Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 38

How do you rename a category?

I'd like to move Category:Nuneaton Borough F.C. players to Category:Nuneaton Town F.C. players in-keeping with the fact that Nuneaton Town F.C. is the article page which covers the time when the club was called Nuneaton Borough. I would then add some text to the new category to explain it includes players who played for the original Town club, Borough, and the re-formed Town. Eldumpo (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way to move a category is to take it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. -- BigDom 13:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 1 Eldumpo (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of category renaming, a lot of the Australian teams don't match their parent articles either. For example, Category:Perth Glory players and Perth Glory FC, Category:Launceston City F.C players and Launceston City FC and Category:A.P.I.A. Leichhardt players and A.P.I.A. Leichhardt Tigers. If someone wants something to do, there's plenty of nominations to make there! --Jimbo^[online] 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Sam Chedgzoy (born 1889) and Sydney Chedgzoy (born 1911) are related? Obviously they share the same (rather unusual) surname, both hailed from Merseyside, and dates mean they could easily be father/son or uncle/nephew...GiantSnowman 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I wondered this when I created the Sydney Chedgzoy article, but I couldn't find anything at the time. -- BigDom 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Father and son - I have added this (with citation) to the two articles. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! GiantSnowman 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Who' Who of Everton by Tony Matthews also says they are father and son Djln--Djln (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this include his individual views on sectarianism (i.e. one sentence in a whole new section on its own) or should it stick to being biographical in context?(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Removed. In future, start with the article talk page. Oh, and for God's sake stop getting baited by Nedao.glasgow (talk · contribs) - the whole point of that account is to annoy Rangers fans, and it's heading for an indefinite block the way it goes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the various Paul Robinsons need disambiguating better - out of the 5 footballers, 2 are date of birth, and the rest (1978, 1978, 1979) are position. Any support? GiantSnowman 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Consistency is key. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the Blackburn goalkeeper to Paul Robinson (footballer born 1979), but what about the two players born in 1978? Month of birth as well? GiantSnowman 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe middle initial? One could be Paul P. Robinson and the other Paul D. Robinson. Though that gets messy and I don't think either is really known by middle initial. Birth month could also work. So many Paul Robinsons! Cocytus [»talk«] 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with using month. Although using months is never pretty and a bit too long, I think it's less confusing. --Jimbo^[online] 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved them to November 1978 and December 1978. Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with some editors on this article. One of the hosts of the show, Steven Cohen, has made many enemies among Liverpool supporters -- I'm not trying to stir up anger here because I have no horse in this race -- but I think a few of the members of the campaign against him and his show has extended to WP. There is at least one IP editor that won't allow certain comments -- even ones that were cited -- to be published on the page, even though the same users are including quotations attributed to Cohen that are cited from Liverpool fan forums and boycott site. If I'm wrong about how this article should be handled then I apologize in advance. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth taking it to the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It is a living-person-related dispute, even though the article itself isn't a BLP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On Saturday, Oxford United will play against Yeovil Town in the first round. Would players playing in the game without an article beforehand, pass WP:ATHLETE by playing in the game? Eddie6705 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeovil players yes (as they have appeared for a club that plays in a fully professional league), Oxford players no (as they do not play for a club in a fully pro league). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur - non-league players do not pass the bar (either of WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN) by playing against a pro club. The same applies to Paulton Rovers, Stourbridge, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly confused here: are you saying that Yeovil players who had not previously played at fully-pro level, e.g. in the Football League, would gain notability by playing in this game, which is not a fully-pro comp? If so, why? Or am I misunderstanding as usual? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Struway, i should have made it clearer. I meant the Oxford United players. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

According to ATHLETE, playing in the FA Cup does not infer notability because it is not a "fully professional level of a sport". It doesn't matter whether or not the club is professional, because the competition isn't. Even playing in the quarter-finals, semi-finals or final would not infer notability in the ATHLETE sense (although they may then pass the general guidelines). So in answer to your original question – no, definitely not. -- BigDom 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Football#Establishment of modern codes
• History of English football
• History of association football

