Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 13

The article Eddy Brown and some 50 other pages ^[1] cite Birmingham City: A Complete Record (1995) with a bad ISBN 1-85983-101-2 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help). The correct one should be ISBN 1-85983-010-2. I could go through and correct the ISBN, but perhaps something else needs to be checked as well? Is this a good book and edition to cite? How do you typically handle errors of this kind in this WikiProject? Do you maintain a list of standard literature, and would this book be on that list? After all, it's cited in 50 articles. --LA2 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist. In this case i think it is an oversight on the part of the editor concerned. It was a dodgy copy and paste and nothing malicious. I will start to fix the isbns now. Woodym555 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - as Woody has said, it was an initial typo and then repeated copy&paste. Sincere apologies for inconvenience caused. As to the quality of the book as a source, I think the Complete Record series are generally accepted as properly researched and reliable, perhaps others could confirm this? Struway2 | Talk 09:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see them as a researched and reliable source. Certainly more so than soccerbase can be. Woodym555 09:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you turned your excellent /Booklist into a template with a #switch, you could create citations just by inserting {{Ref Football | BirminghamComplete}} instead of copy&pasting the full citation to every article. There are more ideas in category:Citations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. --LA2 09:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, i think i've caught them all now, and pending the implementation of any clever templates, i'm just about to fix where i copy the offending citation from! Struway2 | Talk 11:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of the manager templates (the ones that show all managers in the history of a particular club), but they seem like they might be here to stay. Assuming that there are no strong calls for their deletion – please shout if there are – I'd like to see them built to a consistent standard. Two very different ones, and a prime example of the variations, are the managerial templates for Aston Villa and Manchester United, which can be seen together at the foot of the Ron Atkinson page. The main differences, and my opinions on each are as follows:

• Width and height: I'd go for the same width as the squad templates, so that they line up nicely
• Name of team wikilinked or not: Prefer wikilink
• Dash between team name and "managers": No preference, but we need consistency
• Managers / managers No preference, but we need consistency
• v-d-e link or not: Prefer v-d-e link

In addition to the above I recommend setting the template to auto-collapse for pages with several templates, as you can imagine how cluttered the page footer will become for someone like Atkinson, once a manager template for each of his clubs has been created. I'd welcome people's thoughts on this. --Jameboy 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aston Villa one is the only one I've seen in that format, the Man U style one seems to be more standard. I agree they could do with a couple of modifications such as the auto-collapse setting. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just add to that that there is no need to have succession boxes as well as manager templates, they give the same information and can lead to there being a huge mess at the bottom of articles, as at Bill Dodgin, Sr. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Villa one follows the standardised Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates i.e. the "fb". We already have a standardised format for navboxes. It is just that most do not yet conform. Woodym555 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need to make it auto-collapse and wikilink the club though. If that isn't the standard then maybe the standard should be amended? --Jameboy 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the auto-collapse. (though i have had problems in the past with editors who think that they are too complicated to use.) The background colours may have to change if you want wikilinks as i am yet to find a way where wikilinks can change font colour. I think the standard width needs to be widened slightly. This would allow more text to fit on the page and would reduce the amount of space that the templates take up. I also think that we need a concerted effort at introducing the standard format. The trouble is that every manager page has to be amended. i am sure a bot could do it. We need an agreed format first though. Woodym555 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of coloured wikilink: Argentinos Juniors. King of the North East (T/C) 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the example? Looks kinda wikilink colour to me. Your sig isn't but the wikilink is normal. have i missed something, browser probs? Woodym555 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

#0000FF. Probably not the best possible choice. The new example (below) seems to work, though. :) —StuartBrady (Talk) 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of the North East (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point is made dear sir. :) (and so is mine after about 20 edit conflicts) (you could have done it in Claret and blue just for me though!!!)

In response to Jameboys first comment, i think i have found the prime example of over templates and inconsistency between them see Tommy Docherty. For an example of why our "fb" standard should be widened see Alex Massie. The boxes take up half the page. By widening them we could cut them in half. Woodym555 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have managed to get the Villa templates spread out on page when viewing tempates, but captains one is still a short stubby template on the Alex Massie page. No idea how to fix that, but maybe someone else here does. WikiGull 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't. I have reverted your changes to the captains template because well it destroyed it. On my browser at least it just continued on one line. It was showing perfectly correctly under the current guidelines. What you need to do is change the width settings on the "fb" template which is the standardised format that the footy project is meant to be following. The instructions on how to use the template can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates. It is still "stubby" because it is still wrapped in the {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} templates. Woodym555 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has revamped the Template:Football squad and i think now would be a good idea to start standardising the managers templates. We can just use the football squad template but insert the managers instead of the "football list start" features. Any objections? Woodym555 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Juninho Pernambucano has a table of goals from free kicks. Do we need this kind of detail of every goal? Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I would agree for removing it. Btw, it is completely unsourced stuff. --Angelo 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: the table was added by an anonymous user who was recently blocked because of 3RR breaking, personal attacks, copyright violations and NPOV failure, and is the apparent cause behind the article's current block. --Angelo 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely pointless and unnecessary detail, get rid of it ChrisTheDude 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

they are not of agreement because the table are fact not opinions

ok alexf we construct the page of juninho entirety without to put that it is the best freekick taker in the world but at least makes to construct to the page with all the information me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.71.43 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

alexf it modernizes the page of juninho!!!please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research, unnecessary, POV pushing, need I go on? The article is far better off without this table. - fchd 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

juninho table of freekick goals is just. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The table's been put back in...... ChrisTheDude 09:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And as before, it does not belong. Don't we have consensus here? He should come and make his case properly. Also, I see you added a fact tag and he immediately removed it answering he "took it from Lyon's site". Isn't that copyvio? Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 10:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus here, I've removed the table. The Rambling Man 10:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The contributions by Reedy Bot seem quite concerning - its replacing "Football" tags on article's talk pages with another one, but unrated and with the Liverpool task force. Mattythewhite 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it too on the Craig Bellamy article. The article is also now 'supported' by the 'England task force', which I find odd. --Malcolmxl5 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Martinp23#Autotagging - From that original request. I've fixed the tags i accidentally changed. That is the reason for the England=yes, and the Liverpool=yes from them being in liverpool categorised articles. Reedy Boy 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with bellamy being supported by the England taskforce, since hae has played virtually his entire club career there, I do mind the fact that the bot has been deleting the Argentina parameter from Argentine players who happen to have played for Liverpool, and other taskforce/wikiproject parameters too no doubt. King of the North East (T/C) 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is from me doing setting off the tagging in a rush - expecting most not to be tagged, or have parameters. Reedy Boy 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bellamy certainly meets the criteria for the England task force, but the point is it has been removing article's ratings on the football tag. Mattythewhite 06:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i know that. And in as many cases as i could find, i then went and fixed it. Reedy Boy 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I started this discussion about the way that importance is determined in relation to players on another page but have moved my comment and the single response here in the hope of eliciting some kind of discussion of the issue.

This is all the guidance we seem to have relating to player assesment:

• Top: N/A
• High: Top-rated world-class players.
• Mid: Players that have participated at international level or in a top-level league.
• Low: Any other player.

The main problems I have with this, are that "Top-rated" and "world-class" can be seen as subjective terms, on who's authority does a player become top-rated or world class? Mid importance is far too wide ranging, from multi-award winning players such as Rolando Schiavi or Ashley Cole to players who have played a handfull of top flight games such as Sergio Romero or Matthew Bates. My suggestion would be to bring in much more specific criteria maybe something like this:

• High = High achiever: World Cup Final players (match not tournament) international team and tournament record holders, multiple top flight top scorers and multiple top flight title holders, multiple international title holders, league record holders and high importance club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as high importance) (example Daniel Passarella or Bobby Moore)
• Mid =Decorated players (top level title winners), international footballers, league topscorers, 100+ top flight games, club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as mid importance) (example Fabricio Coloccini or Gareth Southgate)
• Low = Players undecorated at top level, fewer than 100 apps at top level (example Matthew Bates or Sergio Romero)

I'm sure that there will be a number of editors who would prefer to stick to the vaguely worded and loosley applied assessment criteria we have, but I feel that in order to get some consistency we need better defined criteria. Regards King of the North East (T/C) 12:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, though possibly not every single title holder, for example should every member of last season's Manchester United team be in high, say Tomasz Kuszczak? John Hayes^talk 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I didn't see the multiple. John Hayes^talk 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, i pretty much agree with those, they seem slightly more realistic than the current ones. It will still ultimately be subjective though. Woodym555 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikifootball-logo.png - even though it's a blue link, the file has been deleted. This obviously affects the main template at the top of every talkpage as it seems like it has been deleted. Davnel03 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason given on its deletion log is just 'obsolete'. This doesn't seem a particularly sound argument, perhaps it was deleted in error. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was on Commons, it has been deleted there. The deletion log here refers to a duplicate. The actual reason for deletion is at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Wikifootball-logo.png. I've put an alternative image on the template. Oldelpaso 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that this IFD was first announced here on WT:FOOTBALL in August. 84.71.139.74 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have created this page but I have given it the wrong name it should be Forthbank Park. I called it Forthbank Stadium because at the time the information I had pointed towards it being called that but now I have found out it was known as Forthbank Park formally. So how do I change the name thanks Gorillamusic 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Use the move tab at the top of the page. --Malcolmxl5 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just been noticing a Taiwanese football taskforce was started by a lone user. I strongly doubt about its actual usefulness, a single user does not need a whole taskforce supporting him. More generally, football WPs and taskforces are really proliferating, with a very real minority being actually active. I think we should do something in order to discourage creating such entities without a proper reason. --Angelo 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that we run the risk of having several inactive taskforces. I think we need to make a guideline or WP:FOOTY policy that discussion must be started before creating a new task force. We need at least 3 people to keep a task force going. I think individual club ones will become unneccessary as there is only a limited number of articles that a club can have. That being said, i think the proliferation of task forces is a good sign for the project. Collaboration and continual improvement. We could introduce a way of winding up inactive taskforces after say two months of inactivity. Woodym555 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Three members are not that much, and do not really need a taskforce for interacting each other; I would say at least six members. I agree with you with some extent, as major clubs usually have a number of fork articles (club seasons, lists, history and so on), as well as a number of players and people strictly associated with the club itself, so a taskforce is partially understandable in this case (but not in the way they are now, as these taskforces are really inactive). We should also discourage people from creating parallel WPs rather than taskforces (how about suggesting all the related WPs to turn into taskforces?). --Angelo 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i think we need to follow the strategy that the WP:MILHIST project has undergone, in that they have absorbed most of the outlying projects into the main one. I think a centralised area is what is needed. I think we have to be careful with the number of people. If we create too much of a barrier to entry then people will create their own projects which then become inactive or have little creative output. I think taskforces should be encouraged and we need a central place for discussion on new task forces. I think that most clubs have a number of editors who collaborate to build the articles. I think a task force can be useful, but only if the editors are willing to colloborate. Woodym555 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And the sad thing is discovering that a number of taskforce talkpages, such as in USA-Canada and Bayern Munich, are still red-linked. --Angelo 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They serve as a showcase and as a glorified category really. There is little or no collaborative output from them. I may be wrong, they may use user talk pages instead. In that case what then, is the point of the taskforce? I think we have to concentrate on amalgamating the task forces and then we need to encourage participation and discussion within the existing setup.

Or, we could abandon the current setup. I think the main project now ahs a fairly constant stream of featured material coming from the project. It is working in that sense. Woodym555 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've been thinking about starting a Germany taskforce for some time now, but I'm a bit hesitant given the discussion here. I'll chew on it for a couple more days, but I'm leaning towards going ahead. Maybe I'll fire it up and attach the caveat that I'll kill it if it doesn't round up at least six members and some results within two or three months.

