? Why wouldn't it? Målfarlig! (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that practically every football article I've seen has spaces in it reaffirms my mind on this issue... Spa-Franks (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
All the major sports events (at least football) like UEFA Champions League seasons (2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage as an example) and FIFA World Cup articles has without spaces and I have seen more and more without the extra space. Also the template documentation, how to use the template, is without space. It should in my mind be the "tight" option on top and that is the alternative I always use. Qed237 (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I took the top10 teams from Premier League last season (united and stoke not using the boxes) and saw all of them were tight (see 2014–15 Chelsea F.C. season, 2014–15 Manchester City F.C. season, 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season, 2014–15 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, 2014–15 Liverpool F.C. season, 2014–15 Southampton F.C. season, 2014–15 Swansea City A.F.C. season, 2014–15 Crystal Palace F.C. season). The same also for other high profile teams like 2014–15 FC Barcelona season, 2014–15 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season, 2014–15 Juventus F.C. season and almost everywhere I look like Champinos League as said above, or FA Cup, or Europa League, or FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euro 2016 qualification and so on. Qed237 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
And just because something has been done in the past does not make it right. Qed237 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Unspaced is correct. Nothing more to discuss here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy

I have nominated the above for deletion, however i acknowledge the project should have a flag guideline. This as discussed is not a policy or guideline but more of an editors essay. It would maybe be better moved to a draft or user space.

Would anyone be interested in working on a more up to date and accurate flag guideline for the project and put it to the project for updated consensus. It's clear we need one.Blethering Scot 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms

I was reading a news item that mentioned Thomas Rongen earlier today, which reminded me of the film Next Goal Wins. This got me thinking about that phrase – if you said to most people in the UK, I would imagine they would think of the informal football game format rather than the film

Looking at the Glossary of association football terms article, it doesn't seem to have many words used in informal football – "rush keeper" being the next one I looked for. There are also myriad terms for the version of a rush keeper where any nearby player can act as the goalie (at my school it was known as "monkey", but I know from playing with people from different parts of England that there are a few other names for it – please weigh in with yours!).

Do these terms have a place in the glossary? Number 57 11:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Other ones off the top of my head: "Headers and volleys", "Wembley" (as in the version where you have multiple one or two-player teams attacking one goal – I think I've also heard this referred to as "Cupsies"). Also surprised to see "goal-hanger" is not listed. Number 57 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just realised that we have articles for some of these: Rush goalie, Cubbies etc. Number 57 11:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Since they're terms used only for informal versions of football, I don't think they belong in the glossary. I don't even think they should have their own articles, but that's not what you asked. – PeeJay 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe create a separate article (if you can find RS backing up the uses) about childhood/alternative forms of football? GiantSnowman 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: Shouldn't Cubbies be deleted anyway? JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? It's an almost universal thing amongst schoolkids, so clearly notable. Number 57 16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

At AfD now : Cubbies AfD.. Thanks ChrisTheDude... JMHamo (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's "clearly notable" then reliable sources will be available to back that up. Personally I couldn't find any..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I found several and have added them to the article. Number 57 19:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keylor Navas

User:Kante4, as he is perfectly entitled, removed the cited fact that Navas has inherited Iker Casillas' #1 shirt. I would like a discussion as I see this as a worthy edition: Unlike most number changes which are added in, this is sourced, and the number is symbolic not just as it was worn by IC, but that it is often associated with the main-choice goalkeeper. Then again you can call that synth, but the number change itself is sourced '''tAD''' (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just don't think it is important to their career(s) and just trivia information. If people agree to have it in the articles, ok but i'm not for it. Kante4 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this at Talk:Keylor Navas. JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tautologous Nordic club names

User:Qed237 has been changing a lot of articles about recent Champions League/Europa League seasons to include tautologous names such as VPS Vaasa, RoPS Rovaniemi and ÍF Fuglafjørður. For a start, the article titles are horribly inconsistent, but my main concern is that these names are tautologous and therefore wrong. As one editor who moved HJK Helsinki to Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi a few years ago said, referring to HJK by the name "HJK Helsinki" is like referring to Manchester United as "Manchester United Manchester". Article titles are one thing, but can we at least agree that we shouldn't be piping to wrong names in article text? – PeeJay 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article name should be at the WP:COMMONNAME (whatever it is) and the piping should then reflect that. Also Sporting Lisbon, AZ Alkmaar etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)
Then what the hell do we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) for? WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only criterion by which articles should be named. – PeeJay 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The COMMONNAME for football clubs being, for example, 'Manchester United F.C.' and not 'Man Utd' or 'Manchester United Football Club'...jeez, calm down! GiantSnowman 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said on my talkpage, look for example at Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho, the article states Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho (or SJK Seinäjoki or SJK) is a Finnish football club and UEFA and others say "SJK Seinäjoki" then why should we not pipe to what UEFA use and what is COMMONNAME in a UEFA competition? Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
For example I also looked at BBC, as an example to see commonname in English media. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, but the whole Inter Milan farce has got me pretty ticked. Are you suggesting that "Sporting Lisbon" and "AZ Alkmaar" should be used or not? – PeeJay 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No they should not. GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: so "SJK Seinäjoki" like UEFA use or just "SJK"? "HJK Helsinki" (where article is) or just "HJK"? and the others mentioned above? Qed237 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Either the proper name (e.g. Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho) or the abbreviation (e.g. SJK (football club) - but not SJK Seinäjoki. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Then we should look at a whole lot of articles, that is probably in the wrong place. Qed237 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and PeeJay2K3: If no one here opposes I can move "HJK Helsinki" to "Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi"? Should ÍF Fuglafjørður and similar also be moved and to what? "Ítróttarfelag Fuglafjarðar" or "ÍF (football club)", and the other as redirect? Also, I will go through the articles again and remove the edits I made if that is what we decide. Qed237 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it if they were at HJK (football club), ÍF (football club), etc. The name "Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi" isn't exactly recognisable, per WP:NC, nor is it particularly natural or concise, whereas "HJK" is recognisable as part of "HJK Helsinki", it's concise, natural, precise and consistent. If it weren't for the presence of Hærens Jegerkommando, I'd suggest moving it to HJK, but that's a dab page. – PeeJay 19:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine the football club is a fairly obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the HJK location (and there's only one other article on that DAB pages, to WP:TWODABS applies too). Perhaps also worth mentioning the unanimous support for the RM at AZ Aklmaar, which Mr Snowman was amongst those voting in favour of ;) Number 57 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can agree with that. And with those article names, the piping is very natural and there wont be discussions like this one (or at least fewer discussions). I will await a few more response (or at least some time) though to let others have a say. Do you think a move would be controversial so we have to go through RM? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
By the logic above we should request a new move for AZ? We can not have AZ Alkmaar, but say HJK Helsinki is wrong. We need some consistency here. Qed237 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've learned that inconsistency is something you have to put up with here, mainly due to the fact that the sources we use aren't even consistent among themselves. But no, we can't accept Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar without also accepting Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi Helsinki. After all, we already have N.E.C. (football club) instead of NEC Nijmegen (Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie Nijmegen). – PeeJay 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3, Number 57, and GiantSnowman: So what is next step here to get consistency? A new move request for AZ Alkmaar to move to AZ (football club) and then start moving the other Tauntologies? Or should we move Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho to "SJK Seinäjoki" to be consistent with the AZ article? Qed237 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes - and AZ was at 'AZ (football club)' at one point as well... GiantSnowman 09:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3, Number 57, and GiantSnowman: Now move requested at Talk:AZ Alkmaar#Requested move 21 July 2015. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Guti Ribeiro

Is this guy notable, teammates? Per this source (see here http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=198412010005, Portuguese as him), only top flight competition he appeared in was the Indonesian Premier League, does this grant him notability and/or WP article? Other than that, we have Spanish fourth and fifth level, Greek/German third level, Maltese second level and Cypriot second level, not your average full pro, hey?