Those three articles all tell the same old story. The latter is particularly poor, is there any chance of getting a grip on it? I propose that, given the diversity of the topic, the History of association football article is cut down and summarised, with links to more specific articles (e.g. History of German football, Football in Brazil#History)? UFUU (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Intend to create a article similare to List of German football transfers summer 2009 regarding transfers in Sweden and Allsvenskan, however unsure if i should add Superettan aswell? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable sources available so that every transfer can be verified (which is a definite must for all listed transfers, see WP:LIST), then include the Superettan transfers as well. If not, just add the Allsvenskan-related transfers. The correct name for the Allsvenskan list, by the way, would be List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10; also make sure that the article is placed in Category:Football transfers winter 2009-10 once it has been created. Hope this helps, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thnx, wasnt intending to call it Swedish transfer durring winter window 2009-10, just something i used as topic here. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New article has been created by someone Illegal Sport streaming. It has some POV statements in it. Is it worth tidying up, or do people think is is likely to slapped with an AFD? Steve-Ho (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all 6 sources are immediately unreliable. I don't think it is worthy of a place on an encyclopedia, so delete! GiantSnowman 12:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. Subject definitely has huge upside and potential but the article currently is very lacking to say the least. Transaction Go (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The title makes it inherently POV - there are legal ones too! I regularly watch Serie A matches on Betfair Video for example, not to mention the recent England-Ukraine game that was a web-only broadcast. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be linking to illegal sites. I agree with Transaction Go, potentially a decent article, but if it was AfD'd right now I'd vote for delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCforLife (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:EL about illegal websites. The Falun Gong is illegal in China, so should we stop linking to the Falun Gong website? What WP:EL does say though, is that "links mainly intended to promote a website" and "links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article" should be avoided, which is what might apply here. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but wikipedia as a whole is extremely strict on knowingly linking to sights that violate copyright, which streaming websites most certainly do. WFCforLife (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It might not have to be a whole own article. Perhaps a section on Streaming media, I know I've read articles in real newspapers related to cases and especially the Premier League trying to clamp down on it example chandler 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it has a long-term future, but I've made a cursory effort at tidying it while it's here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It should be sent to AfD, or at least merged into another article. Enigma^msg 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the "Honours" section of a club article such as Manchester United F.C., should we list the number of times a club has finished as the runner-up in a competition? User:Selecciones de la Vida seems to think we should, but I disagree. I could see the point if a club had never won anything and needed to pad out its honours section, but clubs don't receive trophies for coming second in competitions, do they? – PeeJay 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Winning something is an honour, finishing second (or fifth or twelfth or nineteenth) is not. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with PeeJay but I understand that Sel.de.la.Vida has seen it in numerous other club pages, so he touth applying it in Man.Utd. page. FkpCascais (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this information is, well, secondary. I'd keep coverage to the outright titles. Knepflerle (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes teams do receive trophies as runners-up. I know West Bromwich Albion received a silver salver for finishing runners-up in Division One (2001-02 I think it was, and possibly in 2003-04 as well). Also the play-off winners in each division of the Football League receive a trophy, despite having finished below the runners-up! (they are the winners of the play-off competition but still...) --Jameboy (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to go against the trend but in my opinion, finishing as runner-up in a league or as a losing finalist in a cup is a pretty major achievement for most clubs and ought to be included. Not every club can win major trophies year-in, year-out. The ManU article as it currently stands looks fine to me. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this boils down to whether or not one thinks a podium or even 4th place finish is notable. This should be applied situationally as Kangaroo has said. Transaction Go (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think runners-up should be included in the honours section. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the wording at the relevant section on the club article style guide, which incidentally is called Achievements, not Honours, in recognition of the fact that most clubs don't actually win anything significant, but do achieve. It says we should include "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, but if a club never won official titles, I think that an alternative section "Best results" shall be possible (history of Bayer 04 Leverkusen is not the same of history of the smallest club in amatorial Westphalian league). --79.30.157.92 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with PeeJay about Manchester United being a different case to clubs who haven't won as much, but calling some clubs' achievements "honours" while telling others that theirs can only be considered "their best results" would be silly. As would considering a Third Division South Cup win an honour, while simultaenously going out of the way to call an FA Cup final something else. WFCforLife (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the second place finishes for Manchester United in English cup competitions because according to my understanding, the losing finalist receives a second place medal, which in any literal sense is an award (honour). On another note if one were to see this as an earned achievement as I do, then the useful and informative content could simply be added as further reference in the honours section. In no way does the inclusion destory the cohesion of the article, in fact the reliable and notable information can only enhance it.

I also noticed that Manchester United was not a star article and compared it to Arsenal FC & Chelsea FC which are. Those other 2 clubs feature their runner-up cup competitions, so it looked appropriate to add in in the Manchester United article as well. This discussion can also be applied to national team honours. For example, Germany has won three World Cups. Does that mean that their second or third place medal finishes at the World Cup stage be omitted? My point is, achievements whether they are in the form of the championship trophy or a medal should be included, and in this case Manchester United were awarded second place medals for losing a final which is noteworthy and as relevant as winning that same final. Either way the club earned a notable finish. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2009

(UTC)

Good point, a finalist is notable. If it earns the team a medal then the info should be included. Just look at my team Juventus, they've won almost everything under the sun. They've still lost plenty of CL finals and that fact should always be included. 66.71.54.143 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So, do we have a final decission here? Should the runners-up stats be used in club honours? I don´t mind whatever the decission is. If you decide using it, I´ll welcome a plus of information, but then I´ll have to add it to some club pages I have in mind... If you decide that is not to be used, then only the trophies will be numbered, so it will give a better overview of how many of them a club has won. This is not a minor issue, since it is found in all the major clubs articles, so it will be nice if we get a decission here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

With response to the notable final appearances (i.e. loosing out in a final), they would normaly be covered within the written text somewhere but not generaly in an honours section of the club. I would say the same for runners up in leagues, not generally (if anywhere) covered with major clubs.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Real Madrid, Juventus, and AC Milan are three major club articles that feature their runner-up positions in the club honours section. For some reason a few editors are adamant about making Manchester United's article the oddball. Why? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it makes them look untidy (for major clubs) and that wins should only be in an honours section. I am also a believer in keeping continuity (relavence to others) with other articles of the same bracket i.e. football clubs. In that sense because Arsenal and Chelsea include runners up achievements in their honours section then Man Utd should also.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

I completely agree with "continuity" , using the same standards, not only for top English clubs, but for all football clubs that we have here. That is wy I APEAL TO EVERYBODY TO DECIDE BY VOTING SHOULD RUNNERS_UP SECTIONS BE INCLUDED AS HONOURS OR NOT? FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also say it would depend on the competition because if you had the runners up of all comps in the honours section it could get extremely untidy for some clubs (i.e. big clubs who dominate leagues) I would certainly agree that european runners up places should be mentioned. For big clubs who have won many honours i dont think domestic runners up awards should be included, but like i have said 'continuity'.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