With respect to the USA-Canada and Bayern Munich taskforces, it's pretty clear they're not going anywhere. Maybe they just need to be deleted? Wiggy! 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at some of his contributions. I think they'll need deleting. Mattythewhite 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with them. Or is it to do with the templates he's created? Having look at his edts, he doesn't seem to be vandalising as such. Davnel03 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's to do with the templates he's created. Any squad templates for the European Championships or African Cup of Nations, etc. should be deleted. - PeeJay 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at.. Mattythewhite 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These squad templates have been discussed before ad nauseum - they should all go for AfD. --Daemonic Kangaroo 04:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we add Chris Kamara to the watchlist. It's being bombarded by Leyton Orient fans after yesterday's game with Leeds. It may only need to be added for a week but I've reversed at least three attacks today. Peanut4 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's being bombarded as such, but yeah there is vandalism of the article. Davnel03 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been nothing since this afternoon. Hopefully it remains this way. Peanut4 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across this article that was created a few weeks ago, it strikes me as somewhat unneccesary since there is already a detailed article on the tournament. I'm posting here to bring it to the attention of more experienced editors who can hopefully advise whether this article should go up for AfD. Simon KHFC 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is controversial, because the event is quite notable, however I feel this should be covered into EURO 2004 as well. --Angelo 00:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The text is mostly copy & pasted from Greece national football team and the stats from the Euro 2004 page, presumably. No need for it, it's unnecessary duplication - should be deleted for POV title - a history of the Greece national football team article could be split off from the team article and created to cover it instead. Qwghlm 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now listed for deletion, see the debate here. Simon KHFC 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the terrible title, the article creator seems to have given up after the "A"s (possibly even before the end of the "A"s if anyone from Azerbaijan's ever played in the league). He still seems to be active - what's an appropriate course of action to take, as currently the article looks ridiculous....? ChrisTheDude 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest AfDing it. It's not really notable enough to be worth finishing off, in my opinion, so it's best off being deleted. - PeeJay 07:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the single best title for a wikipedia article I've ever seen! Wow! Robotforaday 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, was there a consensus to remove them or something and what was the main reason? Govvy 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See here for previous discussion. --Daemonic Kangaroo 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a policy on the use of infoboxes on athletes who have played more than one sport? I've just added cricketing stats to Harold Jarman's article, but the two different sized infoboxes look terrible. Should we be using both? It may even be worth considering creating a combined football/cricket infobox, as it was fairly common for people to play both in the first half of the 20th century. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they can look messy, especially in an aticle with very little text. In fuller articles, they don't seem so bad; e.g. Phil Mead or C. B. Fry. --Daemonic Kangaroo 18:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to clarify who should be included under Category:England international footballers? In particular, do wartime internationals count - did they have official status? My opinion is that, as they are not listed on the FA's website, they have no more "status" than appearances in the wartime leagues. On the article about Joe Bacuzzi, User:Djln is of the opinion that they count and that he should be included in this category. Not wishing to get into an edit war, can someone giva definitive answer. --Daemonic Kangaroo 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wartime internationals don't count, I've never seen any reference book that includes them in a player's tally ChrisTheDude 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• It’s not relevant whether the internationals Bacuzzi played in were official or not. The fact is he played for the England national football team and therefore should be regarded as an England international. These wartime internationals did not just include any Englishman available. As the article states, his team mates included the likes of Stanley Matthews, Joe Mercer and Tommy Lawton to name just a few. --Djln 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Djln

Sorry Djln, I disagree. The wartime internationals, just like the wartime leagues, are usually kept in a section of their own and not included with the official competitions. - fchd 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. They have never been and never will be full internationals, however good the times were. Yes, the two wars cut some very good players' careers short but players like Bacuzzi can't be listed as England international footballers. Peanut4 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side of your argument about how good some of the players were, in one international - England v Wales on June 7, 1941, Lester Finch, of non-league amateur side Barnet, played. Are you still serious that these players are full internationals? Peanut4 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, Stan Mortensen, an Englishman, came on as a substitute in one game (England v Wales on September 25, 1943) for Wales to replace the injured Ivor Powell, even before subs were used internationally. Peanut4 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• So we just ignore seven years of football history and pretend that no football took place at all ! Competitive football continued to be played throughout the war years and this included internationals. Jack Rollin wrote a whole book on the subject - Soccer at War – 1939 - 45 . What makes these games less valid then those played at any other time ? Bacuzzi played for England and that is a fact that cannot be denied. He therefore should be included in as an England international. On what grounds were the England teams that Bacuzzi played any less England then pre-war and post war teams ? Djln--Djln 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Djln, but I think you're trying to re-write history rather than record it. Peanut4 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My two penny's worth - Bacuzzi's international career ended in 1946, one year after the end of the war...GiantSnowman 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, any matches he played between the end of the war and the end of 1946 were still classed as wartime fixtures, or Bacuzzi would be listed on an England stats website. - PeeJay 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Football in England didn't fully start again until the 1946-47 season, despite the war ending in August 1945 and VE Day before that being in May 1945. Peanut4 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Peanut, you could not be more wrong. Football never stopped being played in England during the war. The only major difference was that their was no national league played due to travel restrictions. Explain these articles - 1939-40 in English football, 1940-41 in English football, 1941-42 in English football etc Djln —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay maybe fully should be officially. Although 1946-47 season is wrong because the FA Cup was played in 1945-46 season. Peanut4 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rewriting history ! How exactly ? Bacuzzi did play for England not just once but 13 times. England played 36 internationals between 1939 and 1946 according to Rsssf stats . Are we just meant to ignore this fact ? Who exactly decided that these internationals were unofficial anyway, even the ones played in the 1945-46 season, after the war was over. Nobody has explained why these games have been declared unofficial and why they should not be included. What are we supposed to do when writing about players from this era ? Ignore the fact that these games took place and not include them in articles! How about this for a rewrite:
  • Between 1939 and 1946 Joe Bacuzzi played no football at all. Not officially anyway. Might have had a kick about with Stanley Matthews at Wenbley but again this was unofficial. Djln--Djln 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not saying don't mention the games, of course they were played. Just that Bacuzzi cannot be categorised as an England international. You're quoting Rsssf. The first line of this page from the same website says all internationals were unofficial. Peanut4 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are avoiding the question. Who decided these games were unofficial and why ? Can you answer this please. Djln --Djln 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Probably more the reverse because no-one adopted them as official and because no caps were awarded. Peanut4 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason why he can't be considered an England international, really. If he wasn't awarded any caps - physical or not - for his appearances, then he's not an international. - PeeJay 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Internationals were organised by FA, an official body. No ! Weither he recieved caps or not does not take away the fact that he played for England Djln--Djln 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the standard of players and use of subs. Again both points are not valid. According to the wiki article on Substitute (soccer), subs were used during the 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification campaign. I believe this was an official competition! If the quality of player used decides what games are official and what are’nt, then I will be e-mailing the FA and asking them to delete any game featuring Geoff Thomas, Carlton Palmer and Gary Neville from their official records. Djln--Djln 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the libelous statements to a minimum please. Anyway, like we've just said, if a player wasn't awarded an official cap for an appearance, then it's not official and doesn't count towards their international appearances total. - PeeJay 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• How about a category specifically for England wartime internationals ?. Surely nobody can object to that ?Djln--Djln 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I was just going to say this, before I got edit conflicted: By all means write about their wartime games in their articles. Also I don't see what is wrong with either creating Category:England wartime international footballers as a sub category of Category:England international footballers or if that gets shot down, List of England wartime international footballers. Kind regards to all, King of the North East (T/C) 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the creation of Category:England wartime international footballers would be a great "compromise". On reviewing the RSSSF article there are over 70 players who appeared for England. Apart from Bacuzzi, the most well known player who never played an "official" match is Frank Soo. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My Football League stats books count wartime and official internationals separately - this is particularly pertinent from an Arsenal fan's point of view, as Leslie Compton is regarded as a dual football & cricket international but his brother Denis is not - because he only played wartime football matches for England. It is important to make the distinction between them both, which is in no way whitewashing their achievements and does not mean we cannot mention them. Making a separate category above is the right way to go about it, in my view. Qwghlm 08:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now populated the Category:England wartime international footballers with as many players as I have been able to identify from the RSSSF site. --Daemonic Kangaroo 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any style on the use of (caretaker) for the sports succession boxes? I've noticed a few today have been changed for caretaker to be in small text, though most are still in normal text. I think we need a formal style for them. Peanut4 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support anything being in small text, so I'd be in favour of normal style. - fchd 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my choice but thought I'd bring it here before reverting anything. Peanut4 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The West Bromwich Albion one still has caretakers in, but I didn't create it and am intending to remove them when I convert it to the new template. Despite the need for completeness, caretakers do tend to clutter up the template, especially when you've had as many managers as Albion. IMO caretakers are fine in the "List of Blah F.C. managers" lists and also in the "Category:Blah F.C. managers" categories as long as the list/category is clearly defined as such. I support removing them from the templates and possibly the succession boxes too. Incidentally do we have a consensus that if a manager template is created, the corresponding succession box can be removed for a particular manager? I support this approach in so far as it removes duplicated info, although the succession boxes look a little odd/incomplete with some of the successions taken out. I guess this will fix itself in time as more manager templates are created. --Jameboy 09:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing succession boxes when I've added manager templates, but I've noticed in a couple of cases that someone else has put the succession box back in the article, which seems a bit pointless to me. As for caretaker managers, I left them out when I made Template:Bristol Rovers F.C. managers because they generally aren't really important or significant in the history of a club. Some are only in charge for a single game. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two very good questions. I suppose succession boxes are unnecessary if you have all the manager template boxes, but I suppose that's a big if. And secondly do you remove all caretakers irrespective of how long the caretaker period was - I'd guess some are in charge for longer than full-time managers, e.g. that Reed fella at West Ham and Sammy Lee. And what about Leroy Rosenior at Torquay? Peanut4 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone got access to The PFA Footballers' Who's Who 2007-08? JACOPLANE • 2007-10-17 08:26

Yes, I've got a copy at home. ArtVandelay13 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 UEFA Champions League Final and James Milner are both FAC desperate need of feedback. Neither yet has a consensus to promote or fail as both have at least one Support and Oppose vote and only 4 votes each in total. Give feedback here and here. Buc 10:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble improving the 2018 FIFA World Cup bid article. It was up for deletion this summer, but was permitted to stay. I noticed users repeatedly removing the "Speculation" tag on it, and had a look through myself. I saw that it was a real problematic article, with issues of verifiability, original research, and especially speculation. I posted my conclusions on the talk page, and after a week without comment I began removing the most problematic statements. I've found that users supporting a particular country have continually tried to revert my edits when it has to do with that country. These are usually statements such as this country "will have the best stadia in 2018!", which pose serious problems and need to be removed. Right now I'm just trying to fix the structure, but the article needs attention from serious, unbiased users who can make the article verifiable, neutral, and readable.--Patrick Ѻ 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Article now fully protected due to edit warring and 3rr. All views are welcome on how to best resolve the situation. Thanks. Woodym555 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The GA nomination for Oxford United was put on hold 11 days ago, and the last comments were made a week ago. Can someone please have a look at it. Eddie6705 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I am still working away on diffrent idas for these pages and I was looking around the other football pages and was wanting to get a second opinion before I create the pages for Stirling Albion based on all ready exsisting ones for other scottish clubs. I would like to include a template similar to this one for Clyde F.C.

I would like to make one for the Albion and was wanting to know if they are approved by the project.

I would also like a second opinion on the Annfield Stadium, Forthbank Stadium and Forthbank Park pages. I still have some work to do to each page but I'm wanting to get what is there looked at before I go on and do more edits. Thanks Gorillamusic 11:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The template's not a problem, go for it. As for the stadium articles, I'd say the biggest improvement that could be made is to add references - currently there's only one reference between all three articles put together! Oh, and on the Forthbank Stadium page the refs section and stub notice should go above the template, not below..... ChrisTheDude 11:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will work on the template later and the same with the referances. Gorillamusic 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Football (soccer) players for a group which would work specifically on articles relating to biographies of individual players, coaches, and other related individuals. Any parties interested in working with such a group are encouraged to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Thank you. John Carter 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to nominate the above article for deletion, until I thought about it a little and it probably does meet the primary notability criterion. Having said that, the article still doesn't seem right and I thought I would raise it here and see if the WikiProject had a view on these sort of articles. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

About the notability of the article, we discussed the issue in a previous AFD (noting we already have a Arbroath 36-0 Bon Accord article). However, this article needs to be fully referenced, and there's no citation about the match aftermath (e.g. how Australian, Samoan and international media covered the event). --Angelo 21:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've come across an IP adding links for www.sport-heroes.net to a number of articles (one was reverted on Lee Bowyer, which is on my watchlist). Are there any thoughts on whether these links to this particular website are appropriate to include in articles? --Malcolmxl5 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already reported this on WP:AIV and they've been removed. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that it's a different IP to the one I reported (86.145.62.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), but all of those edits have been undone as well. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back a vast number of them yesterday. The site can be useful, and I've used it as a reference in articles before, but this is purely a linkspam campaign - note how the links were added to articles in alphabetical order. Linking to the site when using it as a cited reference fine, but any campaigns like this should be reverted on sight. Oldelpaso 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll watch out these and revert any that I come across. --Malcolmxl5 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come across a whole raft of articles about individual Scottish amateur football clubs that play in the junior leagues, for example, here and here. I expect there are more. I cannot think that these are notable, does anyone feel that these are notable? --Malcolmxl5 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was established that they are. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, I thought it best to ask! --Malcolmxl5 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be Anglo-centric but, as this is the English language Wikipedia, can someone explain why so many article about players from Iceland use their Icelandic names rather than the Anglicized version, e.g. Þórður Guðjónsson or Willum Þór Þórsson. See Category:Icelandic footballers for a complete list. I for one have absolutely no idea how to pronounce these names or in what order they should be sorted. This is not done for players from other parts of the world e.g. Russia, Greece, Israel etc. so why the different treatment for Iceland? --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In Russia, Greece and Israel they use the Cyrillic, Greek and Hebrew alphabets respectively, the Icelandic language uses the Latin alphabet just as English does.