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Indonesian Premier League is the 2nd division in Indonesia and is not fully-pro. Therefore he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and is non-notable. GiantSnowman 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The original poster is mistaken: the club Persijap Jepara were in the Indonesia Super League in the season he was with them. Additionally, the Greek 3rd tier is listed as fully pro. Some of the content looks invented, though. The FDJ link provided doesn't mention his playing for Sportfreunde Siegen, but the article claims 33 apps/7 goals. Fussballdaten lists nobody with a name like his in either their 04/05 or 05/06 squads, so it's unlikely he did play for them. Nor does FDJ mention Anagennisi Karditsa, who were Greek 2nd tier in the season he was supposed to be with them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How come is the Greek third tier fully pro? I honestly thought (me again, not doing my wiki-homework...) that the only case where anything below the second division was fully professional was England, and maybe Scotland. Are there more countries Struway, please? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:FPL and sources listed there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, according to SOCCERWAY.com (which I have now retrieved to his page), he did play pro footy in the Greek second tier (Anagennisi), well mentioned by you sir. Also, some of the stats seemed well toyed with (especially those 112/72 in TWO seasons with Almada), I adjusted them with the help of (mainly) FDJ.

Thanks to both for your inputs, continue with the good work --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea big squad

Hi, Could someone take a look at 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season#First Team Squad? It is more than 40 players (league has max 25?) and a lot of unsourced info not needed, like transfer fee. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, most of the info in that table is irrelevant. What difference does it make to that season how many appearances each player has made for Chelsea, or the club they joined from and what year? See if you can tally the squad list against Chelsea's first-team squad on their website, and delete the unnecessary columns. – PeeJay 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Will do. I have already deleted a section for "pre-season squad" and a section for the stats of loaned out players (their stats at an other club). Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: Should players on loan be on that list or is it only players that has been in actual squad during the season? Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I have the right to say join the discussion here but pls let me say a few words here. So first of all the premier league allows unlimited number of under-21 players to represent the first team without registration (out of the 25-players-list), and most of the under-21 players have been training with the first team through the last season so they may represent the first team this year as there is no limitation on the registration of the players. Therefore the under-21 players should be kept in the first team list. If you really think the squad is to big and is unacceptable, pls edit them after the close of the transfer window as some of them are believed to be loaned out. It's not late to edit it after 1st Sept right? 1.36.106.249 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What always irks me is the transfer fee column, most transfers fees are undisclosed by the club, so the transfer fees listed are no more than a guess. Get rid! JMHamo (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is acceptable to show the transfer fee, appearance and goal etc as they give a full picture of the squad such as the years of service, value and contribution etc . And as a Chelsea fan I think it would be a great if I can see most of the information in one page.1.36.106.249 (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
While for the stats of the loan players, yes they are loaned to other teams but they are still Chelsea players so I think their season stats can be showed at the page. But it is not bad to delete it.1.36.106.249 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Finally pls let me apologize to User:Qed237 as I didnt know there is a discussion here and I treated your edition as malicious.1.36.106.249 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, no problem. Qed237 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Will people please remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a football magazine. If there are no reliable sources, then it should go, it doesn't matter that you think it looks nice. JMHamo (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You can always compare to 2014–15 Liverpool F.C. season and how that list looks know after we discussed very well how that should look. Transfer fees are unsourced speculations and players should only be added if they can be source as a part of first team squad. Also what team player came from is interesting in transfer section but not for this season (if the player came a long time ago) and same applies for total appearances and goals, it does not belong to this season but can be seen at the player articles. Qed237 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the players' dates of birth and ages need to be included. I don't see how they're relevant to the season. – PeeJay 19:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A little off point, but First Team Squad should read as First team squad as per WP:CAPS. --Jimbo[online] 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

American NWSL categorization of players

Can one of you football experts take a look at Category:National Women's Soccer League players? It appears to include the same players in this main category, as well as the subcategories broken out by team. As a general rule of Wikipedia categorization, we do not include a subject in both a parent category and a subcategory of the parent -- am I missing something here that is specific to football/soccer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That is normal for football/soccer - being in Category:National Women's Soccer League players means you have played in a league game, being in a team's category means you have been on the team's roster. GiantSnowman 18:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, some teams like Boston Breakers and Chicago Red Stars have played in multiple leagues. For example, Boston has played in WUSA and WPS, and obviously, many early Breakers players are not NWSL players. Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Got it: there is some logic for it in the case NWSL teams and players. Thanks, y'all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Athletic Bilbao official website has changed configuration for the umpteenth time. User:MYS77 has already kindly "revived" all the links for the current players, but is there any way to do the same for the HUNDREDS of old ones? Or do we have to do it manually?

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQUEST. GiantSnowman 12:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Uche Ikpeazu

Born in England to Nigerian parents, he hasn't represented any country yet at youth level. However in this interview he is asked "Do you see yourself as Nigerian or English?" and he says "I see myself as a Nigerian". So do we put a Nigerian flag rather than an English flag?--EchetusXe 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No I would say stick with country of birth until its proved otherwise. If he is called up and accepts for any Nigerian international squad then sure. Paul  Bradbury 12:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As he hasn't represented any country, no flag is necessary. Johnlp (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Soccerbase gives the answer. Number 57 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As a living person his view on his nationality has to actually be considered. if there is a reliable source stating he is Nigerian through an interview with him then that has to be acknowledged in some way. Also he is probably eligible for dual nationality.Blethering Scot 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
He is asked explicitly here if he sees himself as English or Nigerian, and he says Nigerian. In my view we should respect this, at least to some degree, as this is a WP:BLP. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
FIFA do not take into consideration personal views when assigning nationality to players. His views can be mentioned in his article, but where he is listed in squads, it would be under his nationality as described by reliable sources. Number 57 16:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tomáš Kalas