I started the article List of Fulham F.C. players last night when I realised it didn't exist, with the criteria of 50 or more appearances in all competitions, with a further List of Fulham F.C. players with less than 50 appearances displaying all other players. Does anyone know of anywhere (without me having to purchase Fulham history books) to find the historical data? Most of the post-war players should be on the Neil Brown site but I am not sure about further back. Thanks. 03md 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any decent free sources on the internet for pre-WW2 players. Oh and, for info, when you get around to creating the second article, the title should be "fewer than 50 appearances" rather than "less than"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some help with the two pages - I have so far added the current squad and players from Neil Brown's site beginning with A, I, Q, U, V and W. The rest of the players are on that site. The site only lists league appearances so any players not on soccerbase should have question marks in the "total goals" and "total apps" columns unless they can be sourced. Thanks. 03md 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of an ongoing issue at Jonathan dos Santos as to whether the team should be Barcelona Atlètic or Barcelona B? I would like try and find a consenual agreement to end this issue. A silightly similar previous discussion about whether FC Barcelona should be piped or not is archived here. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd go with FC Barcelona Atlètic, since the club has officially been renamed to it, and whenever you click on it, the article makes it easily evident that it is the B team. Just my opinion though. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH. Insofar as the club is discussed at all in English, it's usually by the English terminology ("B"). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The club is currently named FC Barcelona Atlètic, no longer FC Barcelona B. So, as far as I am concerned, display "Barcelona Atlètic" in reference to the club after the name change. Digirami (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And do contemporary English reliable sources use that terminology? If not, it doesn't matter what they're officially called. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, "FC Barcelona Atlètic" generates 1,440,000 Google hits, while "FC Barcelona B" generates 544,000 Google hits. I don't really discuss the club, so I don't know what bearing this brings to the case. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of such, this is not about the naming of the club, as the club article was moved to FC Barcelona Atlètic when it was officially renamed as such. Consensus appears to be that is correct because the club article is still located at that page. Therefore, any player currently with FC Barcelona Atlètic should have [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona Atlètic]] on their page, as we do not make history, we record it. Players that played before it was renamed should retain "Barcelona B" for the same reason - we should not re-write history.--ClubOranje^T 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On this issue, I think the infobox should remain Barcelona B, because even the official name being Atlètic Barcelona, he is the team 'B' of Barcelona. Furthermore, it is strange 99% of players have the name Barcelona B in the infobox and only 1% (in the case, while only Jonathan dos Santos) has Atlètic Barcelona. We need a standard, not to turn mess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picolotto (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Its simple - for players who played for the club when it was known as 'B', we should put [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona B]] in the article; for players who played for the club when it was known as 'Atlètic', we should put [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona Atlètic]]. GiantSnowman 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not simple. It is confusing to use for Barcelona B and Barcelona Atlètic for others, after the club is the same. I suggest keep Barcelona B in the infobox, because the club is even more well known. Thus, we avoid confusion with the nomenclature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picolotto (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is more confusing to have a player play for a team called Barcelona Atlètic, and yet the article talks about a team called Barcelona B - non-football fans (and there are some out there!) won't know what's going on! GiantSnowman 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

GiantSnowman hit it on the spot. There is no point to put a current club's name under an old name. It should be referred to by its new name, and vice-versa. Using a none football (soccer) example, one would not say that Johnny Unitas played for the Indianapolis Colts, but rather the Baltimore Colts (even though its the same team). The reverse is the same for Peyton Manning; he plays for Indianapolis, not Baltimore. Jonathon dos Santos plays for Barcelona Atletic, plain and simple. Anything else would be wrong. Had he ended his stay at the club while it was still officially Barcelona B, then you would say he played for Barcelona B. Digirami (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. Reserves & Academy season 2009–10 and Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (Ladies) season 2009–10. I'm pretty sure the Academy isn't, but even if they are notable, I'm pretty sure that those titles – especially the ladies' article – need some revision. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the Ladies season article is OK, but the Academy isn't notable. GiantSnowman 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources which indicate a 2010 staging of the Caribbean Championship? As of now, I can't find anything at the big G. Help from a contributor who is more into CONCACAF soccer would be appreciated. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There are dates allocated in the CFU's calendar for 2010, but no venues. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done a ton of editing on the last few CFU events. The CFU runs itself relatively independent of CONCACAF for its own events, and I wouldn't expect any announcements about something like that until sometime within a few months of the event. I'd lay odds on that info becoming available following the CFU Congress in February. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Stanley Fazackerley (born 1891) and Derek Fazackerley (born 1951) are related? Obviously they share the same (rather unusual) surname, both hailed from Preston, and dates mean they could easily be grandfather/grandson...GiantSnowman 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there are better way we can name the following articles which show the rounds leading up to the entry point for Ligue 2 clubs, or is this an acceptable title?