Removing the non-English characters from Icelandic names would be just as stupid as changing the article name of Petr Čech or Nemanja Vidić. - MTC 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely Þ and ð aren't letters from the Latin alphabet. Articles should be titled to reflect their common usage in English, and I think Þórður Guðjónsson, for example, would normally be referred to as Thordur Gudjonsson. - PeeJay 11:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As MTC says, Þ and ð (both variations of "Th") are part of the Latin alphabet in the same way that Č or é is, and are not transliterations as in the case of Russian, Greek or Israeli names. Just because we don't use these letters anymore (they were commonly used in English until a few hundred years ago), doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used in cases where it is still in common use. Number 57 11:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being used in article names, but I think it's silly for them to be used in links from non-Icelandic pages, for example FC_Barcelona#Current_squad, or, even more ridiculously, {{FC Barcelona squad}}. ArtVandelay13 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Þ and ð are not a part of the English alphabet. And furthermoe, it is often he same people who will argue about whether or not we should use a "Lithuanian spelling" of a person's name or a "Polish spelling" (or "Icelandic spelling" and "Norwegian spelling", whatever) of a persons name who readily admit that the spelling can vary in different non-English languages who are the same ones who show no respect whatsoever for the English language, and refuse to admit that the spelling in English can differ from that in other languages. Gene Nygaard 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the eth and thorn characters is correct, as per User:Number 57 - fchd 11:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME states article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) re-iterates this. But, as long as there are adequate redirects in place to help you GET to the article, it really doesn't matter which display for you use. Although usual form, in my experience, is to move the articles to a anglicised page name and leave the foreign name as a redirect but it's horses for courses really. Nanonic 11:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Nononic says, many of these are misnamed according to our naming conventions. And yes, it really does matter. It matters mostly because so many fanatics, as is evident in he discussion here above about "it's silly for them to be used in links from non-Icelandic pages", there are too many people who blatantly ignore the clear admonition on Wikipedia:Naming conventions that:

• In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that title name, nor that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.

So if someone insists that a link somewhere else has been changed because an article's name has been changed, don't let them get away with it. Gene Nygaard 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maidens just confirmed dead by BBC - RIP. Keep an eye for IP attacks etc. Davnel03 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, horrible news. Had a loan at York last season. Anyway, I and The Rambling Man have been keeping an eye on the article. Mattythewhite 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother the project here but if anyone's interested, I've listed the above article for a peer review at which any contributions are welcome. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all contributors, I've now moved the article to WP:FLC so please add your support or otherwise here... Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

On the article on Libero which links to the position (also known as a sweeper) a possible vandaler keeps editing it so it removes information on its origins (it means "free" in Italian)... also he keeps taking out all mention of the word "football" instead putting it as just the United States centric "soccer" which goes against what we have agreed through concensus to have the sport named as on Wikipedia. Especially as the term "libero" does not have anything to do with the USA, it should not be put as "soccer", could somebody else educate this person on how this works? - Soprani 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Sorry, but he is right. Origins of libero as a role should be covered in Libero (soccer) (which however I changed to libero (football) in order to comply with the existing naming convention, see defender (football) for an example). --Angelo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The naming is the main issue, he keeps removing all mention of the word "football", instead putting it at the more derogatory and less common "soccer", when it has been agreed upon that the sport is named at football (soccer) on here. - Soprani 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you wrote the last bit now. Yes the edit you've made there was the main thing I was getting at.. thanks. - Soprani 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place to discuss it but as regards the libero article, it says other centre backs are bound by man-marking. Since when is this the case? Peanut4 20:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article got a lot of vandalism and POV in the wake of yesterday's controversial Everton v. Liverpool match. I've sprotected it for now and removed various baseless accusations - can anyone here have a stab at adding an NPOV account of events? Qwghlm 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus at the article talk page seems to be heading us towards a more neutral standpoint. I have re-jigged the whole article, and also made a further edit towards POV utopia - however, one team gained from the non/decision of the referee, the other team lost out. That imbalance means that you will never achieve perfect neutral point of view on this occasion. In any case, the consensus seems to be heading towards removing it completely if the PGMOL do not announce sanctions against Clattenburg. Please wait and see for now. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This might sound like a bit of a stupid question, but I'm currently editting some managers, but I'm struggling to work out the sum to create the percentage for the Managerial stats. Can anyone advise me on how this is done? Jonesy702 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean win%, it is (Wins / Games played) x 100 --Jameboy 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bunch of new non-WC squad templates nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. Please, vote. - Darwinek 12:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have a silly little mincer, trolling lots of work on football related article, undoing work see, Yamla (talk · contribs), if somebody could squash this bug that would be good. Seems the troll is an admin and is mass deleting content such as templates at Genoa C.F.C., etc... if we could get an admin to undelete all this trolls vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringInOctober (talk • contribs)

It is obvious that Soprani (talk · contribs) (see Libero discussion above), Banadara (talk · contribs) and SpringInOctober (talk · contribs) are all sockpuppets of the arbcom-banned Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Pak21 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know anything about the history of blocks and sockpuppets, but Yamla's reversions are destroying a lot of seemingly good work, reducing the quality of wikipedia by erasing perfectly good images , undoing good edits and reinserting poor ones, see destroying good information, in this case reverting it back to Daddykindsoul's edit, the guy he's supposed to be erasing. I don't think its right to remove so much quality information and so many properly tagged images. Shurely there are real vandals that need to be dealt with first? King of the North East (T/C) 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't believe I'm typing this, and I have had some run-ins with User:Daddy Kindsoul in the past, but I think the current wave of reverting edits will prove to be counter productive, as the bulk of the edits reverted seem to be good, constructive content. - fchd 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, King. I am reverting them all as far as I can do. There is ongoing discussion on WP:ANI in case you want to join it. --Angelo 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

This template, which displayed:

Palestine

..was deleted with the comment "deprecated and orphaned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football cleanup work. Replaced by parameterized Template:fb".

However it is still used on List of nationality transfers in football (soccer). I tried replacing it with {{fb|PAL}} but that doesn't seem to be hooked up.

What's the correct substitution? --Stormie 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just come across articles for The Football League 1930-31 and The Football League 1988-89. Both are vastly incomplete. Apart from the war seasons the only other seasons with such articles are the current season and the previous three. Is it worth deleting the aforementioned two or leave them in the vain hope they will be completed at some point? Peanut4 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe merge with 1930-31 in English football and 1988-89 in English football. IIRC they were started by Kingjeff (talk · contribs) after he insisted on rewriting the links in Arsenal F.C.#Honours, but then promptly abandoned. Qwghlm 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, they were in a terrible state so I have added in tables and cleaned up the other sections, so they are now at the very least readable. Whether they should exist at all or be merged in or deleted is another, but it's a start. Qwghlm 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Should seasons now have their years separated by the en-dash? The Rambling Man 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style says "Hyphens have often been wrongly used in disjunctive expressions on Wikipedia; this is especially common in sports scores. When creating an article, a hyphen is now not used as a substitute for an en dash in the title." - looks like we have some "moving" to do... The Rambling Man 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedantically speaking, yes (see WP:MOSDASH), but it would be an incredible pain to do it over all such articles (and any redirect fixing), and the effort is best spent elsewhere IMHO. Ask yourself this - does anyone misunderstand what the title means with a hyphen, as opposed to an endash? Of course not - the meaning is conveyed just as well with either. It's a very minor problem and not one to waste too much time over. Qwghlm 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed on those that already exist (unless we can get a clever bot to do it), but for those newly created, the MOS should be followed. The Rambling Man 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you do if you were writing, or typing, say the current season? I know for sure, I'd use the same sort of character as I would for a minus sign in a sum, or as a sepearator of a double-barrelled name, or a hybrid word - i.e. 2007-08. The "endash" is a typographical legacy, and in my opinion the MOS no longer follows common usage. - fchd 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO, endashes and emdashes are overrated. - PeeJay 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the naming conventions on player articles? There are a lot of Spanish players with both their surnames in the article title. Take Javi Martínez of Athletic for example, his article is titled Javier Martínez Aguinaga. Shouldn't the title be just Javi Martínez? It's the same problem with Argentinian players but with extra first names (like Bernardo Alejandro Leyenda for example). I have moved a couple of pages in the past without consulting anyone but would like to bring it up here before I continue. Sebisthlm 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just go by WP:NCP - use the name they are most commonly known by in English where this is not ambiguous. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Players should go by common names where possible, as it makes them easier to find/sort in categories. ArtVandelay13 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the following user twice for his continual vandalism of Bradford City A.F.C. but he still won't desist. Is there anything else I can do? Peanut4 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just gave him a final warning. If he doesn't desist, he will be blocked. --Angelo 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Just noticed. He and another user also been changing David Brightwell and Bradford fire plus other articles. I've not even looked at all the other edits he's been making. I don't even know what sort of vandalism they include. Peanut4 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any permissions / admin, etc. you need to block people. Got a similar problem with Peanut4 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to be an admin to block. Report them at WP:AIV if they vandalise after the final warning. Rettetast 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

91.105.1.46 is now blocked. Rettetast 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin, if you need it you can ask me to block them. --Angelo 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Had a look through the other edits they've been making and it seems they've all been reverted too. Peanut4 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent introduction of new standardised template forms for most of the football articles, i think we need a concerted effort to introduce the changes. The new templates are:

• {{National squad}} (Mainly implemented already) Lists can be found in subcategories of Category:Football squad templates
• {{Football squad}} List of templates: Category:English football squad templates
• {{Football manager history}} List of templates: Category:Football manager history templates

Given the state of some pages such as Gordon Strachan, i think we need to move to the new templates as soon as possible. Thoughts? Woodym555 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree we need to get them all updated. I've uncovered a slight problem when converting the Template:Scotland national football team managers to the new standard. What do we do when a manager was in the post during one calendar year only? I've put 1958–1958 for now but it looks odd. Do we need a new sub-template to handle this or can we tweak Template:Football manager list entry to drop the endash when there is no "to" parameter when the "from" and "to" parameters are identical? Apologies if I've missed something here. --Jameboy 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the Bradford City template over and it looks good. The only question I had was the same as Jameboy, when the manager's reign started and ended in the same year. I've just left it as 2007-, etc, at the moment, but is there a proper fix? Peanut4 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As i replied up top, i am working on a fix that would involve the #if etc, so that the to parameter is optional. Should be working soon. Need to iron out some problems with it though. Woodym555 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Add {{Carlisle United F.C. managers}} to the problem list. The stanadardised version is much better though. Kingjamie 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "to" parameter is now optional. (Thanks must go to User:Bryan Derksen for helping me fix this and for standardising the other Football squad templates. Any other problems? Thanks Woodym555 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Really good work on these templates. Let's hope they all get adopted soon. Peanut4 00:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. A great job. I will update more of the navboxes to the new standard when I get time. If the templates are deemed successful then I guess they could be used in other Wikiprojects too? Although they are named as Football manager templates, their use could be far wider-reaching. --Jameboy 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done Woody - excellent. I've now altered the Southampton template, so the Gordon Strachan article now looks quite neat!. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard way to order these templates? I've been putting them in chronlogical order, e.g. Bryan Robson, but not sure if any standard has been agreed? --Jameboy 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with chronological order. Peanut4 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this makes the most sense. ArtVandelay13 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sunderland06 created a number of articles about Sanmarinese national footballers. However, the heavy majority of them is composed by players who take part mostly in Italian amateur divisions Promozione and Prima Categoria (levels 7 and 8 of Italian football, out of 10 total tiers). I feel they are not notable, as they fail WP:BIO and WP:N (no significant media coverage). Thoughts? --Angelo 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But where else are you going to hear about Sanmarinese national footballers? They may be insignificant in the context of Italian football, but they are their home country's pride and joy! Wiggy! 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite hard to verify and source your latest statement. Sanmarinese players are insignificant in absolute terms, as they have no significant media coverage and consequently fail WP:N, and I doubt they are known in their own country as well, in fact they mostly play in Italian (amateur) leagues. --Angelo 02:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about players for the full San Marino national team, I believe they are definitely notable - especially if the players concerned have made appearances in World Cup or European Championship games. - fchd 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am torn here. At club level most San Marino internationals are insignificant. However, they play at international level against some of the world's best, albeit generally as cannon fodder. During my recent expansion of San Marino national football team, <canvas>which is currently on peer review,</canvas> I considered delinking those who do not play professionally. The key is how much verifiable material there is about them, as notability is irrelevant without verifiability. Could these articles be expanded beyond "plays position for the San Marino national football team. He has X caps"? For the likes of Davide Gualtieri the answer is yes, for most others I'm not so sure. Oldelpaso 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely if a player plays international football then they are notable? GiantSnowman 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs an update.Very obsolete.-Lemmy- 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Push.-Lemmy- 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't even know where to start looking for a comprehensive list of German transfers. Anyone care to help me out? - PeeJay 12:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.transfermarkt.de ArtVandelay13 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In 1890 Small Heath (as then was) were disqualified from the FA Cup for fielding an unregistered player. For my List of Birmingham City F.C. players, which has a column for appearances in all competitions, should I count that year's FA Cup games or not? I would have thought not, but my book does include them, and it's taken me ages to realise why my figures refused to cross-check with theirs! Struway2 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think that all of the FA Cup games up to the one with the unregistered player should be counted, but the offending game itself not counted. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would include all the games. I think that has always been the practice, as it is for league games that are later awarded to the opposition for similar reasons. - fchd 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - if the game was ordered to be replayed, that would be a different matter and only appearances in the replay would count. - fchd 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. In which case, would they also count as games won for the purposes of manager stats (not that we had a manager in 1890, I don't think, but in principle)? Struway2 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you should watch out for this guy. He's been putting non-Fair Use club logos into the Champions League articles, amongst others, and I've so far managed to revert them all, but I'm certain he will come back at me spouting some nonsensical gibberish about his misinterpretation of Wiki policy. - PeeJay 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the user deserves a little more assumption of good faith. No-one has yet given him/her an explanation as to why the logos are not permitted to be used in such a way, aside from abrupt edit summaries. It is by no means unsurprising that a fairly new user is not intimately familiar with the finer points of WP:NONFREE. I'll leave a talk page note to give a fuller explanation of why the user's additions are being reverted. Oldelpaso 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Angelo beat me to it. Oldelpaso 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this amateur league meet the notability guidelines? Corvus cornix 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's previously been the case that all *leagues* meet the notability criteria, but only *clubs* down to a certain level (currently the consensus of which is level 10) plus ones below that which can demonstrate individal notability, but the notability of lower leagues is probably a discussion worth having. - fchd 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All leagues are notable? When & where did we come to this conclusion? Qwghlm 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose that the majority of leagues would be notable, seeing as they would have sources available for verification. Of course this relies on those articles actually having sources. However, making a bold statement such as 'all of x are notable' would be against WP:N as each article still would have to prove the notability of it's subject as per the general criterion. 84.64.123.72 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a Sunday pub football league. If this is notable then why not include every darts and doms league, bowls club, under 8s cricket league, etc, etc. I can't see how this league is in the remotest bit notable either in or out of Sheffield. Peanut4 11:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do they meet notability guidelines? I was going to make one for Frank Lampard's Totally Frank, if a artist puts out a record, this falls under notablity guidelines, so a book by a footballer can too right? - The Worlds Most Creative Username 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See here for notability guidelines for books, irrespective of who wrote them......... ChrisTheDude 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that a footballer's autobiography doesn't meet notability criteria from a footballing standpoint, and a short mention in the player's article that they had written an autobiography would suffice. However, this may be totally different to what Wikipedia:Notability (books) says. I will say, though, that your analogy to an artist putting out a record is a bit tenuous. A musical artiste's job is to make records, whereas a footballer's job is to play football, not write autobiographies, so to compare the two is a bit silly, IMO. - PeeJay 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I felt some might be ok, because they have been controversial in the history of the player. Taking Jaap Stam's Head-to-head for example, some of the revelations in it are widely attributed as a reason for him going from Manchester United when he was considered as one of the best defenders in the world at that time.