Kalas has had two loan spells at Middlesbrough. The first ended, and he returned to Chelsea and could not train at Middlesbrough (I assume he trained in some aspect at Chelsea from then on). Months later, without playing any more games for Chelsea, he returned to Boro. Should the infobox feature two loan spells at Boro, or one? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's two distinct spells. The contract for the first one was time limited to mid-April (due to FL regulations), which meant he couldn't play in Middlesbrough's last few games of the season (his last club game of 2014/15 was on 17 April). So at that point he was no longer in contract to Middlesbrough. The second loan just started. The fact he did not play for Chelsea in the interim is immaterial. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Barton's nationality

This guy represented Northern Ireland and then later Republic of Ireland under-21s, but was born in England. What's his "correct" nationality? According to FIFA, he would be Irish, right? Because ThePeoplesGame is insisting that he is English. MYS77 ✉ 15:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the user mentioned above failed to provide any sources and breached WP:3RR. MYS77 ✉ 15:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
ROI, I would say. GiantSnowman 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. It's whoever he played for most recently. Number 57 15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, Number 57: Thanks for the inputs. That's what I told the guy, but he reverted me a lot of times... MYS77 ✉ 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've warned him for 3RR. GiantSnowman 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly I would appreciate it if you wouldn't delete the comments that I am making on this talk page, I would rather have a mature conversation about the matter so please stop. Secondly I am politely asking for somebody to cite a reliable reference for the changes made regarding Adam Barton's nationality & for the FIFA rulings that determine one's nationality. I would also ask you all to stop making the rather ignorant assumption that I am male. I ask for you all to demonstrate at least some degree of maturity here in the interests of providing an accurate Wikipedia page. Thank you ThePeoplesGame (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ThePeoplesGame: It doesn't appear that anyone has deleted any comments, the above is the only edit you have ever made to this page. As far as wikipedia goes we use the flag of the nation the player is eligible to represent, if there are several of these and the player has played for one or more of them the nation they most recently played for is the nation that is used. In this case that would be ROI. Paul  Bradbury 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Pbradbury: for your reply however I had left comments this time yesterday that no longer appear here. Thank you for clarifying the situation re: FIFA nationality & Adam Barton's nationality however in the interests of accuracy a citation/reference would also help. Kind regards ThePeoplesGame (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You have not left a message here before - see this list of your contributions. Maybe you typed it but it didn't save? GiantSnowman 18:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Giant Maybe not ThePeoplesGame (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiener AF

Hi, we have an issue with an editor that has several Drafts declined but he goes ahead and move article himself to mainspace anyway. I reported to ANI. For that reason I started to look at his creations (please help) and saw Wiener AF. Is this article notable? Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's about a club that won the Austrian championship and the Austrian Cup. I don't see how it's notability can be doubted :s Number 57 13:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Season articles and youths

Hi, I have been under the impression that season articles are for the senior team, but User:Parxpower does not agree and re-added development squad, youth transfers (in and out), pre-season friendlies and U21 league matches. Can we get some clarity here? Are these articles for senior team only or youth also? Qed237 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NSEASONS says quite clearly that individual season articles are acceptable for teams in top professional leagues. Only the senior team fulfills this criterion. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree I think the articles should contain only the matches of the first team, the players and transfers are more of a grey area as its not always clear that they are not signed for the first team and also if they are under 21 are eligible without being listed in official squad lists. Paul  Bradbury 11:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd also note that NSEASONS is is also clear to stress the importance of sourced prose. If there are notable interactions between the senior and youth teams they can of course be discussed, but with an eye on WP:NOTSTATS we should definitely avoid excessive listing of minor results / transfers / squads. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course only the main team stats/results/squad should be added. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

statto.com

appears to be down. Clicking on the main page gives a webhosting page, and any other page comes up as 404. Given how much it's used for sourcing tables, results and the like, I do hope it's nothing terminal. Anyone know anything? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: After a quick research, it seems that it'll be back soon. Just some problems with the server, I guess. MYS77 ✉ 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, hope you're right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still down. The placeholder text refers to their Twitter account, but the latter is empty. 213.156.113.58 (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Port Vale F.C. third kit

In danger of breaking the 3RR User:RichardOwen97. He is basing his edits on this source. I have emailed historicalkits.co.uk to correct them mistakenly listing the purple alternate kit as the team's main away kit. The amber kit is listed as the away kit here, with the purple strip as the third kit. The purple strip was released as an alternative kit for one match last season, with the club's website stating "a shirt which we will continue to use occasionally both this season and next". Speaking in May 2015 chairman Smurthwaite announced that "I have also made the decision not to replace the away shirt because I understand the costs associated for fans supporting a football club". No source states that the purple kit has replaced the amber/black kit as the club's away kit for this season.--EchetusXe 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have sent that second link to me on the first revert, haha! I'm surprised, Historical Kits is normally very reliable. I apologise for this little event :) --RichardOwen97 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fine, your shade of purple is better.--EchetusXe 23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Enoch Barwuah

New article about Enoch Barwuah. His brother, Mario Balotelli, is notable. I'm not sure this subject is. Someone more informed on Italian football should investigate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I did BLPPROD the article when I saw it as it is completely unsourced, but I can not imagine it being notable either, although I have not taken a closer look. Qed237 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Refs have been added, so I removed the BLPprod. Probably worth taking it to AFD. Hack (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have taken it to AfD as a fundamentally non-notable footballer who's only current claim to fame is to be someone's brother. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Flesh out an article/notability?

Hey, can someone go take a look at Jeff Reine-Adelaïde? It was up for speedy deletion via A7 and I'm just familiar enough with football to know that the Arsenals is a professional team, which is a good assertion of notability. However I'm not familiar enough to know if the Emirates Cup would be enough to have him firmly pass NFOOTY, although I will note that a quick glance at news coverage shows that he was fairly well lauded as a golden boy by the team's manager so even if it isn't it looks like there may be enough coverage for him to pass as a whole. This definitely needs some TLC from someone who is more familiar with the sport than I am. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A 17 year-old player who has now played in a friendly game and no games at all in a pro-league (or cup). Much is expected of him but his career so far amounts to very little. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
A case of WP:TOOSOON. Not notable as has only played friendly / youth games. have taken to AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road up for FAC

As we run up to the 80th anniversary of Carrow Road, and a celebratory match against West Ham, the article's had a good old polish and is now almost as glorious as the team that plays at the ground. ;-) I'd welcome some supports or constructive criticism at the review page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carrow Road/archive1 Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Team names and piping

I have had a discussion at my talkpage with User:Klõps regarding piping of team names in {{2015 Meistriliiga table}} and since we can not agree any input would be appreciated.

The discussion is mainly about how to pipe the clubs Tartu JK Tammeka and Viljandi JK Tulevik.