• 2009–10 Coupe de France 1st through 2nd Rounds
• 2009–10 Coupe de France 3rd through 4th Rounds
• 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 6th Rounds

Eddie6705 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why are they separate articles anyway? We aren't a results service. They should be merged to the one article (along with 2009–10 Coupe de France Preliminary Round and 2009–10 Coupe de France Qualifying Rounds). That's what we do for the FA Cup. Black Kite 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they need merging! GiantSnowman 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the problem is size - unlike the FA Cup which is restricted to the top 10/11 levels, the Coupe de France is open to a much wider swathe of clubs - there were over 7,000 entrants last year. If you look at each fo those individual articles, they are already massive (the first-second round one is 329Kb). Merging them into a single one would make it load in about a month. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with #57 here. WP:SIZE is the decisive factor in the split, as a single article for all "qualification rounds" would get well past the 600kb mark (by the way, what is the record for the largest WP article?). However, I would merge 2009–10 Coupe de France Qualifying Rounds directly into the main article, because it is essentially a "middle man page" linking to the QR articles without giving much further information. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Soccer-holic in regards to eliminated the QR linking page – it doesn't provide anything of value. If all of those rounds are notable then they shouldn't be deleted, but there is so much missing data. Many of those expandable tables don't have data in them. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we do keep them, are these titles suitable? Eddie6705 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Eddie6705 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I finally have some time on my hands, I will complete all the rounds by the end of the weekend.Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The size is the consequence of the Coupe de France rules. It as always been open to all French clubs, even at the lowest levels...That's why I could find my village's club in a wikipedia article....Surprising...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the titles were moved so "and" replaced "through" in the rounds. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the national-football-teams website reliable or not? Does it list only player appearances in league matches or does it also list cup appearances? Thanks in advance. --Carioca (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it to be pretty reliable, especially when it comes to minor countries and their players. As far as the league/cup issue goes... I really don't know. But, on many occasions, this is pretty much the only source we have for player stats for smaller countries/teams, so even if we inadvertantly include a couple of cup games when using it as a source, it gives a better impression of a player's career than having no stats at all.--JonBroxton (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for answering my question, JonBroxton. Regarding Brazilian footballers (and/or footballers based in Brazil) certainly Futpédia is a more reliable source than national-football-teams. Does anyone disagree? --Carioca (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

From my experience with the website I can tell you that they count league appearances only.(I did found some numbers wrong by one or two appearances more or less). For less known leagues the stats are usually 0/0 , wich doesn´t mean that the player didn´t play, but only that they, the website, don´t have the stats. Unfortunatelly, I have seen some editors using the 0/0 stats in the infoboxes, but they really shouldn´t, unless they confirm it somewhere else. The major problem that I find with the website is that there are many players missing (capped ones, cases like Andrija Delibasic in Montenegro, Lamine Diarra in Senegal, recent, and other more from past years), and also some players with this season clubs still wrong. The website is "nice" but further backup sources for cheking wan´t hert. Abraço FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, FkpCascais. Your answer is very helpful. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Futpedia is a far better source than NFT for Campeonato Brasiliero. NFT is quite useful for players in countries with few other sources, but it's also good to do further research to verify the information on NFT. My guess is that NFT simply compiles data from other sources, and they do not have data on many players from the 1980s and earlier. They also regularly miss data for players (most recently I found a Cypriot international who played in Greece - only for 6 months - that RSSSF confirmed but NFT had no information about). I think it's a "good source" but not sufficient by itself (like RSSSF or Futpedia would be). Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Would there be value in adding a summary of these sort of comments on the reliability of sources in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links page? Hack (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Jogurney, your opinion is similar to mine. That's a good idea, Hack. --Carioca (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Steve Adlard currently says he played professionally for Nottingham Forest and Lincoln City, but although he may have been on their books, he never played at first-team level. He went on to coach in the States, so I'd be grateful if someone who knows about notability criteria for coaches in US soccer could have a look see if his US coaching career makes him notable? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He has never coached at a professional level - only college teams - and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG at the minute, but because of the status of college soccer, he could well meet GNG if some research is done. GiantSnowman 17:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, college sports in the USA is a lot different than most – if not all – of the rest of the world. Although the coaches and players technically fail ATHLETE, they usually pass GNG due to significant coverage in verifiable secondary sources. That's why we have WikiProjects such as WP:WikiProject College football (that's American football) & WP:WikiProject College basketball. As someone very familiar with the NCAA, his coaching credentials certainly appear to make him notable, but someone's got to put in the legwork to put it together. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if he is the same Stephen Adlard who played one first-class cricket game for Lincolnshire in 1976...if so, his soccer notability wouldn't matter. GiantSnowman 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is. Well spotted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on that one. However, that doesn't solve the issue of notability for American soccer coaches. I believe that all NCAA coaches are notable, as that is the case among American football and basketball coaches at the least. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting on my hat as WT:FOOTY's eternal defender of the GNG again, so long as he has had adequate coverage by reliable sources which cover college football in the States he's fine. WP:ATHLETE is descriptive rather than prescriptive: it simply states that people who have participated at such-and-such a level are guaranteed to be notable because of the guaranteed coverage they get from the sports media. Additions can and should be made as they occur. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; saying that "all NCAA coaches are notable" simply isn't feasible, or indeed supported by any Wikipedia guidelines. However, should an article on any person meet GNG, then it's a keeper. GiantSnowman 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One user has taken it upon himself to create a disambig page for Sunderland's Stadium of Light and the Estadio da Luz and move both of the articles to (Sunderland) and (Lisbon) article names. In the past, the consensus has been generally against this, as "Estadio da Luz" means "the Stadium of Luz", as Luz is the area in which it was built. Can we get a discussion going on this? Cocytus [»talk«] 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Estadio da Luz means the Stadium of Luz, then it definately shouldn't be under the name Stadium of Light (Lisbon), and Sunderland's can then be moved back to Stadium of Light IMO. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that sometimes Estadio da Luz is mistranslated as "Stadium of Light." Although, if you read the article, you'll see that this is a mistranslation. The name of the stadium is no longer even "Estadio da Luz" but "Estádio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica", but the old name is sticking. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The description above is not entirely accurate - I created the disam page and made one page move after the other user made the initial moves without discussion. I agree that those initial moves should be undone and article titles reverted to their common names per WP:COMMONNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eddie - move the Sunderland article back to Statium of Light and the Benfica one to Estadio da Luz. GiantSnowman 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Enigma^msg 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ukexpat for ascribing the disambig page to him by mistake. You've been most helpful thus far. I am also in favor of moving them all back, but I figured I'd get a discussion going first. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, it seems like everyone's in agreement. The page move should be requested. Sorry again Ukexpat, I had just woken up when all this started and was a little disorientated! Cocytus [»talk«] 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any need for a discussion. It was a controversial move made without discussion. I've tagged the dab and Estádio da Luz for speedy deletion so that this can be undone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I first ask why these discussions only include the people who have vested interests in “Stadium of Light” Sunderland?