Maybe creating a section in the players articles for an autobiog could be good? instead of making a new article. - The Worlds Most Creative Username 21:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. - PeeJay 22:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine to me. Autobiographies cover mainly the player's subject, so they're basically worth to be cited as a paragraph/section rather than to a standalone article. --Angelo 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that these biographies can be adequately covered within the subject of the biography. It's not as though they generally count as original contributions to literature - it's just another account of the life of the sportsman which will add a couple of sentences to the article about that sportsman. Robotforaday 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are articles for Coach (baseball), Coach (ice hockey), and Coach (basketball). I couldn't find any equivalent article, or any article about football management for that matter. I'm not sure this article would actually be worth having, but I'm thinking of starting something. Anyone have any ideas? JACOPLANE • 2007-10-29 12:24

Coach (sport) has some elements that relate to the role, but I think starting an article about the individual role of the football team manager with it's associated history etc would be a good thing. Oh and maybe some bits about the coaching badges would be nice too. 84.69.68.203 12:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, creating the article Football (soccer) manager would be a good move. Perhaps an expanation of the different roles in management couls be included, manager, 1st team coach, sporting director, etc and the differing uses of manager and coach in other countries.King of the North East (T/C) 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussed moved to WT:NONFREE#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes. ed g2s • talk 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. article, I was wondering, should you include the caretakers on it? I wasn't sure or not, but myself, I feel you shouldn't do that as they aren't normally there for very long. Just wanted some input about it. Govvy 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Full-time managers sometimes aren't in place for very long either. Where lists include full dates of appointments/dismissals, listing caretakers fills in chronological discrepancies. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - take a look at my club, Gillingham. Caretaker manager Iffy Onuora has already been in the job longer than Brian Clough was full-time (non-caretaker) boss of Leeds United...... ChrisTheDude 16:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This question was asked a couple of weeks ago. I'd certainly put them in any list of managers - like you say Iffy Onoura has been in charge longer than Brian Clough was. But would you include caretakers on the templates? Peanut4 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people have been including the caretakers in the templates, some haven't. We should probably have a standard one way or the other. I'm slightly in favour of not having them in the templates as they can clutter but on the other hand it makes the list complete. If we do include caretakers in the template (with the superscripted 'c' like Template:Arsenal F.C. managers), maybe Woody's template(s) (Template:Football manager history etc) could be amended to take an optional "caretaker=yes" parameter? --Jameboy 09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I definately feel that the caretakers should not be on the templates as they are just a stop-gap measure and they are not known for being the manager of the team, they're just a member of staff who was in the right place at the right time to be asked to take over. I would (and do) however include them in team manager lists, as it completes the chronology of the team, and they have win/loss statistics that can be added against their name. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you here Gasheadsteve. Most caretakers are in essence a brief fraction of a club's history. But I suppose there could be one or two who are appointed for nearly a season and could actually make a serious impact on that history. Thinking of the top of my head, club A sacks its manager A in September, appoints manager B for the start of the following season because he's under contract, but have manager C in place till the end of the season as caretaker then he goes on to win the league and cup double having been in charge for 30+ games. Far-fetched maybe but some caretakers are more important than others. I'd say all or none on the templates, and for the sake of completeness would be swayed by the "all" option. Peanut4 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of Template:Arsenal F.C. managers, I included the caretaker managers for the sake of completeness esp. as Joe Shaw acted as caretaker for 5 months, in which time some clubs (e.g. Southampton) can get through 3 managers! Initially I was against including them for similar reasons to those stated by Gasheadsteve, but have now firmly changed my mind and consider that the template should cover everyone who acted as manager, in a similar fashion to the incrasingly redundant succession boxes. --Daemonic Kangaroo 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that caretakers have differing importance. I wholeheartedly support including them in the managers list, they wouldn't be comprehensive if they weren't. Yet i think the managers template will get a bit cluttered if you include all caretakers. I am sure that some caretakers will have had extended stays. Thinking about it, if we do want to replace the succession boxes, then the new templates have to be comprehensive. I just think they could get increasingly cluttered. If they get too large though, we could always force them to be collapsed. Incidentally i have been following the discussion at Template talk:Navbox and the show/V/D/E should be the same colour as the title soon. That was one of my major problems with the titles, if it is blue like chelseas, the links disappear. Woodym555 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If I have understood this right, the navboxes collapse automatically if there is more than one on a page but if there is only one, it is open by default. Is that correct?--Daemonic Kangaroo 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Woodym555 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but while you're here Woody... is it possible to have the word 'Managers' in the title bar optionally link to an article (I'm thinking particularly of List of xxxxx F.C. managers - would seem logical to link from manager navbox to corresponding managers article. --Jameboy 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be possible using parser functions. I will have a go tommorrow. Woodym555 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, had a go, almost there. Got the parser functions to work, just not the colour. See User:Woodym555/Manager template for the sandbox version and User:Woodym555/Aston Villa Sandbox for an example of them in use. Anyone got any ideas how to fix it? Woodym555 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it now with the expert help of User:Nihiltres. The parameter is |managers= for those who want it. Woodym555 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Number 57 moved the KitKat Cresent article to Bootham Crescent and has made various other changes to Bootham. Despite KitKat being the sponsored name, I believe it is the official name. Even per WP:COMMONNAME, I would go by KitKat. I hardly see anyone saying Bootham nowadays. I find this quite worrying to be quite frank. And this is totally different from league's with sponsored titles. This is what the stadium is called. As much as I don't like it, the word Bootham is dead. Mattythewhite 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When I moved Priestfield Stadium to krbs Priestfield Stadium, which is now its official name, it was reverted, quoting WP:COMMONNAME, but the case of the York ground seems to be different as the sponsored name has completely replaced the old name rather than just being tacked on the front, which means that people only ever use the sponsored name....... ChrisTheDude 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Two previous discussions seemed to come to the conclusion that sponsors' names shouldn't be used for stadiums. Trying to prove WP:COMMONNAME is difficult and google is not ideal, but "Bootham Crescent" still gets more hits than the variations "KitKat Crescent" and "Kit Kat Crescent" combined almost three years after it was renamed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But clearly it is upto the situation. I mean, for York, it simply is never known as Bootham anymore. It's not referred to as that and it's not officially called that. See here. It says "The club's home is therefore to be re-named KitKat Crescent". It's not known as KitKat for a silly sponsorship deal, but it has been renamed to that. Mattythewhite 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the club would say that - it's exactly what the sponsor's want them to say - but I don't see how this is any different to the Saunders Honda Stadium situation. Also note the sentence in the link you provided - the club "offered Nestlé Rowntree the naming rights for the ground for the calendar years 2005 and 2006". Although they've renewed it, it's obviously not a permanent thing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC said it, not the club. And the Deva Stadium is actually referred to as that, like on this BBC match report. But, look at a recent BBC match report, which says KitKat and not Bootham. Mattythewhite 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So what about stadiums from new that have 'sponsored' names as such. Like Emirates Stadium and BMO Field etc. It's been renamed, and that's it's official title. Same with Glassworld Stadium etc. Jimbo online 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For stadiums that have never had non-sponsorship names (such as the Emirates or the Ricoh Arena) we have no choice but to use the sponsored name, but in cases where a name was there before, we should keep it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this matter, really? At the end of the day, that is the stadiums name, regardless of a previous name! Mattythewhite 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But is it? Note this BBC article from earlier this year - Nestle renewed their sponsorship which "includes naming rights for Bootham Crescent" - the underlying name is still there. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I must say. But I think a clear concensus (not just us two squabbling) should be gained here before the edit war turns absolutely barmy. Mattythewhite 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't refer to it under it's sponsored name. Someone also recently moved Bescot Stadium to a sponsored name, I believe. - fchd 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just moved that back - it was a cut & paste job too. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a very good reason not to move it back again. Yes, I shouldn't have used cut and paste (I know that now); but the name of the stadium is now Banks's Stadium. That's the name on tickets, that's the name used by visiting clubs, and that's the name used by the media. Using Google hits to determine common name is irrelevant - Google will include old articles written when the name was different. What matters is what the name is NOW. If it changes in the future it can change again. Nobody visiting Banks's Stadium in the coming months and trying to find out about it will search for Bescot Stadium because it is not now called Bescot Stadium. It is called Banks's Stadium. Rather than petty stupid articles about what we think stadiums should be called we should do the verifiable thing and call them what they are called. B1atv 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC were calling it Bescot when reporting on the women's international on Saturday. - fchd 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the BBC were wrong - not the first time they've been wrong about all things Walsall and it won't be the last. B1atv 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Valley Parade has had several sponsorship names over the years but will always be called Valley Parade to Bradford City fans. And Darlington's new ground keeps changing its sponsorship and hence name but seems to have a consistency of Darlington Arena in their somewhere. Peanut4 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page I have been told that Google has only 16 sources for "Banks' Stadium", compared to hundreds for "Bescot Stadium". Firstly, Google is not an accepted source on Wikipedia. And, as I have said above, Google includes all the pages created when the stadium was the Bescot Stadium as well as those now it is the Banks's Stadium - and besides, I get 727 hits for "Banks's Stadium". It helps if people spell the name of the stadium correctly when trying to prove a point. Secondly, I was told that "The ground has been known for years by its proper name" (my emphasis). This is a wrong claim - the The proper name, as of today, is the Banks's Stadium. It is not for you or I or anybody on here to decide what it is called. The people who own the stadium have decided that as of today it is the Banks's Stadium (See Walsall Council's list of approved venues for civil partnerships, or the same council's news story about a climate change conference. You can argue all you like, the FACT is, the VERIFIABLE FACT, is that the stadium is now called the Banks's Stadium, whether you like it or not. And to say that Bradford's ground "will always be called Valley Parade to Bradford City fans" is a serious POV issue - it matters not what people's opinions are, it matters what the facts are. And in this case Walsall's stadium is called the Banks's Stadium. Somebody above mentioned the BBC claiming the England Women's match against Belarus at the Weekend was at the "Bescot Stadium" - not according to this report at BBC News Online. B1atv 06:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is also WP:COMMONNAME. Yes I did spell the name wrong, but 727 is still a pretty poor result compared to 40,000+ for Bescot Stadium. Whilst clubs are forced to refer to their own stadiums by the sponsorship names as part of the deal, fans aren't, and I personally don't know any fan who uses the names Matchroom Stadium, Fraser Eagle Stadium or the Fitness First Stadium. Also, using bold caps is quite rude, please stay WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm merely trying to get the emphasis across. It doesn't matter what fans call it; unless you take the fan's pov, which means you are not approaching it from a neutral point of view. The name is the name is the name regardless of what you want it to be. Buy a football club and call the stadium what you want. Until you do you'll just have to accept the official name which the official owners officially give. B1atv 11:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:COMMONNAME. "Use the most common name of a person or thing". Bescot Stadium is quite clearly the common name, regardless of what the sponsors want, and is quite clearly not a contradiction of WP:NPOV. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMONNAME again - it clearly states that articles should be named about the thing people will search for. Again, people going to matches at Walsall will read on their club website that the match is at the "Banks's Stadium"; they will read in the media that the match is at the "Banks's Stadium". They will read on their tickets that the match is at "Banks's Stadium", so if they are searching for information on the club, what makes you think they will search for "Bescot Stadium"? The Common Name policy dictates that the article should be called "Banks's Stadium" because right now the stadium is called "Banks's Stadium" and that is it's legal name, it's official name and it's common name. The Common Name policy should be read in association with other Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). I'm not going to keep arguing here. We're going around in circles and we are not going to reach agreement because of what appears to be your personal distaste of corporate sponsors. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure where or how, but I will research the best place and method to do this and will seek wider Wikipedia comment. I do not understand (and nobody has put any reason here other than a fallacious argument about Google Hits) why you are so determined to ensure that stadium articles are incorrectly titled. B1atv 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Almost no-one would buy a Walsall ticket without knowing the name of the ground. The vast majority of home fans have probably been going there for years and will know the Stadium as the Bescot, and I would be very surprised if it is any different for away fans. Your usage of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is also completely misleading. That policy concerns ambiguuity: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise". There is no ambiguity issue here - there is no other Bescot Stadium. As for me being "so determined to ensure that stadium articles are incorrectly titled", I am following well-established policy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On a slight aside, are we going to change every stadium / league / competition when it changes name? E.g. the FA Cup or the Championship are still FA Cup and Football League Championship. No-one other than the club is forced to call it the Banks's Stadium. To be honest, this was the first I knew it was no longer called the Bescot. Peanut4 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the "Corporate name" of the stadium can be given a redirect to the common (historical) name of the stadium. Anyone searching for the stadium name by its corporate name would find themselves at the right article. As corporate names are usually of a transitory nature, I think they should be avoided when at all possible. King of the North East (T/C) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Peanut4 - an interesting point. Why do you call it by the transitory name of the Football League Championship. It's common name is the English 2nd Division ;-) B1atv 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another comment - What concerns me about this debate is phrases like: "No-one other than the club is forced to call it..." What force? If the stadium has changed its name it's changed its name. What appears to be the argument here is a reluctance to use a name simply because the changed name has come about because of a sponsorship deal. What name do you suggest we call Coventry City's ground? or Arsenal's stadium? What should we do there? And what do we do in 10 years time when it changes? If Arsenal's ground becomes the "Mars Bowl" does Wikipedia insist on calling it Emirates because they got their first? There needs to be a consistent approach and the only consistent approach that makes sense in all circumstances is to use the official name of the stadium. B1atv 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The approach is consistent - traditional names are used in all cases where they exist. In cases where they don't exist (Emirates, Ricoh Arena), the sponsor name is the default. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So what happens in 10 years time if the Ricoh Arena or Emirates Stadium has another sponsor? Are you saying that Wikipedia would still refer to these as Ricoh/Emirates? B1atv 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Those that began as sponsored names (e.g. McAlpine Stadium) stay as sponsored names and change with them (Galpharm Stadium) - if it's never had a traditional name, then there is no barrier to change. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why your policy is inconsistent. It means some articles about stadiums will change names if the sponsor changes and other articles about stadiums won't change names if the sponsor changes. The only consistent option - which means all stadiums are treated the same - is to use the current legal name for each stadium. B1atv 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully yes. I would have the Emirates stadium as Ashburton Grove, but I don't have a solution for Coventry or Huddersfield. I still think this is better than changing traditional names to sponsors names which may only last a season or two. I prefer to keep all sponsors names out of article titles in much the same way as for league articles. - fchd 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have begun the process of seeking wider opinion and consensus by flagging the Bescot Stadium article with npov concerns over the article name. B1atv 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. This is not a WP:NPOV issue, it is a WP:COMMONNAME issue; you are making it into something it is not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Is there a mention in the Lead appropriately bolded for the alternative name?
2. Are there redirects set up so that users who type in an alternative name get to right article?
3. Is there a section or sentence that mentions the use of both names and the reasons for this?