When I created the table I made these pipings:

I made the pipings based on different pages and how other display the teams, according to

Team\Site UEFA FIFA Estonian league Soccerway Flashscore Livefootball
FC Flora FC Flora Tallinn Flora Tallinn Tallinna FC Flora Flora Flora Flora Tallinn
FC Infonet FC Infonet Tallinn FC Infonet Tallinna FC Infonet Tallinna Infonet Infonet Infonet Tallinn
FC Levadia Tallinn FC Levadia Tallinn FC Levadia Tallinn Tallinna FC Levadia Levadia Levadia Levadia Tallinn
JK Narva Trans JK Narva Trans Trans Narva JK Narva Trans Trans Narva Trans Narva
Nõmme Kalju FC Nõmme Kalju FC Kalju Nõmme Nõmme Kalju FC Nõmme Kalju Kalju Nomme JK Kalju
JK Sillamäe Kalev JK Sillamäe Kalev Kalev Sillamäe JK Sillamäe Kalev Sillamäe Kalev Sillamäe Kalev JK Sillamae Kalev
Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond
Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond
Tartu JK Tammeka JK Tammeka Tartu Tammeka Tartu Tartu JK Tammeka Tammeka Tammeka Tartu Tammeka
Viljandi JK Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Viljandi Viljandi JK Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Viljandi

Looking at the table above (undisputed top 8 first), FC Flora is mainly known as "Flora Tallinn" internationally and when playing in UEFA competitions (Champions league and Europa league) and the top 8 seems pretty standard. Perhaps FC Infonet should be piped to "Infonet Tallinn" instead of just "Infonet"?

But the two last teams are in dispute. Not a single source, except the estonian league, lists Tammeka as "Tartu Tammeka" that User:Klõps tried changing to but all seems to start with Tammeka and to list as "Tammeka Tartu" doers not seem wrong? Same for Tulevik.

Also if/when they will play in Europa League or Champions League I feel like many sources, like BBC, will just follow UEFA and they will be Tammeka Tartu as WP:COMMONNAME just like FC Flora is known as "Flora Tallinn".

User:Klõps does not agree, referring to jktammeka.ee and jktulevik.ee to verify their real name and say we should follow the real names on the estonian association page and not rearrange the words (while I think WP:COMMONNAME). I will let him respond with his arguments more himself, if he feel it is needed.

Please help. Do you have any input? Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be used for any piping, e.g. Flora Tallinn or Levadia Tallinn. Number 57 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: So how would you pipe the last two teams? And "Infonet Tallinn" or just "Infonet"? Qed237 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I confess that I have no idea what the common names of those clubs are. Number 57 14:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This table is too chaotic to make any meaningful conclusion. All we can say is that no one cares how these clubs are called really... even UEFA has different names in different seasons in their competition history. So no commonname here. What I can say is that Flora Tallinn and Levadia Tallinn are quite common. Nõmme Kalju FC decided to make their name more international few years ago, they were called JK Nõmme Kalju (JK Estonian for FC). Tartu JK Tammeka used to be JK Tartu Tammeka [12] until the club become insolvent before 2014 season and in the final moment the academy part of the club took over the league entry making only this small change in the name. So I don't see any point in this commonname thing... just leave them as they are. --Klõps (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably worth mentioning that many of these clubs put the city name before the actual club name in the Estonian version, (Nomme Kalju, Narva Trans - the cities are Nomme and Narva) which may confuse international readers.-BlameRuiner (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Table is chaotic? How? Both UEFA and FIFA has very similar ways of naming the teams and we should follow thoses (removing FC and JK). WP:COMMONNAME is clear. BlameRuiner has a good point which is why we should go by their most common name. Qed237 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, of cause they are similar, there aren't that much options after all. Still only UEFA and FIFA only agree in 5 of 10 cases. I'd agree there probably is no common name for them in English. It doesn't really matter, Nomme Kalju, Kalju Nomme, most people will see that as the same club. -Koppapa (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So as we had no consensus here. I removed the place names from Tammeka, Tulevik and Infonet (as it has been in Estonian league articles before) and which I think is clearest to understand for people from other countries. And the place names aren't commonly used in Estonia. Two seconds later Qed237 undid my edit and the matches update. --Klõps (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It was said COMMONNAME should be used and looking at the table above, Tammeka Tartu is the commonname used in English media. Qed237 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the conclusion that there is commonname. You say that these are commonnames. Besides me there are two others who say no commonname and one person who did not disclose their opinion. --Klõps (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I count to one editor to use commonname, one does not say and the last one saying commonname but not sure if any exists. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok You count them this way, but how does this don't know what the commonname is support Your pushing of these names that You like... No one has supported Your claim. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Any more input on this? "Tammeka" or "Tammeka Tartu"? "Infonet" or "Infonet Tallinn"? "Tulevik" or "Tulevik Viljandi"? Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would use the names in the Soccerway column for piping purposes as a compromise. They just seem to be the smallest common denominator of all options, yet may perfectly fit the mould. Plus, people interested in the club will follow the link anyway. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That is how it use to be before Qeds table template update.--Klõps (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I would go with "Tammeka Tartu", "Infonet Tallinn" and "Tulevik Viljandi". Kante4 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, I dont see why we can not list "Tartu" when it is a part of team name and they all have it except Soccerway and Livefootball. Nothing wrong with more info. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You know very well, that this kind of table-ing isn't the way these things are decided... reading one, two three in a table does not give valid result as there are n-number of sources and three out of n is inconclusive result. Btw if you go by the table then just Tulevik has three votes against two for each Tulevik Viljandi and Viljandi Tulevik, same for Infonet table gives priority for just Infonet. "when it is a part of team name" takes us back to square one... You say, without any conclusive evidence, that the commonname is Tammeka Tartu but not Tartu Tammeka. --Klõps (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Qed237 still continues the edit fight. I can't see a clear support for his versions of commonnames here as he claims to have. --Klõps (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, and I have explained to you that the majority of source above use "Tartu" and the so should we (and it also exists in their real name). "Tammeka Tartu" is then the most common. Qed237 (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Most people here have said no idea what the commonname is. The table is inconclusive. You can't use the table to back up your claims for Tulevik Viljandi and Infonet Tallinn which You are also doing. --Klõps (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As Qed237 asked me to read the discussion again with neutral eyes [13] then...