Secondly, I think it's completely obvious that the Benficas stadium, "The Stadium of Light" has been called such, in all the western world since about 1955. It has complete ownership of the name in football, for the vast majority of people (outside of the UK).

The only people in agreement are British people. Wikipedia is used by people all over the world. And it’s not just the domain of fans of UK football clubs, who think it's fair to make people search for a portugese translation of a name they use, to find this world famous ground.

This may not go down to well, but could I possibly suggest that you are merely trying to claim ownership of the search name, in order to promote the Sunderland page? And are trying to claim ownership of the term “stadium of light”.

Can I also point out, that “stadio de luz” has been referred to as “The Stadium of Light” around western Europe for at least 50 years, and it’s world famous reputation is based on this name.

I think it’s completely fair that when a football fan types in “stadium of light” to find Benficas ground, they should not just get diverted to a ground in north east England, that they’ve probably never heard of.

I think common sense dictates that Benficas ground, for much of the world, is most commonly known as “Stadium of light” and when people want to find it, they shouldn’t have to but a portugese translation book, and try to work out what the translation is.

Wikipedia is not about one page getting one over on another. The search engine should be culturally relevant. Otherwise I’ll be typing in “Reg Dwight” every time I want to find “Elton John”.

I’m sorry, Sunderland FC, in my opinion, can not solely lay claim to the term. Which is really what you are trying to do.

What evidence do you have that Benfica's stadium "has been known by that name, for at least the last 50 years"? GiantSnowman 17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

1) We are not trying to claim the article, 2) Myself and several others who have commented aren't Sunderland fans. As to whether it is comon sense to have it as what it is commonly called, see WP:COMMONNAME. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The page claims that articles should be searchable by their most common English name. Isn't "stadium of light" the ground's most commonly used English name? As in, outside of Portugal, it's the only name people use. This is my point. How can people actually find it, if you refuse to link it to the name everyone uses? How many people actually know the portugese for "stadium of light?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

People would find it by typing "Stadium of Light". At the top of the page would be a hatnote which would say something like "This article is about the stadium in Sunderland. For the stadium in Lisbon see Estádio da Luz." The hatnote does not need to be a multilinked essay. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I don't think I, nor any others, are trying to "own" this page. It was a controversial move done without consensus, which is generally to be avoided. Also, I'm not even British, as you claim. The tops of the pages had disambiguation information at the top to clear up any confusion. They wouldn't need a "portugese (sic) translation book", because at the top of the article it gives a link and an explanation to Benfica's stadium (which is not even officially called Estadio da Luz anymore). Cocytus [»talk«] 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about knowing the portuguese translation or Sunderland FC trying to own the page. (Don't know where you got that idea from). Having typed Estadio de Luz into Google, the first two sites apart from wikipedia : 1 2, both list the stadium as being named Estadio de Luz. Well actually in fact some list it as Estadio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding cjmooney's claim "How can people actually find it, if you refuse to link it to the name everyone uses? How many people actually know the portugese for "stadium of light?" if you notice the tops of the pages, it states "This article is about the home stadium of Sunderland A.F.C.. For the home stadium (Stadium of Light) of S.L. Benfica, see Estádio da Luz." It says this right at the top. A concise, simple sentence that clears up any confusion, and even offers a link to the other page. That's the way many articles handle things such as this. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The page Stadium of Light has been deleted to allow Stadium of Light (Sunderland) to be moved there. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. The talk page has ended up stranded, though: I've re-tagged the offending redirect for speedy deletion to fix this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. The tag was removed so i've reinstated it and will keep an eye on the articles until everything is back in place. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And also, Talk:Stadium of Light (Lisbon) needs to be moved back to Talk:Estádio da Luz. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that this has been completed. Thanks, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an independent viewer take a look at Gordon Chin and make suggestions as to where the POB should be located? WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death makes it quite clear the brackets next to the subject's name need only include the DOB, hence meaning the POB should shift. User:JonBroxton disagrees, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than engage in a petty edit war. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had this discussion with Jon before; the correct format is "Wiki McPedia (born 6 November 1970) is a Scottish professional footballer. Born in Glasgow, he made his professional debut in 1989..." etc. GiantSnowman 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a sentence in the MoS which said you shouldn't put the place of birth in the brackets with the date; there isn't any more. That doesn't mean you should put it in there, just that there's nothing to stop you. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#There was once a rule... which refers to a discussion here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 124#Birthplace in opening which led to the change. Not sure this helps... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the government was rationing electrons again. The lede needs significant expansion; start a new paragraph covering his career to date, starting with "born in ****". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is trying to maintain consistency. I've spent the last 6-8 months working to bring the articles on all the players currently playing professionally in the United States into some semblance of order, replacing infoboxes with the correct versions and adding proper formatting within them, standardizing the ledes, making sure they all have correct reference and links sections, and trying to ensure they all meet basic standards whereas before a lot of them were pretty awful. I specifically checked to see whether there was an issue with having dates of birth in with the place of birth, and there isn't (as per the discussion above), so I made the decision to put place and date of birth together. I understand that other articles don't have it, and that's fine, but as there is no firm guideline one way or the other, I'd really like to have all the US player articles of a similar layout. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it: you're doing a fantastic job. As far as I'm concerned the most important thing for short bios is that they contain as much information as possible so as to allow them to be reworked later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks,