If there are - who really cares what the url/article title says? 86.21.74.40 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget, from WP:IAR - "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." 86.21.74.40 18:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with 86.21.74.40 here, if redirects are set up then who really cares? We ought to be spending all this energy and vitriol and channelling it into improving the articles. Funnily enough, Bescot Stadium needs some work if anyone is interested! The Rambling Man 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Number57, I am not making it something it is not. You do not like sponsor names because you have a point of view which states the clubs are sponsors can't "force" us to call this something. That is a pov. You are pushing that pov in your unilateral reversion of article moves; and you claim there is a Wikipedia policy on this as decided here. There is a process for deciding article name conventions and it hasn't been followed. The Wikipedia naming convention pages have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to suggest that you are right on this issue; in the meantime you ignore completely Wikipedia's rules about verifiability and facts. Why does this matter? It matters because I want people to be able to find the article they are looking for. I would ordinarily agree with the Rambling Man's point, but the difficulty in doing that here is that the name is used in more than simply the search box. For example, in the List of stadiums in England you will not find the Banks's Stadium. Instead you will find a stadium which does not exist. Likewise, people looking at [Category:Football_venues_in_England] will also be unable to find the stadium. That's why it matters. B1atv 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not (a) pushing my "POV" or (b) ignoring Wikipedia policy, and saying that "Wikipedia naming convention pages have nothing whatsoever to suggest that I am right on this issue is just a lie. WP:COMMONNAME states: "Use the most common name of a person or thing". Google is not the best way of determining the answer, but it provides very clear evidence to suggest what is correct (i.e. Bescot Stadium = 35,500 hits, Banks's Stadium = 696). And as I said before, please stop shouting. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You can't get much more of a common name than the name it is called. Look at the photo on the page - what do those big letters at the front of the stadium commonly say? I'm trying to establish the method of getting wider Wikipedia community consensus, I've started the process on the article page and all the response I've had so far is you continuing to badger with the self-same points you've been making since you unilaterally reverted my page move on the basis that a wikipedia consensus already existed on the names of football stadiums. Please butt out for a while and stop repeating yourself lets see if we can get wider consensus. Wider consensus doesn't mean you keep coming back at every post I make with an identical position. I know what your position is. I'm trying to find out what other people's views are. And, once again, there is a difference between shouting and emphasis. B1atv 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I have to repeatedly reply to you is that you repeatedly misrepresent my actions and Wikipedia policy. Once you stop doing that, then there is no reason for me to rebutt your statements. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I favour using "traditional" names where they exist, as sponsored names are ephemeral in nature. Take an example of an expired sponsored stadium name; that of the Riverside Stadium. Cellnet Riverside Stadium was transient, Riverside Stadium is not. Even when talking about a match from 1996, one would not use Cellnet Riverside'. Likewise League Cup vs Milk/Rumbelows/Littlewoods/Coca-Cola/Worthington/Carling Cup. Oldelpaso 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. If there's a traditional name, we should use it, with the sponsored name mentioned in the lead in bold. With stadiums with sponsored names since creation, we should simply move them on as deals change. HornetMike 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! Definitely use the traditional names, Bootham Crescent is strongest example of why! Petepetepetepete 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a bit torn now. I will certainly follow the standard which has been set here, don't worry about that. In a way, I find the use of Bootham as incorrect and looking at the past. But, looking at several reports from the BBC on the ground, it does seem as if Bootham is still the official name. Mattythewhite 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are sub appearances counted in a player's infobox? I always thought so but I was reverted by User:ChristalPalace for including a sub appearance in the infobox total. Thanks. Dave101→talk  14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They have to be, otherwise goalscoring substitute debutantes would end up with (0)1 for games(goals). A sub appearance is still an appearance. In my opinion, it should not have been reverted (I just use Soccerbase figures which include sub games). Fedgin | Talk 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Yes, a sub appearance is an appearance. Some conventions separate starts and subs - e.g. 3+1 (2) for two goals in three starts & one sub appearance, but this may be too tedious to implement as a WP-wide standard. Qwghlm 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that most people searching for "Winger" mean the band, and the "what links here" for that page seems to agree with me. The hatnotes are good, but it seems to contravene guideline. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Winger. --Dweller 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the page for Wrexham be moved? The page is currently at Wrexham F.C. but both the crest and the former player's category say Wrexham A.F.C. GiantSnowman 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When the club Wrexham AFC went bust in 2006, the new company that took over the assets of the club called themselves something like Wrexham Football Club (2006), so the club is now called Wrexham F.C. If you look at their official website, you'll see they've changed the crest to get rid of the 'A', the one on the Wrexham F.C. article is now out of date. Struway2 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens to the categories in this case? I notice the category for managers is Wrexham A.F.C. managers. Should that stay as it is or should a new category be made? Peanut4 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this article at the minute? Personally, I think it has the perfect balance of prose and data, with all the necessary facts where they should be. However, User:Gethomas3 seems to think that there is a lot of superfluous info in there that needs deleting. I have so far reverted his edits, but I would like the opinions of the other WP:FOOTY members before hitting my third revert. - PeeJay 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong at all with how it is now. And I certainly don't understand this comment to a recent change "This world has been over for over a year. It is time to bring useless info out and converted to a regular info format as the past world cups. Let us start working on 2010 and 2014.)" Why do we need to convert it into the same format as the previous World Cups when there's nothing wrong with the article as it is. Peanut4 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm too concerned with the end of the world, to work on 2010 and 2014. I dont know how I missed it. King of the North East (T/C) 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I mean, there have been comments about the neutrality of the Route to the Final section (which I just restored to the article, having discovered that it had previously been removed), but I believe that this could be easily remedied, if it even needs it. - PeeJay 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've created a semi-automated way of generating these templates so I'm going through from Premier League (now finished) to League Two (at least) creating templates. What my system doesn't do is check each manager is pointed to correctly. I will get round to this but any help would be great. Also, inserting the new templates on the relevant manager pages and removing any redundant succession boxes would be very useful as well. The Rambling Man 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Championship clubs now all have a manager template. The Rambling Man 11:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On the template for Gillingham, it won't allow Mick Docherty's spell to be shown as simply "2007", it keeps inserting the endash, irrespective of whether the "to" variable is set as "2007", "07" or omitted altogether......? ChrisTheDude 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Peanut4 12:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - midway through League 1 clubs. Thanks to those of you who have helped fix some of the dodgy links. The Rambling Man 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update - League 1 complete. The Rambling Man 08:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - all English league clubs complete. The Rambling Man 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TRM is an extraordinary Wikipedian. Thank you from all of us. --Dweller 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - Scottish Premier League complete. The Rambling Man 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just created an article about this player, but was surprised to find that one didn't already exist, given that he played for so many clubs.

Did my inexpert searching miss an already existing article? --Dweller 12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you missed anything. There's loads of players missing, especially ones that retired before about 2000. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I checked the index and couldn't find any other Kevin Scott (except the speed skater). I tried spelling variations as well but couldn't find anything there either. I had the same sense of amazement when i was going through some of the Villa players. There are quite a few gaps for the older footballers. Woodym555 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think an automated script could be devised to scour Soccerbase for players with 1 or more professional appearances, and dump out the results somewhere, perhaps in order of # of appearances? We could then work through the list and turn the redlinks blue. --Dweller 12:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else had problems with the soccerbase links? I was editing Peter Taylor's page and noticed after his soccerbase link the }} symbols kept showing up. I tried to fix it but the problem kept occuring, anyone know why or how to fix it? Jimbo online 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

looks like it had been left in the middle of the succession boxes when some were removed, I've removed it. Struway2 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A newbie keep on cut and paste move for Negeri Sembilan FA (NS NAZA), but I cannot find a best name to put to put it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Matthew_hk tc 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While looking at Steve Bruce's detailed stats on allfootballers.com, I noticed he's listed as having played for Man U in the "Mercantile Credit Classic". I've got a hazy recollection this was one of the events that took place during the Football League's cack-handed centenary season, but I forget the details - can anyone elaborate....? ChrisTheDude 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See Football League Centenary Tournament 86.21.74.40 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone seen the icons used in this template? Are they really necessary? - PeeJay 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And are they allowed in the first place? AFAIK the club logos and crests are copyrighted, and derivatives of copyrighted material fall under that copyright as well. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the template doesn't seem to be in use, having been superceded by Template:Primera División de España. - PeeJay 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case I suggest TfD'ing it as an orphaned template with copyright issues. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See TFD nomination. Woodym555 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the Huntelaar article to GA, but the nomination is currently on hold (see the talk page for details). The reviewer has requested a good copyedit of the article, and I'd like to have someone else take a look, since I'm not the greatest writer myself. Any help would be much appreciated! JACOPLANE • 2007-11-3 22:52

Thanks User:Oldelpaso :) JACOPLANE • 2007-11-5 08:50

At long last I have completed the task of turning this list into a (rather large) table. Subject to a bit of checking & cross-checking (any help will be gratefully received), I plan to merge this with the main List of England international footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning to merge List of England players with only one cap as well. This seems to be redundant given the sortable nature of the new table. I cannot see any extra information in that article that needs to be kept. Woodym555 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - you're right. That will need to be merged too. Some of the margin notes re red-linked players might still be useful. Pending the creation of the players' articles, I guess these could be incorporated into the footnotes on the main article. I'll be away for a few days. I'll look at it on my return. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged the three articles into List of England international footballers, with re-directs from the others, keeping some of the footnotes for red-linked articles. My only concern now is the sheer size of the article (over 260k) which may cause problems with some users.