  • Qed237 made a table and an argument that as Flora Tallinn has Tallinn, the location, in the end the teams he mentions should have commonname this way... but then he mistaked that in Nõmme Kalju and Sillamäe Kalev Kalju and Kalev to be locations[14] but actually Nõmme is a a district in Tallinn and Sillamäe is a industrial town in east Estonia.
  • Number 57 said that he as no idea what the common names are.
  • BlameRuiner remarked that it's confusing for international readers as there are teams that have town name in front and others that have it in the end.
  • Koppapa noted that UEFA and FIFA only agree in 5 of 10 cases and agrees that there probably is no common name.
  • Soccer-holic noted that the Soccerway column would be the best for piping as they have smallest common denominator.
  • Kante4 is the first to support Qed237s version of the common names.--Klõps (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You are an administrator active in this project but have not had any involvment in this never ending discussion. Could you please get an end to this somehow? What is the consensus according to the discussion above? Or do you have any personal comment you would like to add? I fresh set of eyes in this discussion would be appreciated as this dont seems to end. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Pipings should be based on the article location (i.e. the club's actual name!), not colloquial/tautological names. If reliable sources support such a colloquial/tautological name, then a move discussion should take place. GiantSnowman 14:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: So in that case how would you pipe Tartu JK Tammeka and Viljandi JK Tulevik. Klõps wants only "Tammeka" and "Tulevik" while I want both names included in the piping "Tammeka Tartu" and "Tulevik Viljandi" as that is most common. (Also what Kante4 said above.) Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In those examples, I'd have 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik'. GiantSnowman 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Lets make a summary:

  • Klõps wants only 'Infonet', 'Tammeka' and 'Tulevik' as that is how they have been displayed in the past (WP:OSE?)
  • I (Qed237) want to include 'Tartu' and 'Viljandi' and make it 'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tammeka Tartu' and 'Tulevik Viljandi' as those are the most common names and as this is how they will be known if they would enter a UEFA competition. Also both names exists in article names. Also seeing in the table above 4 of 7 use 'Tallinn' for FC Infonet (weak majority), only 2 of 7 does not have 'Tartu' and 3 of 7 does not have 'Tulevik' (majority to use both names).
  • Number 57 then said that the WP:COMMONNAME should be used, just that he does not know what the commonname is.
  • BlameRuiner said that Estonian club names could be confusing, without letting us know his opinion on these teams and how they should be piped.
  • Koppapa says there probably is no common name for them in English also without letting us know his opinion on these teams and how they should be piped.
  • Soccer-holic then was the first and only editor to agree with Klõps as to use the smallest common denominator (not how we usually do it).
  • Kante4 supported the view of using both names and said I would go with "Tammeka Tartu", "Infonet Tallinn" and "Tulevik Viljandi".
  • GiantSnowman was the latest to answer and said that Pipings should be based on the article location and to use 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik'. Also this is using both words in the piping.

Does anyone has anything to add? The most common is to use both words and both are also in the article name. "Tammeka Tartu" or "Tartu Tammeka" does not make much difference but it seems like both should be used, although Klõps still disagrees.

More comments? Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are You so ignorant and hostile against me??? Even so that You will even lie? As You know very well from the long discussions and edits my first choice was Tartu Tammeka and Viljandi Tulevik [15], second choise was just Tammeka and Tulevik.. and I was just against using Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi... I said You in the discussion that your versions are like using United Manchester etc. As discussion here showed tendency towards simplest way I changed to just Tammeka, Tulevik and Infonet.--Klõps (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Therefore I object all that Qed237 said to be my opinions. --Klõps (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a comment but rather a clarification. My suggestion of using the Soccerway variants was mainly meant as a compromise solution in order to mediate between the involved parties over what is a very tedious discussion with little to no point and slowly begins to become rather fishy. COMMONNAME is definitely the way to go here. If the most common English variant of a club name also involves including its place, so be it. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That was a compromise I was also going, but which was turned into my rocksolid only opinion in Qed words. --Klõps (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Klõps: I am not more hostile than you, stop attacking me. You are the one threatening me for "edit warring", persistent commenting that only one editor agree with me, and so on. I have had many good discussions with many other editors and also some more aggressive, but I must say that your way of attack in every message is impressing. Anyway, lets get back on topic. Can we agree that both "Tartu" and "Viljandi" should be in the name? Qed237 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Let's make things clear – in the same time when we had this discussion here You were the one already making hostile comments on Your edits in 2015 Meistriliiga table [16], [17] etc and had an attitude, that what ever I said Your answer was that this discussion here already has consensus supporting Your claims and what ever was said only what supports your claims is right. I was so tired of your attitude that I have made some not so polite comments today. You said to me that I refuse to get facts.. but I have given you facts, facts and more facts but You only take those that support Your theory and dismiss all those that don't... perfect example is how you twisted my words in the beginning of this summary.
My opinion was from the very beginning that as the clubs call themselves [18] –Tartu Tammeka, Viljandi Tulevik– or to avoid confusion leave out the town names at all when this opinion for consensus was named I supported it with a remark that this is the way it has been before.. and Qed237 turned it into a sentence that this is what I want.--Klõps (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The interesting part I brought up is that the articles themselves uses Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi in the prose. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Now this is OSE... so what? In both articles this is used in two places, in Tammeka it is category title. It is there from the old times 2007 Meistriliiga (as it was in 2007) As I told You in the time these articles were created there were people who, in good faith, belived that there should be a single format for club names. FC(JK) - Club name – Town name. I said clearly that i think this isn't a way to go. There was an Estonian champion once FC TVMK, with T for Tallinn... they were named TVMK Tallinn in tautologous case. Tammeka once merged with other club called Maag.. and formed JK Maag Tammeka [19].. somehow Tartu appeared in the name which was not used by the club as Tammeka itself comes from the name of the district Tammelinn... I support what GiantSnowman said. Can You now make a note that You have interpreted my words incorrectly in the introduction of the summary? Do we have any chance to move on or do I have to repeat some ten times more that I support the original names Tartu Tammeka and Viljandi tulevik etc and that I only supported Tammeka and Tulevik without town names as a compromise! --Klõps (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
New Summary should be like that :
  • Klõps interfered with Qed237 edits and noted that club names should be as they are originally. Qed237 talk page: [20] so Tartu Tammeka, Viljandi Tulevik etc.
  • Qed237 wants to have the names other way around 'Tammeka Tartu' and 'Tulevik Viljandi'. he created a table to show that some sources support this. Though just Tulevik for example has three sources against two for Tulevik Viljandi and two for viljandi tulevik. --Klõps (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
As there is no established common name I'd go with the official name the league uses, (without JK or FC). And I'd uses two words over one, more info can't be bad. -Koppapa (talk)

@Klõps: Could you please stop bringing up the past all the time and focus on the future? Man you are annoying. Can we agree on 'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik' ? Qed237 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Just wanted to get things clear as you brought up that the articles had Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi in the prose (both two times).
'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik' are ok for me. (if you insist adding Tallinn to Infonet.. the club itself do not use it.)--Klõps (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Klõps: Yes, for the same reason we have Tallinn for Flora. I have asked now for table to be unprotected as this is now solved. Qed237 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:This is ok for me I'll accept these names. But I don't understand Your logic... one club name does not determine rules how others should be written, but this is another discussion... --Klõps (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