Sol Campbell's looking pretty good now. It's quite a bit more detailed than Kris Boyd, my last GA nom: anyone fancy giving it a quick look over to see if it's worth nominating? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at the references, ref number 25 could do with being written out in full and one of the external links looks to be a reference. In the lead you use the words controversial and suprising, which would be viewed as POV unless referenced somewhere in the text. Also in alt text the name isn't usually mentioned. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things from experience: The early life section needs sourcing and expansion if possible. IMDB isn't considered to be reliable and the "television and media" section needs expansion for it to warrant its own section. There are many unsourced paragraphs in "international career" and "Tottenham" and throughout the whole article paragraphs could be merged to help the prose flow a bit. Spiderone 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found that the flags listed on the World Cup tables of national teams such as this one were immediately indicative of where the tournaments were held. Visually the flags are informative and personally do not agree with their removal. Therefore, I would like to reopen the discussion. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More information Year, Round ...

Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
Uruguay 1930	Withdrew	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1934	Third place	3	4	3	0	1	11	8
1938	Round 1	10	2	0	1	1	3	5
1950	Banned	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1954	Champions	1	6	5	0	1	25	14
1958	Fourth place	4	6	2	2	2	12	14
1962	Quarter-finals	7	4	2	1	1	4	2
1966	Runners-up	2	6	4	1	1	15	6
1970	Third place	3	6	5	0	1	17	10
1974	Champions	1	7	6	0	1	13	4
1978	Second Round	6	6	1	4	1	10	5
1982	Runners-up	2	7	3	2	2	12	10
1986	Runners-up	2	7	3	2	2	8	7
1990	Champions	1	7	5	2	0	15	5
1994	Quarter-finals	5	5	3	1	1	9	7
1998	Quarter-finals	7	5	3	1	1	8	6
2002	Runners-up	2	7	5	1	1	14	3
2006	Third place	3	7	5	1	1	14	6
2010	Qualified	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	16/18	3 Titles	92	55	*19	18	190	112

Close

Your iniciative is honorable, but, what can we possibly discuss about it? Everything is perfect... FkpCascais (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I dunno why they are being removed. They are all standardized and there is nothing wrong with them and they have been around since forever and is reflecting of the community consensus to have and to keep them around here. It is just one person going around and mass-changing them. Coverangrydude —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

The reason the flags are being removed stems from this discussion, where it's being claimed that the unanimous decision requires the removal. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_33#Nomination_for_the_least_efficient_presentation_of_information_award

Articles such as Argentina national football team, Brazil national football team, & Chile national football team to name three examples have all been edited accordingly. I don't feel that enough users have been able to express their opinion on the contrary. Allowing the edits to stand firm will only set the precedent where all national teams will follow suit. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, every discussion is honorable, but about this template, it´s nice to know where they were organised, and the flags are better than words (in this case). And if there is any issue about what flags to use, I agree the way it is, using the flags that were "on duty" of the organizing country in that moment. If this is about voting, I vote YES, KEEP the FLAGS. FkpCascais (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Far too many of these tables are presented with no key, so the reader is left to guess the meaning of GP/W/D*/L/GS/GA, various shades of brown, yellow and grey, and red boxes. More importantly, the set of tables that SdlV is suggesting be rolled out includes examples such as this:

More information World Cup record, Year ...

World Cup record
Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1930	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1934	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1938	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1950	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1954	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1958	Quarter-finals	7/16	5	1	3	1	4	4
1962	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1966	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1970	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1974	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1978	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1982	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1986	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1990	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1994	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1998	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2002	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2006	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2010	Qualification	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total	1/18	1 Quarter-final	5	1	3	1	4	4

Close

The abbreviation of such tables (and their deletion where there is no match data at all) was undertaken (and so far I've done CONCACAF, CAF and most of AFC) after unanimous agreement in that previous discussion in June, in which nobody objected to the description of the practice as "flagcruft". Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An easy remedy would be adding a legend to clarify most of those issues instead of deleting them. The thing about the previous discussion was that it happened almost half a year ago and has now has been long archived and obscured in an already obscure location. Yet you only started mass editing recently and only then would most people take notice of the issue. As for unanimous agreement that really is misleading when only two people responded with varying levels of support and you didn't exactly make yourself clear what was to be done. Transaction Go (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't there a MOS policy that says that flags must be accompanied by the name of the country the first time they're used, and not just used in isolation........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, WP:MOSFLAG - three good reasons for which are (1) so that blind and partially-sighted readers using screen readers can access the information, (2) so that colour blind readers can still easily access the information, (3) so that people using non-standard displays or text-only displays (eg via WAP) can still access the information. Using flags alone (even when introduced earlier) stops all three sets of readers using the information to some degree or other, but naming them the first time is the absolute minimum mandated. Knepflerle (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What about those flags next to the football clubs or the flags next to football players? Don't they also supposedly fall in the same format? Why is there a double standard here?