There are a large number of red links on this list. in the Category:England international footballers there are 782 articles, whereas there are 1151 players who have played for England; that leaves 369 (still nearly 1 in 3) players without articles. So it's time to get researching/writing guys! As I've said before, who can resist the opportunity to create an article about players whose names resonate like Percy de Paravicini or Pelham von Donop, or even James "Tadger" Stewart!. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently came across the move log of Siva1979 (talk · contribs), who has moved hundreds of articles about football seasons from the year/year format (e.g. 2006/2007) to the year-ar format (e.g. 2006-07). The reasons given were along the lines of "accurate title", "correct title name" and "consistent title." Is there any convention or guideline regarding the naming of articles about football seasons, or has there been any prior discussion about this? Aecis^Brievenbus 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did attempt to get a discussion going about this before [see here] but it received little response. As you can see, I prefer the year-ar format (e.g. 2006-07) which seems prevalent in English articles but not everywhere else. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I too prefer the year-ar format (e.g.2007-08) as it is used widely in the English football articles. To change to any other format would require a lot of work to standardize the naming of these articles! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the YYYY-YY format, except in the case of 1899-00 and 1999-00, when I believe the YYYY-YYYY format should be used. I know you would have to be a simpleton not to realise that 1899-00 means 1899-1900, and 1999-00 means 1999-2000, but some people might get confused. - PeeJay 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with YYYY-YY, but there should be YYYY-YYYY redirects set up just in case. King of the North East (T/C) 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, even in cases where 1899-00 and 1999-00 seasons, YYYY-YY format should be used for consistency sake. I do not think that it would be confusing to the readers or editors about this. Redirects should also be set up, just in case as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if a few other Wikiproject Football participants could contribute their view on the Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. Merger proposal. It would be helpful for a better concensus on the matter. Thanks. Chappy^T_C 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Since I'm in the mood to kill all succession boxes, would anyone object to captain navboxes? Like this one:

The Rambling Man 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could add a parameter into the existing manager navbox if needs be, so that you could have Captains turn up instead of Managers, if it is needed. You would need to have some sort of guideline regarding length of time of being captain as well. Woodym555 12:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but... How do you define captain? officially appointed club captain, on-the-pitch-for-xx-games-a-season team captain, ... A navbox like the example is very nice, it looks complete and there's no overlap. All the lists of captains I've looked at have had overlap, missing bits, vague definitions and not much in the way of definitive referencing. It's not the sort of thing that can be reliably and definitively sourced throughout the history of most clubs in the way managers can. Struway2 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say i am ambiguous about how useful they would be. I keep the AVFC one going, but i am slightly dubious as to it's usefulness. Just my opinion, and i agree with Struway that it is hard to keep for the majority of clubs. Woodym555 12:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a step too far. Too loosely defined and too much potential for over-navboxing. ArtVandelay13 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If their stint at captain was notable enough, then it should be mentioned in their biographies and then you can explain it more. I think we run the risk of having 9 or 10 navboxes at the bottom, each in their own contrasting colours. As you can tell, i am swinging to opposing these templates (including Villas). Woodym555 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also oppose such templates as unnecessary and ambiguous. It's not like captain is a contracted job role like manager. In the Man U example above, it shows that Bryan Robson was captain for 12 years, but given the amount of time he used to spend injured, other players must have been "on the pitch" captain on many, many occasions during that period.... ChrisTheDude 12:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd only be able to do this for a handful of (well-referenced) clubs. As for 9 or 10 in contrasting colours, we already have that. Just check out Lennie Lawrence and Tommy Docherty for a start. Given how long some of these managers are lasting these days, they'll be multiplying by the day soon. Peanut4 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you differentiate between club and team captains? Some clubs have one on-field captain and another club captain. Good idea but impractical for captains; perhaps this could, however, be brought into use for other areas, such as top goalscorer for a league or something? Fedgin | Talk 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Nice idea but it would be unbelievably long for leagues that have been going 100 years. Peanut4 12:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also say they are not worth having for all the reasons above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to listing captains in succession boxes or templates, purely because of (as already mentioned above) the difficulty in defining who the captain is. IIRC, at the start of one season (possibly 2004–05) West Bromwich Albion changed their team captain on a game-by-game basis... I don't see such info adding much value from a navigational point of view. I would support removing captains succession boxes rather than converting them. Agree that golden boot or other award winners could potentaially be navboxed. --Jameboy 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

←Cool, good debate. So, the consensus says no (I think!) to the nav box, so do we all still tolerate the succession boxes which contain the same information? The Rambling Man 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no fan of succession boxes generally, I think they look untidy. I think having it in the player's article and in an article relating to the club is enough. ArtVandelay13 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would remove all the captaincy succession boxes as well. --Angelo 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of deleting them too. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a mention in the text of the player article would be enough. Captaincy of the team is extremely transitionary, I'm sure I saw a Man-U game a couple of years ago where they had 3 or 4 players wearing the captains armband in the same game. Remove all the captaincy succession boxes and navboxes, I wont complain. King of the North East (T/C) 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would be happy for captaincy succession boxes to be removed, assuming the relevant information appeared somewhere in the prose of the article. Struway2 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Like most contributors, I would happily see the captain succession boxes removed. My own club is as well documented as any, and better than most, and I have never seen a definitive list of captains. As there is now a club captain (which is long-term) and a team captain (often more than one in the same game) it would be an impossible task to reliably identify them all. --Daemonic Kangaroo 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in favour of its removal from articles. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, agree that the template is problematic and agree that equally succession boxes are problematic for exactly the same reason... (as well as being ugly). --Dweller 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well if I've understood the consensus of us lot here, it's destroy captain suc boxes on sight as long as comment is made in the relevant article to said position with team. How do we all feel about suc boxes for things like "FA Cup winning Coach"...(for a good/bad example, head for Alex Ferguson? Is this (a) ok (b) in need of navbox (c) just in need of a category or (d) something else? The Rambling Man 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a no. Succession boxes are for jobs, elections etc, not FA Cup winning coaches. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Special:Contributions/89.216.188.69, they're adding incorrect statistics to articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-5 22:52

I'm guessing he's adding cup data etc. I've sent him a message that the infoboxes include league data only. Peanut4 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another user similar to User:AlexWilkes' is about - Tripod86 (talk · contribs) has been adding in a load of POV recentist commentary to Premier League club articles - e.g. . I've started rolling back some of the edits but I haven't time for all of them - can someone help me out? Qwghlm 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it is Alex Wilkes, he confirmed it a while ago when i confronted him. Woodym555 16:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some users who are so troublesome they make me feel like creating a Facebook group to celebrate them and their intransigence. --Dweller 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The sad thing is, there have been numerous attempts to communicate with him that have gone completely unanswered. He can actually write rather well, he just does it with an inherent POV bias. I will try again now. Woodym555 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, I can't see anything POV about the edit to the Man U page, although it is extremely recentist.... ChrisTheDude 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right - I think I copied the wrong link - I meant to do it for Liverpool. Regardless he has a history of bad edits - if he is still not responding to talk page messages then it might be worth pursuing an RfC & possible block. Qwghlm 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the main problem, he can write well and occasionally does write well, but when he does this (I think "Sundireland" is a classic), it is clearly problematic. If he doesn't answer my latest request then other dispute resolution channels might have to be started. Woodym555 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody's reverted the stupid subheadings he's used in Sunderland. It's not just "Sundireland" that's the problem, it's the whole thing. People like him are the problem with wikipedia being a free-for-all. Robotforaday 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gone, King of the North East (T/C) 03:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit more: Most isn't point of view, it is just incredibly recentist. It would have to be updated every week and would swell disproportionately to the history section. Woodym555 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should have a look at this template . Looks like not notable at the mo. . 12.144.211.2 09:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already been deleted ChrisTheDude 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Daemonic Kangaroo edits faster than lightning. 12.144.211.2 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These are duplicate articles for the same football team - which one should we keep and which one should become the redirect? Also, the article needs a MASSIVE clean-up, so volunteers would be appreciated...GiantSnowman 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say the El Zamalek should redirect to Zamalek. The english language sources seem to use Zamalek and the name is Zamalek sporting club so this should be the main page. It does not a serious cleanup though. I will have a go now. Woodym555 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I only know the club as Zamalek. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am half way through editing it and it is the most POV and BLP ridden article i have come across. Shocking. Woodym555 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You need to go to Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo‎ for a real POVfest ... Wiggy! 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Requested transfers suggested by Zamalek fans" LOL! Sebisthlm 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section has been, umm, nuked :) Woodym555 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed El Zamalek into a redirect. GiantSnowman 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed all the double redirects now. I have gone through it a couple of times and cleaned it out. Some of the WP:BLP stuff in their was quite shocking. If a newspaper printed it they would be sued for libel. It needs references, the external link farm needs cleaning up, the usual WP:MOS problems need fixing, but at least it is slightly respectable now. Woodym555 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks miles better now, well done! GiantSnowman 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given it another run through and sorted the references and see also section. The Honours section has been reformatted and i have columnised the Presidents section. Would anyone with any knowledge of the club, try and sort out the managers section. It seems a bit strange at the moment, is it including coaches as well. (10 managers in a season is a tad excessive, that coming from a Villain). Also someone with some knowledge of Egyptian football needs to have a look at the notable players section. Right, next one... Woodym555 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "Villan"? I'd be a bit worried if we had an actual villain up for adminship. Congrats on that, btw :-) - PeeJay 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm allowed a typo once in a while!! ;) Woodym555 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That managers section is a bit of a mess. Do we really need every change in other coaches? Peanut4 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted that above, it seemed a mess, but i don't have the sources to work out who was the manager. Woodym555 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just re-read that and worked out what you meant now. I think some managers are probably more obvious than others, e.g. Henri Michel, Ruud Krol, but it would still be too much like guessing rather than definitely sure. Peanut4 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Am i that incomprehensible? ;) Woodym555 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see here - what is the general thoughts of having a 'usual starting line-up' in a club article? GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove on sight. Mattythewhite 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - almost no clubs have a usual starting line up these days given squad rotation etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, delete on sight. It is WP:OR and cannot be cited. Woodym555 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrghhhh runs away screaming... No, kill on sight. And I mean kill. Almost as bad as succession boxes.... The Rambling Man 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, what I suspected, but just wanted clarification. GiantSnowman 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Has now been removed from the Roma article. GiantSnowman 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, i just saw that as i popped over to delete it! ;) Woodym555 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm just waiting for someone to try and add a "usual starting lineup" to the Liverpool F.C. article! Robotforaday 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For squads which employ no squad numbers, e.g. Confernence North/South, how should the players be sorted? Should it be by alphabetical order, or by position and then alphabetical order? And should it be the same for squad templates? Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say by position, then alphabetically (for both squad sections and templates). --Angelo 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be the same as Angelo's. What I always do (see for instance FC Zwolle and Ter Leede) is to sort by position first, and within position alphabetically. So first all the goalkeepers, then the defenders, then the midfielders and then the forwards. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. Peanut4 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Angelo (as always). I actually thougt of the same question when I looked at Danubio's template a couple of minutes ago.Sebisthlm 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Or rather their homepage as they don't have squad numbers in the Uruguayan league. I'm guessing the template is from an old Libertadores squad or something. Sebisthlm 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should they be included or not? I'm currently updating the La Liga list, and removed the manager transfers from Deportivo, but Schuster is also listed as incoming transfer for Real. I don't think they should be listed, at least not among the players. I suppose they could be listed under a separate sub-paragraph (in/out/manager in/manager out). What do y'all think? Sebisthlm 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, managers shouldn't be included. Manager changes for the Premier League are listed in the Premier League's season articles, so I would suggest following that model for other countries. Either that, or put it in the 2007-08 in Spanish football article. - PeeJay 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay. I started some time ago a managers list section in both Serie A 2007-08 and Serie B 2007-08 to cover the issue above. Obviously, it can be improved. --Angelo 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ttoggel League, King of the North East (T/C) 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I might support that AfD ;-). The most bizarre thing is it's been around for three months. Peanut4 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it fixing links to Winger, someone had already fixed the link to Defender.King of the North East (T/C) 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I though I had seen it all...GiantSnowman 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to go to Ttoggel Park, but unfortunately the article doesn't seem to include an address.King of the NorthEast 14:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to meet Nala and congratulate him on his awesome feat of playing 1,119 matches so far this year, despite preumably being nearly 60 years old ChrisTheDude 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)/