I'm still having issues at the above-mentioned article regarding the major/minor status of various competitions. User:Chrisuae and User:Autonova aren't happy about the fact that the inclusion of the Community Shield in the list of each club's honours puts Manchester United ahead in terms of overall trophies. We're trying to resolve it on the talk page, but given the presence of such diametrically opposing views, we really need a third opinion. – PeeJay 17:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of sources. Which source do we refer to when giving each club's total honours? This is the edit that User:Chrisuae and I support: [21]. It is far more neutral and comprehensive than the current incarnation: [22]. In the more neutral edit, FIFA is used as the source, since it was decided to be the most neutral and reliable, and attributed in the content itself. Nine other sources are described after the table, each giving slightly different totals, since they count a slightly different set of trophies. Of these nine, there is only one neutral source, a BBC article, which lists the Community Shield as a noteworthy trophy. This is the source which PeeJay, above, insists is the only one worth including in the article, simply because it puts Man Utd ahead in total trophies. Even the Manchester United official site lists the Community Shield as Other Honours. Even the article for the Community Shield recognises its lower status relative to other trophies. And even Alex Ferguson said: "It's always a game we never quite use as a do or die thing; we use it as a barometer for fitness". It is biased and detrimental to the quality of the article to only use one source, presenting only one tally, as opposed to ten sources, which list many. Autonova (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a question of sources and ensuring neutrality. The BBC source that User:PeeJay2K3 has used is the only one that has a combination of trophies that fit his/her preferred outcome. I find it particularly problematic that references to the club official websites are included in the current version [23] but, due to cherry-picking trophies from the different tables on those sites without mentioning that some of these trophies are not in the main table of honours, may be misleading. The edit that User:Autonova and I support: [24] uses these references without editorialising their content and also mentions the BBC article along with other media sites. The inclusion of such authoritative and neutral sites as FIFA and UEFA add significantly to the reliability and quality of the article. Chrisuae (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Break

Seriously, guys, this has somehow managed to make it to WP:DRN. While we have two equally valid views on the matter, neither side has any reason to back down from their opinion. A third opinion on the matter from established WP:FOOTY members is required if this stand-off is to be broken. – PeeJay 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Verona or Hellas Verona?

I noticed that in the 2015–16 Serie A article Verona is now called Hellas Verona. "Hellas Verona F.C." is the actual complete official name, but the club has always been referred (either on other articles here and in common language) simply as Verona. How should we call it? CapPixel (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hellas Verona F.C. seems to be the name of the article, as Verona is a city (with an article) it seems appropriate to leave it as it is for disambiguation purposes. It is listed at the Verona disambiguation page. Paul  Bradbury 18:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@CapPixel: Thanks for letting me know about this discussion since it was you and me arguing (ironic). Anyway now that I spotted it anyway I can respond. As User:Pbradbury say the article is at Hellas Verona so that is the natural piping. Also sources like Soccerway lists them as "Hellas Verona". Qed237 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: You're welcome. I just forgot to add the ping, I'm sorry. Of course I'm not talking about changing the article name, but the name in the table. The club is never referred to as Hellas Verona in common use, just as Verona, and it has always been like that here too, until the 2015-16 Serie A season article. That's because the club was for a lot of decades, the club was the only professional team in the city and it's still the one that draws the majority of fans. If we follow the disambiguation "rule" almost every team names in the season tables must be changed. CapPixel (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Before the rise of Chievo, Hellas Verona seems the only professional/top division team in Verona thus it is acceptable to refer it as just Verona, just like Milan. Matthew_hk tc 09:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be Hellas Verona. GiantSnowman 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hellas Verona is the way to go. Kante4 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the "F.c." that I still don't understand in these names. I thought that the project was going to follow WP:COMMONNAME guidelines unless a new project MOS guideline was determined and made official. Please send me a note if there is a new MOS guideline that I am not aware about. Otherwise, the name "Hellas Verona" should be the correct one per the MOS. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). – PeeJay 09:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Great!--MarshalN20 Talk 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

POV in regard to Porto 2002-03

I recently been working on the 2002–03 S.L. Benfica season, and the lead I added "With a stronger Porto,[clarification needed] and eliminated from the Taça de Portugal by third division side Gondomar, Benfica soon focus on the battle with Sporting for the second place", Those words are written in the club own Almanaque, but other user concern that writing Porto was a stronger team in 2002-03 is a POV in my part. To put in context, it was the first full year of Mourinho and sadly, won every competition they entered (league, cup and UEFA Cup), besides they won both games against Benfica. What is the WP:footy opinion?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you reference this opinion to a reliable third party source? I would not say that the club's own almanac was necessarily the best place to be taking such comments from as they are unlikely to be neutral. Fenix down (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I can get opinions from Simão or Rui Costa about Porto superiority, but I think that's going overboard just to have the "stronger Porto". The almanac is pretty neutral, it's Benfica almanaque, and it's written by the same author of Porto's and Sporting's almanac, so it is just a business for him.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't even bother to ping me. I still don't understand what you mean with "stronger". To me it's just WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV. SLBedit (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Parma

There's debate over whether or not the new club is a continuation of the old club, please see Talk:Parma Calcio 1913#Merge with Parma article. GiantSnowman 18:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability check for three players

Something for our experts in American and/or Asian football – have the players from the stub articles below already appeared in a match of a professional club? Unfortunately, sources seem to be very scarce, so it is a bit difficult to determine such notability.

  • Jacson da Paixão Neponuceno – Brazilian player who was recently transferred to Iranian Pro League outfit Gostaresh Foolad
  • Russell Hulse – retired Belizian player who played for a club called Maccabi Los Angeles around 1980, winning the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup three times in that span
  • Tiri – Spanish defender currently active for Atlético de Kolkata in the Indian Super League

Help appreciated. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacson yes: played in Brazilian Serie A for Vitória and in Serie B for Oeste: see Soccerway
Tiri no: hasn't played above Spanish Segunda B: see BDFutbol, Cadiz fansite
Hulse don't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hulse I'd say no from a WP:NFOOTBALL perspective, but he might meet WP:GNG given the claims in the article - although currently there is no evidence of that, and a quick Google search does not seem to bring much. So I'd say non-notable as well. GiantSnowman 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about Hulse, there is at least one lengthy article about his career from a Belize national newspaper, so iwth a bit more digging, I think a case might be made for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have PRODded Tiri now; however, the page has been a disambiguation page until two days ago, so the PROD might already be obsolete. I guess the DAB page should be restored, then? As for the other two, I might try to put a bit of work into these tomorrow evening or so. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Tiri has been reverted to the dab page. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

Can you teammates discover what competition is this one (seen here http://eu-football.info/_match.php?id=25379) please? I can't make heads or tails of it and, in the search engine, Carlsberg Cup redirects me to the Taça da Liga.