More information No., Pos. ...

No.	Pos.	Player	Date of birth (age)	Caps	Goals	Club
1	1GK	Júlio César	(1979-09-03) September 3, 1979 (age 46)	44	0	Internazionale
12	1GK	Victor	(1983-01-21) January 21, 1983 (age 43)	0	0	Grêmio
	1GK	Helton	(1978-05-18) May 18, 1978 (age 47)	3	0	Porto
2	2DF	Maicon	(1981-07-26) July 26, 1981 (age 44)	53	5	Internazionale
3	2DF	Miranda	(1984-09-07) September 7, 1984 (age 41)	6	0	São Paulo
4	2DF	Luisão	(1982-02-13) February 13, 1982 (age 44)	39	3	Benfica
6	2DF	Filipe	(1985-09-08) September 8, 1985 (age 40)	1	0	Deportivo La Coruña
13	2DF	Naldo	(1982-09-10) September 10, 1982 (age 43)	4	0	Werder Bremen
	2DF	Dani Alves	(1983-05-06) May 6, 1983 (age 43)	30	3	Barcelona
	2DF	André Santos	(1983-03-08) March 8, 1983 (age 43)	9	0	Fenerbahçe
5	3MF	Gilberto Silva	(1976-10-07) October 7, 1976 (age 49)	83	3	Panathinaikos
7	3MF	Lucas	(1987-01-09) January 9, 1987 (age 39)	4	0	Liverpool
8	3MF	Ramires	(1987-03-24) March 24, 1987 (age 39)	10	0	Benfica
10	3MF	Kaká	(1982-04-22) April 22, 1982 (age 44)	73	26	Real Madrid
14	3MF	Sandro	(1989-03-15) March 15, 1989 (age 37)	1	0	Internacional
15	3MF	Elano	(1981-06-14) June 14, 1981 (age 44)	39	6	Galatasaray
16	3MF	Alex	(1982-03-25) March 25, 1982 (age 44)	4	0	Spartak Moscow
17	3MF	Diego Souza	(1985-06-17) June 17, 1985 (age 40)	1	0	Palmeiras
	3MF	Josué	(1979-07-19) July 19, 1979 (age 46)	26	1	Wolfsburg
9	4FW	Luís Fabiano	(1980-11-08) November 8, 1980 (age 45)	34	25	Sevilla
11	4FW	Nilmar	(1984-07-14) July 14, 1984 (age 41)	12	6	Villarreal
18	4FW	Diego Tardelli	(1985-05-10) May 10, 1985 (age 41)	4	0	Atlético Mineiro
	4FW	Adriano	(1982-02-17) February 17, 1982 (age 44)	47	27	Flamengo

Close

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

More information No., Pos. ...

No. Pos. Nation Player 1 GK  BRA Diego Cavalieri 2 DF  ENG Glen Johnson 4 MF  ITA Alberto Aquilani 5 DF  DEN Daniel Agger 8 MF  ENG Steven Gerrard (captain) 9 FW  ESP Fernando Torres 10 FW  UKR Andriy Voronin 11 MF  ESP Albert Riera 12 DF  BRA Fábio Aurélio 15 MF  ISR Yossi Benayoun 16 DF  GRE Sotirios Kyrgiakos 18 FW  NED Dirk Kuyt 19 FW  NED Ryan Babel 20 MF  ARG Javier Mascherano 21 MF  BRA Lucas 22 DF  ARG Emiliano Insúa 23 DF  ENG Jamie Carragher (vice-captain)

No. Pos. Nation Player 24 FW  FRA David N'Gog 25 GK  ESP Pepe Reina 26 MF  ENG Jay Spearing 27 DF  SUI Philipp Degen 28 MF  FRA Damien Plessis 31 MF  MAR Nabil El Zhar 32 DF  ENG Stephen Darby 34 DF  ENG Martin Kelly 36 DF  ENG Steve Irwin 37 DF  SVK Martin Škrtel 38 DF  ITA Andrea Dossena 39 FW  ENG Nathan Eccleston 40 DF  ESP Daniel Sánchez Ayala 41 GK  DEN Martin Hansen 42 GK  HUN Péter Gulácsi 43 GK  AUS Dean Bouzanis 46 MF  ENG David Amoo [1]

Close

Bonus points for guessing which country and club these are from without cheatin :p Transaction Go (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the entirety of that list dumped here?