I wonder what he was doing between 1970 and 2007. I bet he was training hard for his glorious comeback. Seems that he has to cover a lot of positions too, maybe the Zamalek fans could suggest some reinforcements? Sebisthlm 00:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Kram is English. If so, we'd better tell Steve McLaren. Look at that strike ratio. And doing so while playing for six different clubs. Impressive. Very impressive. Peanut4 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Kram means 'hug' in swedish, so he's definetly Swedish, and with Johan Elmander out of next weekend's clash with Spain, we need a good goalscorer. At 60 years of age he might just suit coach Lagerbäck's preference of 'experience' over promising talent... Sebisthlm 10:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you all will like to check this guy's contribution while at it, esp this--Xaiver0510 10:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Qwghlm is a respected editor, and his prod of that article is fully justified. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Xaiver0510, I think you have made some sort of mistake. Qwghlm is almost as experienced and productive as this Kram fellow. Sebisthlm 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

my apologies to all, made a mistake in checking the names. strike out the portion also. --Xaiver0510 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this club meet notability requirements? - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. I'm not sure what level of the football pyramid that league is but given it's a red link I doubt it's high enough up the pyramid. Peanut4 16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The North Lancashire & District League is mentioned on the talk page of the English football league system as not being an official part of the pyramid. If it was, it would probably feed into the West Lancashire League. Therefore, this club are a long, long way from being notable unless they are "special" in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

I've listed West Bromwich Albion F.C. for peer review, with a view to GA (and, eventually I hope, FA). Please feel free to add your comments. This is the first article I've put up for peer review so please let me know if I'm not following the process correctly. Cheers. --Jameboy 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

May as well put it up for GA now, would pass easily. Mattythewhite 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I've put it up as a GA nominee. Therefore I'll keep the peer review open for advice and comments for getting it up to FA. Cheers. --Jameboy 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Things tend to dwell at GA for a while. Let me know if you'd like me to take it and review it. I'll usually give advice based on getting it to FA so that may be of some help. The Rambling Man 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This young lad made his debut for Gillingham on Saturday and is now the youngest player to play for the first team in the club's 114 year history (see here), but if I start an article on him, is he likely to get AfD'ed on the grounds he hasn't played in the league.....? ChrisTheDude 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's an FA Cup game then it should count. Plus if he's the club's youngest player surely that meets notability criteria anyway. Peanut4 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, it's quite likely that someone will take it to AfD for the reason you state, but I can assure you that you have one Keep vote here. - PeeJay 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the proposed new criteria he would be kept.......King of the NorthEast 10:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now created the article, as I'd failed to notice the other salient fact, which is that he's the youngest player ever to play in an FA Cup match. There's no way that can be disputed as a "keeper" claim to notability...... ChrisTheDude 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much of a coincidence this is. ArtVandelay13 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the footballer, check the deletion log. Oldelpaso 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If enough material can be found to get the article over 1500 characters, it'll be a shoe-in for Did you know? Oldelpaso 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How close is it now.....? ChrisTheDude 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably needs another paragraph. Maybe a couple of the nationals will pick up the story in the next day or two. Oldelpaso 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He came on as a 75th minute sub. I am not keen on notability for players who haven't started but since we have articles now for squad players who have never got on I am sure he must qualify. TerriersFan 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can be too rigid with rules simply abiding by that mentality. He's the youngest footballer in the oldest football competition in the world. 15 minutes or not it's pretty notable. Peanut4 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would have put this on the "list of requested moves", but its not technically a requested move. Talk:Football_(soccer)#Zzz..._the_naming_issue:_quick_poll Oldelpaso 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the infobox, when should a player's club career move from 'Youth' to 'Senior' - when he gets a squad number? When he makes a first-team appearance? When he signs a professional contract? GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say when he signs a pro contract, or when he makes a first-team appearance if the specific date he signed a contract can't be tracked down (or he makes a first team appearance before signing a pro contract)..... ChrisTheDude 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Either when he signs a professional contract, or gets a squad number, or makes his debut, whichever comes first, and whichever is easier to track down. A lot of players' infoboxes make the mistake of listing a player's signing date (from Soccerbase) as the beginning of his youthyears, when the player has most likely been there for several years before that. ArtVandelay13 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At smaller clubs, members of the youth team are often drafted into the first team squad, but more often than not only for the experience and to avoid the embarrassment of not having a full quota of players on the bench. League regulations might mean that he therefore is issued a squad number. Even if they play, it is very much a case of a member of the youth team being with the senior squad for one day. The reality of these lads' situation is that they remain part of the youth squad, playing with them, training with them and in many cases, leaving like most of them without ever signing a professional contract. IMHO it is premature (Wiki is not a crystal ball) to list them as members of the senior squad. Kevin McE 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. A player can be in the youth, reserve and 1st teams at the same time, these stages of a player's career often overlap. A player's first involvement in senior football is the beginning of their senior career. Crystal balls have nothing to do with it. ArtVandelay13 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ArtVandelay13. I'd say his youth career is the period while he has a junior / trainee or other appropriate contract. And his first-team career starts when either he's drafted into the first team squad, makes his debut or given a full contract, basically whichever is first. Going to the thread above, the 15-year-old Gillingham player's first team career started yesterday, but he is still a youth. Peanut4 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it make sense in reality to say that he is in two squads at once? Even for the lad who eats, trains, travels, is invited to Christmas dinner etc. only with the youth team but went on what amounts to a work experience jaunt with the first team once? Is there a danger that we are distorting reality for the benefit of having everyone who has played for the team in one template box? Kevin McE 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a youth player is simply training for the seniors for a few days (or vice-versa), then they shouldn't be included, but players who have been involved in the matchday squad, or the numbered squad list, should be in the first-team squad. Of course players can be in youth/reserve/senior squads simultaneously, otherwise the system wouldn't work. ArtVandelay13 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• On a similar note - when does a player's career end? - when he makes his last appearance, or when he leaves the club? GiantSnowman 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say when he leaves the club. Many players have clubs in their infobox despite not making an appearance. If it was when he makes his last appearance, these entries shouldn't be in there. Peanut4 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A player's career ends when he leaves his last club. ArtVandelay13 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone care to tell me what this article was doing in Category:Football (soccer)?- PeeJay 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article's original creator added that cat in this edit ChrisTheDude 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am of the opinion, though, that the article should be deleted as non-notable. Glad to see Angelo's prodded it already :-D. - PeeJay 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed/suggested that the article Gabriele Sandri be moved to November 2007 Italian football violence. Please join the discussion at Talk:Gabriele Sandri#Suggest move. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for a consensus about the taskforces issue, a matter we already starting discussing earlier. I am proposing here to allow football-related taskforces only after having been proposed at WP:COUNCIL/P with a support of at least 4 users. I am also proposing to turn off all taskforces which have been inactive for at least 4 months (namely, the US-Canadian one, whose talkpage is still red-linked as you can see from the navbox above). Please tell me your opinion on it. --Angelo 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opposition to the 4 supporting users proposal, but turning off the US/Can task force would not be right under your 4 month rule, because it was only turned into a taskforce in July, less than 4 months ago, and the talk page of the still existing wikiproject was last used in September, it's latest member joining up in August, the same guy joined the taskforce in August too, the last person to sign as a participant of the taskforce did so in September, you cannot judge whether a project is "in use" by its talk page alone. As far as I can see the reason the taskforce talkpage is unused, is that the members of the wikiproject/taskforce have been confused by the move. Infact, why not shut down the taskforce and reinstate the wikiproject or do it the other way round, rather than having the two running in parallel? King of the North East (T/C) 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that, thanks for the information. Well, the best thing to do in this case is to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada a redirect to the current taskforce, as I already did with the former Italian football WP. --Angelo 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What we have to ask ourselves is, are these taskforces providing us with anything? Do they help with colloborative effort? Are they affecting the quality and organisation of the articles within their scope? For task forces with no talk page, it is clearly not the case. Are these articles actually improving. I could see how a participant might remember that they are part of the taskforce and then try to improve some of these articles. Are we seeing much change in quality? Woodym555 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I think taskforces have a great potential, but they are not used at all. Unfortunately, many people starts taskforces just to give some kind of recognization to their effort on local football articles, and then just forget about them. People should instead understand taskforces have to be managed and actually used for significative issues. The Italian one is a mostly silent place, for instance, despite the fact over twenty people are "registered" in it. (P.S. The North-American WikiProject is officially dead by now, I have just boldly permitted myself to move all their information in the taskforce, given the fact they claimed the WikiProject was "superceded by the WP Football:USA and Canada taskforce.") --Angelo 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, when used correctly, taskforces can be a huge help. The Milhist project has proven that. Many pieces of featured content and lots of structural changes (cats, naming, etc) are regularly discussed on some of them. It is all about how much time editors invest in them. At the moment, little seems to be coming out of our current set of taskforces. Perhaps we ought to add something like, "please put this page in your watchlists" on all the pages. Woodym555 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With the current rules, anyone can potentially start his own taskforce just by creating a WP:WPF subpage and all the stuff around. This is obviously excessive, and we need more strict rules, allowing only taskforces which are actually useful and potentially functional to this WikiProject. In my opinion, what we should do first is to shut off inactive taskforces and push for stricter rules for potentially new ones. --Angelo 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you for a fact that the FC Bayern and Taiwan taskforces are pretty dead. Furthermore, the Real Madrid Wikiproject hasn't seen any action on its talk page for nearly a month now. - PeeJay 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of dumping taskforces for specific teams, when extremely important footballing countries like Brazil and Germany have not got them yet. I still disagree that a taskforce's use cannot be judged by edits to its talkpage alone. Other factors include; edits to the project/taskforce main page (especially people signing up as new participants), additions to the new articles page (if existant), notable increases in the number of articles in tagged as part of the project. I don't think that dormant projects are doing any harm, maybe the WP:football infobox could be amended to have a link to a page like "list of WP:Football sub-projects and taskforces" so that we don't have to look at links to the whole random selection every time we open the WP:Football page King of the North East (T/C) 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of them are failing purely through lack of (dare I say it) advertising that the task force exists or that one is proposed. They do seem to spring up unannounced every now and then with few initial members, get their fields added to {{football}} go on a tagging spree and lay dormant. As a project we have over 350 members now (as noted on the new Project milestones page, which has also just appeared with no warning) so maybe a bit of poking might get people to either help out with these taskforces or just re-arrange them into more logical groups. 86.21.74.40 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reiterating the proposals. Let me know if you support them:

1. Future taskforce proposals must be first discussed at WP:COUNCIL/P, and supported by at least N users (I would say N = 4) in order to be fully accepted here;
2. Existing taskforces which do not feature any active discussion for at least M months can be switched off unilaterally by any user (I'd say M = either 3 or 4);
3. Other existing taskforces of debatable usefulness can be switched off as well, but only in case a consensus for closing them is reached in this WikiProject;

These proposal do not regard separate WikiProjects, which are in any case suggested to turn into project taskforces in order to create a stricter relationship between them and reduce their bureaucratic overheads (see WP:TASKFORCE for details). --Angelo 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, use of the talk page is not the only determining factor here, edits to the main taskforce page, people signing up as new members and people adding links to new pages must be taken into consideration. I have no problem with switching them off after 4 months if they're not in use, but you can't just judge their usage by edits to the talk page. King of the North East (T/C) 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

People signing up as new members is unimportant if they don't actually become part of the project. Taskforces are supposed to be a support to improve football-related articles associated to something in particular (e.g. a nation, a club...). --Angelo 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I would love to start up a Man Utd taskforce, in the same vain as the Liverpool one, just to get a bit of extra help with all the seasons articles that need creating, and also to clamp down on vandalism of certain players' articles. And then there's the issue of getting the club's main article to FA status! But looking at the state of some of the taskforces at the minute, I can't really say it would do much good to start a Man Utd one. - PeeJay 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have opinions on this modification to the wikiproject football navbox. I think it looks a lot tidier without links to the whole random selection of sub projects and taskforces. Someone with a better sense of design could have a go at making the list of taskforces and subprojects a bit nicer looking. The talkpage of the list could be used to request new taskforces & discuss deleting unused ones. Any comments? King of the North East (T/C) 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Outsider comment regarding task forces: Personally, as said on the Proposals page, I prefer five members for a task force. Like I'm really going to quibble over a single member though. Secondly, perhaps more important, these task forces are really intended to be functional in the long term. I'm from the US, so I don't know how many UK editors there are, but my personal choice would be to create task forces at no more specific than the national level initially. That would allow for generally greater ease of management of task forces. Then, if a given task force has enough members interested in a particular team, it might make sense to create team-specific groups. But given the changes to the banner, categories, and whatever else involved, I think that the task forces should only ever be scrapped if they're truly dead. It would be comparatively easy to revive them, and they shouldn't really be even considered to be just short term groups, but sustained efforts to focus attention on their content. John Carter 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bit late to the table! I put together a lot of task force infrastructure as one of the ways of tying together child Wikiprojects like USA&Canada, different talkpage infoboxes....some of them, like Real Madrid Wikiproject and Women's football started independently of WPF, but have since come under the umbrella of WPF.

My personal view is that club Taskforces is a bit much, I believe there's also Sheffield Weds Wikiproject and Sheff Utd Wikiproject languishing somewhere.