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lunar New Year Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Basaksehir

I have a question on how to do with İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. that has been moved to Medipol Başakşehir F.K. after On 25 May 2015, İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. signed a sponsorship agreement with Medipol Eğitim ve Sağlık Grubu (Medipol Education and Health Group) for four years and team's name changed to Medipol Başakşehir, accoring to the article. At sources I usually look at like Soccerway, UEFA, current UEFA Europa League and BBC Sport all lists them as 'İstanbul Başakşehir'. Should we really change the article name due to a temporary (4 years sponsorship agreement) namechange to a commercial name? We do not do that for leagues, for example we have 2015–16 Croatian First Football League instead of commercial name MAXtv Prva Lig. Qed237 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not use sponsored names for anything (club/league/stadium) (exceptions for e.g. Red Bull teams), though we can mention it in the intro. GiantSnowman 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the move should be reverted. However, only an admin will be able to do that, as the original mover messed around with İstanbul Başakşehir F.K.. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Can you make the move back as only an admin can do that? Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done. GiantSnowman 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 MLS All-Star Game

Just wanted to know how 2015 MLS All-Star Game and other previous seasons All star games deserve its own page as it is just a friendly page? NextGenSam619t@lk 14:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In the same way 60th National Hockey League All-Star Game, 2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, 2015 NBA All-Star Game and 2015 Pro Bowl deserve their own page despite only being friendlies or exhibition matches. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Or for that matter the 2015 FA Community Shield, which is basically a glorified friendly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:SPFL medal winners

The above category has been created. I think this is much too obscure, particularly as it collates a bunch of different competitions (Scottish League Cup, Premiership, Championship, League One and League Two). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just coming here to start a thread on the exact same thing - and I am in complete agreement. Not a defining characteristic, unreferenced for many entrants, simply not needed. I'm busy this weekend otherwise I'd take to WP:CFD myself. GiantSnowman 12:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Asian U-19 national team competition being treated as U-20

On player profiles, editors have been treating appearances in the Asian U-19 age group competition as U-20 appearances. Appearances in the AFC U-19 Championship are being added as U-20 caps to player's infoboxes. Football Federation Australia makes no reference to having an U-19 team on the FFA website, only an U-20 team so I can understand why they're being added as U-20 caps, but it still doesn't seem accurate to me. England, for example play in the UEFA U-19 Championship and sometimes qualify for the FIFA U-20 World Cup, both U-19 and U-20 caps are listed separately on the infobox (Harry Kane is an example of this). Should the Asian player articles be following the same rule?

The links on the following U-19 competition pages all link to U-20 articles:

Should they be linking to U-19 articles instead? TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The convention is to agree with the national associations' cap allocation. For example, in Australia, there is no under-19 team - the "Young Socceroos" (U20s) are treated by the FFA as the team which participates in these notionally "U19" tournaments (which act as qualification for the next year's U20 World Cup). It may well be that other nations' associations do things differently (such as England, as you say) and I've seen rumours that FFA will add more youth teams in the future but as it stands they are crediting players in these tournaments with appearances for the U20 "Young Socceroos" and as a result that is how it should be represented. Macosal (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fabien Robert

A journalist has just asked Fabien Robert about his brothers Bertand and Laurent, only for Fabien to tell him it's a mistake on Wikipedia. Duly corrected. ;) TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why it's so so important to remove anything unsourced like that on BLP articles... JMHamo (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, though, it was sourced in the article, to a news story on the Doncaster Rovers website relating to his signing for them. That URL now seems dead, but plenty of other very reliable sources have reported it as fact, including the BBC, the Swindon Advertiser (who actually put it in the headline!), TalkSport, the BBC again and so on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting.. I've added the Soundcloud link to the Talk page.. Talk:Fabien Robert. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Baba Rahman

Couple of things - expect a flurry of premature activities on Baba Rahman, what with Bild reporting that Chelsea and Augsburg agreed to a fee and Italian media reporting that the player has already agreed on personal terms[25], which will be enough for newer editors to make the change before he's signed and delivered.

Second, should the article be moved to Abdul Baba Rahman? Mosmof (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Randal Oto’o

Should Randal Oto’o be renamed to Randal Oto'o? SLBedit (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, so I've renamed it to use the correct apostrophe. JMHamo (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaq(uille) McDonald

Shaquille McDonald or Shaq McDonald? The articles has one version, the talkpage the other?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help assess a new draft at AFC

Please review Draft:Penang FA President's Cup Team, is it a notable subject and if so can the draft be accepted in its current state? If you do not wish to, or don't know how to do a full AFC review, please post a comment on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammar lesson

Given that a football club is not a living thing (it is composed of breathing organisms, aka humans), and given also that I am not a native English speaker, will I be completely off-hand if I address clubs as "it" instead of "they/them"?

Attentively, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually, at least in UK English, the club (as in the off-field organisation) is referred to as "it", but the team (as in the players who take part in the game) are referred to as "they". No British football fan would ever say "Manchester United is winning 1-0" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"Manchester United are ranked ..." or "Manchester United is ranked" in UEFA club rankings? SLBedit (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
are. Number 57 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C.

Following suggestions at the above talk page and at the FAC of History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959), I have taken it upon myself to change the above page into a disambiguation page. I'm notifying the community so people are aware of this and can discuss it if they wish. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

User:Ulof4 has come to me in search of assistance that I cannot provide, he wants to upload an image of Deportes Iberia's badge to the club's page. Anyone can help out a fellow user? I don't know: 1 - which images are copyrighted or not; 2 - how to upload them after I do.

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

They should use the FIle Upload Wizard. In step three, they should tick the box that says it is a copyrighted logo (unless it isn't, but almost all logos are). In the non-free use rationale box, there is a specific option to tick for logos. Tick that, the rest of the elements required are pretty self explanatory. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Overkill?

Are Template:O'Higgins Supercopa Champions and Template:O'Higgins 2013–14 Apertura Champions squad really needed in the template department? On a related note, the creator, User:Cisumiv, has an history of ZERO talkpage conversations and ZERO edit summaries, just a note.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Those should be deleted. There was a discussion a few months ago where a user created templates for UEFA CL winners. Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree they should be prodded. this post has caused me to have a look at [[b style="color:blue">QedUser:Cisumiv]]'s creations and links associated with Template:O'Higgins F.C. which seems to be turning up a reasonable amount of cruft-y articles. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Regarding the page move that I was seeking, López Silva to "José López Silva" found the perfect example to stand my ground, as will be shown below: like I told to several users, BOTH López and Silva are surnames, so "José" was needed for coherence purposes.

All those users are of a different opinion (in spite of me presenting solid arguments), as I imagine User:Davykamanzi, the page mover, is. So, one of those users kindly move Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain to "Oxlade-Chamberlain", same reasoning no?

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, he's correct, at least from my point of view. If we start naming players as they are known (i.e. name Jed Wallace as "Wallace"), it would be very unhelpful. I think we should move him or to his previous name (José María López de Silva) or to José López Silva (footballer), because José López Silva already exists here. MYS77 ✉ 22:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
If the player is known just as López Silva, then the current name is fine per WP:COMMONNAME. Hack (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming terms

@Qed237 and Theroadislong:

There is no german national team, it is Germany national team so why would an article say that, Wayne Rooney doesn't play for the english national team its the England national team. So... TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the same thing, isn't it? No need to split hairs over it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring to keep your prefered version against consensus is disruptive editing however. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Either should be fine, although I think "German national team" sounds better in the context of the articles where TeaLover is edit warring. Also, requesting the input of specific editors has a whiff of canvassing about it... Number 57 10:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season

New issues at 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. Chelsea has today released a list of Jersey nunmbers so an editor added all players on that list to "First team squad" but all of those players are not listed under "First team" at the official Chelsea webpage. Should we follow the list of squad numbers in a released article or the list of first team players. Qed237 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some youth players are not listed under "First team" at the official Chelsea webpage. But if they are not playing for the first team this season there is no need to give them a new kit number, as they have their own kit numbers for the youth team matches. I beleve that Chelsea announce their new number because of the first team promotion. If they are not promoted to the first team there is no need to give them a number. Immback (talk) 13:25, 1 Aug 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has a first-team squad number should be listed. Also, I think at least one editor needs a 3RR block for their behaviour on that page. Take this as a hint to stop. Number 57 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't disagree with you more, #57. Just because a player is given a squad number doesn't mean they're part of the first team. – PeeJay 17:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, just because they get a number is not proof that they are in first team squad. Qed237 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with User:Qed237 and PeeJay. Clubs give all youth players who have a contract a squad number in case they do decide to promote them, they have to register the numbers. However that doesn't mean they will play for or are part of the "First Team" just that they are eligible to be. They should only be listed when you can source it via Chelsea in this instance. Paul  Bradbury 19:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Any more inputs on this? Qed237 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing a television broadcast

I was just having a look over the 2007 FA Community Shield article, and I noticed I didn't provide a source for the stats in the article when I first added them. I know from the edit summary I left that I got the stats from the Sky Sports TV broadcast of the match, but is that a valid source? I don't think the original broadcast has ever been archived in full, and I don't think it was released on DVD, but I feel like the original broadcast should be a valid source, I just don't have any confirmation of that. – PeeJay 09:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

{{cite episode}} should be sufficient. Hack (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

What do you think of my comments here? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He's not held a managerial position in a fully professional league, so would not pass WP:NFOOTY. I also agree, no GNG. It is hard to see how someone who has held the level of position (both in terms of role and club) would meet GNG normally. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's the same player, he made 16 appearances for East Stirling. Eagleash (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is. However he would still fail NFOOTY because of the level at which he was playing. I'm not seeing anything that would support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Right... top two tiers only in Scotland. I forget that. :P Eagleash (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
He would have been playing for ES at the time when they were famously paying players the princely sum of £10 a week........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Squad navboxes

Hi All, I recently removed some squad navboxes from articles where the player was not included in the navbox. This led to a discussion about who should be in a squad navbox. @GiantSnowman: suggested that any player who has been assigned a squad number should be listed in the navbox. I suggested that it should be any player sourced as a first team squad member. Is there a current consensus or thoughts either way? Paul  Bradbury 10:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the navbox should include anyone who either has a squad number or is included in the first team on the club's website. That way you pretty much guarantee that the players who have articles will be included in the navbox, which is the whole point. This, of course, differs to my opinion on who should be included in the first-team squad list in the club's main article, which should just be the players listed as being in the first team on the club's website. – PeeJay 10:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
IMO, anyone who has a squad numbrr should be listed. Number 57 10:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would it not make sense to create separate navboxes for other squads though such as this one to achieve the same thing without the boxes becoming unwieldy and to avoid confusion. Paul  Bradbury 11:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Real Madrid Castilla is a youth/reserve team, yes, but they play in the same league system as their parent club and players are registered accordingly. The same cannot be said for English reserve teams. GiantSnowman 11:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, understood, not sure how that relates to navboxes though, both squads (first and youth/reserve) can usually be sourced and are for all intents and purposes different. The reason they get squad numbers is simply an peculiarity of the way it works in England, it's not an indication of them being in the squad (hence not being listed in it by the club). Anyway, as I said not really a strong opinion, just think this may be a neater solution. I think having different rules for navbox vs squad lists will cause confusion with editors, especially ones not regulars of wp:footy and may increase the number of edits adding youth players to first team squads. I'll shut up now as I've rambled on. Paul  Bradbury 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The way I rationalise it is to treat the navbox not as a list of first-team players, but as a list of players currently on the club's books and who have an article on Wikipedia. Using squad numbers to break up the list into readable units may suggest that it's related to the first-team squad, but all the navbox does is link together players who are currently on the books of the same club. – PeeJay 12:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay2K3 and Number57.. if the player has been assigned a squad number (first-team or reserve), he should be included in the team template. JMHamo (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafael (footballer, born 1990)

A lot of editing on Rafael (footballer, born 1990) after he signed (?) for Lyon. Now I am asking here if we really can say transfer is completed and change "current club"-parameter? His old club Manchester United says LYON CONFIRM AGREEMENT TO SIGN RAFAEL FROM UNITED and The 25-year-old underwent a medical in Lyon today and will be officially unveiled at a press conference this week. . BBC Sport says Rafael da Silva will join French club Lyon from Manchester United on a four-year contract for an undisclosed fee. in the start and lyon themselves say Olympique Lyonnais informed of an agreement with Manchester United for the transfer of Brazilian international Rafael da Silva will sign in the coming days a 4-year contract with OL, ie until 30 June 2019. (with google translate). To me it indicates transfer is not yet a 100%-complete (use of words like will sign), but I am currently being overruled. What do you think? Qed237 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, he is not signed. Technically until he is he is sill a Manchester United player. It may all fall through, his medical could turn something up, he may have an accident and Lyon pull out, he may decide the terms are not good enough. An agreement in principal is not a transfer Paul  Bradbury 22:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 He has signed look here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rafael-completes-lyon-transfer-pays-6188231 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuleTheMacine (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any confirmation from either club that the transfer has been finalised. – PeeJay 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's more articles now of him in a Lyon shirt, has passed his medical (see http://www.olweb.fr/en/article/communique-68569.html) and even training with the squad (http://www.olweb.fr/en/article/rafael-s-first-steps-68570.html). The tense used is now 'has signed' in the most recent article linked. Is it alright to change or is it still courteous to wait for the so-called 'unveiling'? Stewwie (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Man Utd fan here, we still need to stick to the facts, yes a transfer has been agreed and yes a medical has been completed, however until he signs on the dotted line and it is reported by either one of the clubs or say on the BBC Sport website or any suitable reliable source the transfer isn't official so please wait until then before changing the article. Thanks and happy editing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think we've heard the last about the transfer now. Lyon are reporting that Rafael "has signed" a four-year contract now. Manchester United have removed him from the first-team squad list on their website. He may not have been unveiled at a press conference yet, they may not have released photos of him actually signing the contract, but I don't think we will get any of that now. He's a Lyon player, he's started training with them. Let's make the changes. – PeeJay 11:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_96&oldid=1167587331"