The main thing for me is to have something a bit more manageable - I use the assessment grids as a starting point for articles nearly ready for GA/FA, or for important articles that are still at stub level. It's much easier for me when the assessment grid is of 2000-odd English articles, rather than 18000 world-wide articles. I don't need to post on the WP talk page - some people can use it, I don't tend to, so lack of action on it should not be taken as a dormant/closed Task Force.

Also, once the list of Taskforces is cut down a little I'd also prefer to see each individual task force in the Navbox(ref 86.21.74.40s comments about advertising!) Paulbrock 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

May be a temporary glitch, but the {{0}} spacing template seems to have disappeared. It is thus showing as {{0}} in the football infoboxes instead of acting as a spacer. Is this just me? --Jameboy 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that too ChrisTheDude 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Very strange...WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Think we need some help with this before 'helpful' IPs start removing the {{0}}s from the infoboxes... Any idea where we take this? --Jameboy 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some have already started to be removed. I have seen it happen in at least one article in my watchlist. It needs to be fixed. I will see if there is a bug filed. Woodym555 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone reported this glitch / bug? Peanut4 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see it too. Has the template been deleted? --Malcolmxl5 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have posted a request for info at the Village Pump (technical), looking at it - it may be due to a new wiki version or a bugfix (or someone fiddling) as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) doesn't say anything about single character articles. 86.21.74.40 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The developers are aware of the problem apparently and if it's not fixed by tomorrow, bug them again... --Malcolmxl5 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now been fixed in the source (r27448) and should be updating soon. 86.21.74.40 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now, cheers. --Jameboy 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this ain't the greatest find in the world, but I've always used englandstats.com as linked on List of England international footballers for England players. However I've just come across this list too which looks really useful too. Peanut4 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the several alternative references listed at List_of_England_international_footballers#References. --Daemonic Kangaroo 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to chip in? It's quieter than the spectators in the Gordon Road Stand at the moment :-) ChrisTheDude 12:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this page? It seems like a load of OR to me. Davnel03 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was me who inserted the "notability doubt" template, so I agree with you. Go for AFD? --Angelo 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD'd. Davnel03 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It must be merged with Serie A.--Ahonc (Talk) 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the same thing not be happening with the other pages in the Category:All-Time Football League Tables ? - fchd 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of joke is this article? -Lemmy- 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You've just created the first link to the page (other than the redirect from its poor-grammar origin) in its six-month existence. I think that says it all. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, ASAP. - PeeJay 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All the templates in the Category:J._League_Club_Templates appear to be single line entries which place the club badge to the left of the club name, with the template then being placed in articles such as J. League 2007. Am I correct in assuming this is a mis-use of non-free images? - fchd 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You would be correct in that assumption. TfD immediately. - PeeJay 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Under my interpretation, yes. Completely breaches it. Woodym555 18:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently put Bradford City A.F.C. seasons and List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers both up for peer review. I've had some decent feedback on the former but very little on the latter. I hoped someone else might give me some pointers before I put either up for WP:FLC. Peanut4 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers - I reckon I've a bit of work to do there but that hasn't entirely surprised me. The peer review of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons has been archived so I've put it up for FLC if anyone can take a look. Peanut4 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, came across this on WP:CSD binge. Could someone investigate it, should he take a trip to WP:AFD? Thanks. Woodym555 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Any chance its a hoax? Davnel03 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He exists, even has a small profile on the Fulham Academy site. Played for Wales at U17 and U19 and has played in a couple of reserve matches for Fulham. Don't know if that makes him notable or not but there is a small bit of googleable stuff related to him. Foxhill 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just come across this article, which currently contains a report on only one match. This article should either be expanded or deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted would be my favourite option. Defining "Great" would be a POV issue. - fchd 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely delete, there is no NPOV way to define what is a "great" game ChrisTheDude 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD'd. The Rambling Man 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to recommend deletion from the start, but thought that I might be accused of bias in view of the identity of the defeated team in the one match reported on! Even after six years it still hurts. --Daemonic Kangaroo 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Something has come up on the Klaas-Jan Huntelaar FAC, namely the use of Goal.com as a source. I was wondering what others feel: is it an acceptable source to use? JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 10:03

Why shouldn't it be? It is a football-only news source which is as reliable as several others around, so I don't really see any problem with it. --Angelo 10:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I wasn't familiar with this site before today, but after having a look round it I see no reason at all why it would not be considered a reliable source ChrisTheDude 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Premier League has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A new(ish) article on a Perth football club Canning City Soccer. Is it notable? Plays in the State League First Division. --Malcolmxl5 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another football squad templates nominated at WP:TFD --> here. - Darwinek 08:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Everton F.C. is under FAR. Buc 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, as I'm sure some of you are aware, I went on a navbox spree and created templates for all previous managers for all English league clubs. It was easy, no applause required...! However, every time I visit most manager articles I find a disgraceful and dirty succession box which says "ooh, I won the Portuguese Cup" or "hmmm, FA Cup winning coach". I'm guilty as the next man, way back when I was keen on telling everyone that Joe Royle was succeeded by Jim Magilton, I thought that those succession boxes were the bomb. But now I think they stink. So, to gather a consensus, I have three questions...

• What DESERVES a navbox?
• What SHOULD BE ONLY a category?
• Is there ANY argument for keeping ANY sucboxes?

Interested in the general WP:FOOTBALL vibe... The Rambling Man 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument to Keep for referee articles, and specifically for those who have officiated in an FA Cup Final (quoted example Paul Durkin). This is directly linked to the larger list FA Cup Final Referees. It is not productive for a referee to have a navbox, as that would have to consist entirely of which league he officiated in, and in which year. A pointless exercise. However, the succession box is easily the best way to link an FA Cup Final referee to the specific Final, with useful reference to who officiated in the Final before him, and who followed him. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant for a referee to link him to whoever officiated the year before or the year after ? - fchd 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I merely stated "useful reference", not "relevant". If the wider community decides that this is no longer a correct practice, then it will cease obviously. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, I prefer succession boxes to navboxes - they are muted in tone and can be stacked & merged much more easily. The current plethora of big managerial navboxes with their cramped, tiny text and garish colours makes most articles look quite ugly - but that's a personal view. Qwghlm (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at Mark McGwire last night and his succession boxes are in a hidable/showable box called Accomplishments. I thought it looked really tidy. I do look the navboxes but I appreciate they can become a little bit garish when you start building them up. Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the colours are getting a bit garish, we could always override the colour parameter and enforce a single colour, much like the milhist templates. A one colour fits all would work better, (but would need a large consensus to implement). I disagree with the stacking comment though, navboxes are designed to stack and i think they do it perfectly adequately. I think some are larger than others, those with caretakers should have them removed. I also think implementing an autohide feature would be better. For some stubs, the box take up half of the page if there is only one there.

To answer the actual question that the Rambling Man set, I don't really see the point for the succession boxes on football pages. How does it affect Ron Atkinson that Alex Ferguson won a trophy after him. If it is important to Atkinson's article, then it shoule be included in his article, in the text and most likely in a category as well. Woodym555 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the colours, I've gotta say. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As i said, each to their own. I just wonder whether fits in on an encyclopedia, if it sets the right tone. It doesn't really offend me that much, it is just that on some pages it can get a bit much. I have to admit that I am happier now though, after the VDEcolor fix has been implemented. Points to the person who can find the most garish end of an article. Woodym555 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this category not be deleted? If it remains then there is a danger that it would spawn similar categories such as Category:Arsenal F.C. international footballers or Category:Southampton F.C. international footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have List of Rangers F.C. international footballers already. Woodym555 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Better as a list, I think - as a category it's misleading (suggests Bohemian are an international team). The name of the Rangers article is similarly misleading. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the original incarnation of York City, who lasted from 1908-1917, notable? They played three seasons in the Midland League, which can be sourced here. Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already tied into the main York City F.C. history section and also History of York City F.C.. 86.21.74.40 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to own comment) saying that though, there are probably enough sources etc to pull it out of those articles and make a new one purely for that team. 86.21.74.40 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the company they kept in the Midland League - clubs such as Rotherham County & Town (later United), Chesterfield, Doncaster Rovers etc. - which are all quite notable clubs, then I would edge towards saying yes. However I would be interested to see what article could be made about the team that is more substantial than what currently exists in History of York City F.C.... Qwghlm (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Argentina national under-20 football team
• Chile national under-17 football team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Colombia national under-17 football team
• England national under-16 football team
• England national under-17 football team
• England national under-18 football team
• England national under-19 football team
• England national under-20 football team
• France national youth football team
• Germany national youth football team
• Ghana national under-17 football team
• Ghana national under-20 football team

There are lots of youth teams article, and some of them totally useless, as a squad list. Do these team notable? For sure England U-18 only for friendly games on youth football, i suggest that U-21 in Europe and Olympic (U-23) team [of rest of the world] were sometimes notable to have its own articles, but rest of the ladder (schoolboy to U-20), should merge into *XXX national youth football teams. Matthew_hk tc 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just merge them into XXX national football team#Youth teams. --Angelo 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to get this sorted, someone deleted all of Argentina's U-20 World Cups from their achievements, saying they weren't achieved by the full international team. So the U-20 article was created to document their incredible achievements at this level. I would say that they should be kept as they are (but with standardised naming). If people really want rid of them they should be merged back into the national team articles with care not to delete any information. Whatever happens we should make it clear what the consensus is, to avoid further circular processes. King of the NorthEast 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Argentina national youth football teams then? U-23 team starting from 1992 and only played twice in Olympic, better merge U-20 and U-23 up. Matthew_hk tc 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of x national youth football team(s), including everything from U-20 down. ArtVandelay13 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "xxxx national youth football teams" sounds like a fair compromise to me. I would support bundling all the youth teams together under the single heading, over merging them back into the (in many cases already lengthy) main national team article. King of the NorthEast 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Having the youth team in the main national team article could make these articles a bit hard to grasp. Bundling the youth teams together in seperate XXX national youth teams is better since some of the less important youth teams would have quite short articles (Moldova national U-17 team for example). Sebisthlm 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally in agreement with that: I feel strongly that achievements of anything other than the full national team (including Olympic medals) in XXX national football team is inappropriate. My reservation would be with the umbrella name: does "youth" describe the members of an U23 team? I would counter-propose XXX age restricted national football teams: its a bit wordy, but more accurate, and most trips to such pages would be by links rather than directly entering the page title. Kevin McE (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In countires that have an U-23 side and play in the Olympics, they are called the 'Olympic' team (such as in the example of Canada). I would therefore propose having the senior team, U-23 (where applicable) and U-21, with U-20 and below listed as 'youth'. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the point in allowing U-21 teams and bundling U-20 teams as yoth teams, especially considering that in CONMEBOL (South American) countries there are no U-21 competitions, the most important youth level there being U-20, which is the highest level of proper youth football in South America (Pan American games and Olympics allow the inclusion of selected non-youth players). King of the NorthEast 14:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case have under-19 and below bundles together in South America, with under20 and below in the rest of the world. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have promoted the article Italy national football team to be the new Article improvement drive. It did not meet the letter of the drive, since it hadn't received three votes in two weeks time. But it was the oldest nomination with at least three votes, and Football club names had been the article improvement drive since June 10. The next oldest nom did get the three votes in time, so I suggest promoting that article in about a month time: List of men's national football (soccer) teams. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The improvement drive is actually dead, and proved to be useless if people don't get involved in it after having voted for a given article. --Angelo 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's just call this a final attempt at resuscitating the drive ;) Aecis^Brievenbus 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

However I don't see anyone here (other than you, of course) seriously interested in resuscitating the project. There's no need for an AID when nobody really cares about it. --Angelo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are players who played in the Midland Football League notable (those who never played in FL or other professional league)? The article doesn't really claim the league was professional, but does mention it contained professional clubs. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article indicates that by the turn of the 20th century many participants were reserve teams, I'd suggest not. For the very early days it may be a different story, but any player from that era for whom there are enough sources to create a half-decent article will almost certainly have had enough impact to be notable without having to resort to the "professional league" test. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As it seems to have mainly been a reserve league I wouldn't recommend it either. Qwghlm (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the way that Andrew Taylor (footballer born in Hartlepool) and Andy Taylor (footballer born in Blackburn) have been disambiguated. Surely there must be a better way? – PeeJay 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well the usual distinguishing factor, year of birth, is inappropriate because they're the same. Do you have an alternative suggestion that could distinguish them at such an early age for both of them? Otherwise the dab page will just have to be very descriptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They could simply be moved to Andrew Taylor (footballer) and Andy Taylor (footballer) or if we want to stick with the year of birth method add month as well Andrew Taylor (footballer born August 1986) and Andy Taylor (footballer born March 1986). Though I don't see an awful lot wrong with what they currently are. Peanut4 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Best solution is to use Andrew Taylor (footballer) for the former, and Andy Taylor (footballer) for the latter (using "Andy Taylor" per WP:COMMONNAME rather than "Andrew Taylor"). --Angelo (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the names we use are already different from each other (Andrew v Andy), there's no need for the place of birth to be added. Having Andrew Taylor (footballer) and Andy Taylor (footballer) is the best option. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would actually have to be Andy Taylor (footballer, born 1986) because there is also an Andy Taylor (footballer born 1988) who plays at Grimsby Town. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)