But in answer to your question - no, those lists should also not contain flags without country names, for exactly the same reason. It might be worth discussing here a preferred format that meets the guidelines, and an efficient way of implementing it. Knepflerle (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The flags next to the players on roster sheets should continue being shown. Clubs are composed of different squads with many players. These same rosters are so multi-national that for many readers upon first glance they will have a clearer idea of their country of origin. The displaying of national flags may also be pertinent and facilitate readers when the 6+5 rule adopted by FIFA may or may not go into effect. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that MOS:FLAG allows flags next to athlete's name without the name of the country so long as they indicate the athlete's primary sporting nationality. So at least in a club roster's, the flagicon is fine. Digirami (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please could you point out exactly where in MOS:FLAG it says that flags next to athletes' names can be used without country names on first use? It says that flags for athletes should denote their sporting nationality, but I can't find anything that says they're an exception to MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such exception. Flags can be used in addition to, but not as a substitute for text. Knepflerle (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Having both the flag and the full name of a country in Current Squad sections would make the tables unreadable. Flags are a good way to present relevant information in a very short and accessible way. If the guidelines say we should use the flag and the name of country, then the guidelines are wrong and ought to be changed, imo. The rules should exist to improve the encyclopedia, they are the means to an end, but they are not the end. The rules are never more important than the encyclopedia or the reader. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But flags alone are not accessible to at least three groups of readers. As you say, our reader is the first priority, which is why we make the information accessible to as many readers as possible. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: flags alone are still accessible to the colour-blind people you have described above. If you place your mouse on a flag, you will see the name of the country in the bottom of the screen. Try it with the Liverpool squad that Transaction Go placed here. As far as blind and partially-sighted readers are concerned, I can imagine that they have trouble with images as well. So should we stop using images on Wikipedia? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The mouse-hover helps the colour-blind but not the other two groups. The difference between images is that here there's an incredibly simple fix for all three groups - text. We shouldn't exclude them for little reason Knepflerle (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See thats the thing. The MOS for flags is IMHO terribly lacking and not comprehensive enough. The thing about caring for the eye handicapped group leans on the over extreme side of caution and hinders what is a perfectly decent format for the overwhelming masses. The screen reader issue is more a technical issue. TV and newspaper was once black and white. And WAP and mobile services should now (or at least over time redirect to wikipedia mobile) and is also more a technical issue. All in all the MOS is flawed IMHO and falls outside our field of scope anyway.Transaction Go (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the abbreviation of the tables, and the removal of the background colours - the text on the bronze is not easy to read. A short key for the column titles would be useful. More importantly, the flags should be replaced with the name of the host country, for the reasons given above - it gives the information in a perfectly accessible, immediate format and we can safely assume all readers can access and understand English language text. Knepflerle (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But why is the country needed at all: what relevance is it to the articles on Germany or Wales that the tournament that they were not invited to/failed to qualify for in 1950 took place in Brazil? And if the table is abbreviated, then why tell readers of the Wales articles that they failed to qualify for an event in Chile in 1962, one in South Africa in 2010, and a number in unspecified locations between those dates? Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that it's irrelevant - I am only anticipating that the country would be mentioned on tournaments that had been qualified for, because there'll only be a separate row if they qualified for it. I think we're envisaging exactly the same table, just mine has country names instead of flags. Knepflerle (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How not having flags or at least the names of where the tournaments were held confuses readers even more unless they click on every single wiki link to access information on each individual tournament. This Copa America table is an example. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is how it was presented prior to the edits.

More information Copa América, Total: 14 Titles ...

Copa América
Total: 14 Titles
Year	Position		Year	Position		Year	Position
1916	Second place		1939	Withdrew		1967	Second place
1917	Second place		1941	Champions		1975	Round 1
1919	Third place		1942	Second place		1979	Round 1
1920	Second place		1945	Champions		1983	Round 1
1921	Champions		1946	Champions		1987	Fourth place
1922	Fourth place		1947	Champions		1989	Third place
1923	Second place		1949	Withdrew		1991	Champions
1924	Second place		1953	Withdrew		1993	Champions
1925	Champions		1955	Champions		1995	Quarter-finals
1926	Second place		1956	Third place		1997	Quarter-finals
1927	Champions		1957	Champions		1999	Quarter-finals
1929	Champions		1959	Champions		2001	Withdrew
1935	Second place		1959	Second place		2004	Second place
1937	Champions		1963	Third place		2007	Second place

Close

If flagicons improve the list, it would behoove me to mention ignore the rules (but, understand what it means first). I don't see this as too much of a big deal in one sense: you move the mouse pointer over the flag and the name of country appears. Perhaps a small reminder to readers about that might be enough for a middle ground. Digirami (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Digirami, with the mouse pointer over the flag as a solution. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This does not help people using screen readers or text-only browsers (such as are common when using mobile phones for example), and is not a solution. The flags can be used of course, but only in addition to the supporting text, not instead of it. Knepflerle (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm going to have to chose to ignore that rule, especially for the club squad list. I can't imagine a new format where the addition of a country's name is going to improve the list. If someone wants to know what country the flag represents, they can learn (since they are already reading an encyclopedia) and click the flag to take them to the article on that respective country. If you have an idea for an acceptable improvement, let's hear it. Digirami (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding a nationality column would be a perfectly workable solution. For those using screen readers and text-only browsers the links may not appear at all, and they shouldn't have to repeatedly click between pages to get the same information we could provide with a single word.

Fortunately the decision to exclude large numbers of readers on a personal aesthetic quibble is not your decision to make. The consensus suggestions at WP:MOSFLAG were developed over a long time for very good reasons. Knepflerle (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You would think so, but practically speaking, when you add that information in with the existing info (such as who is the captain, loans, etc), you will get a list that will look clustered and messy (even more so with countries and players with long names). But if the addition of a country's name prevents these squad lists from looking right and does not improve the articles one bit, then we should ignore that rule. That's why IAR exists. Digirami (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving accessibility to those relying on article text is a clear improvement. Excluding large classes of users in the name of your personal whims on aesthetics is not improving the encyclopaedia, so you can forget invoking WP:IAR. Knepflerle (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvement for far less than 1% of a population is not an improvement if it comes at the expense of neat organized list that the rest of us would normally read and should expect. You have not been able to show how adding all this additional text will or will not affect the readability for normal user given some of the concerns I have raised. Given that, I can invoke IAR. Digirami (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What most of the people "in favor" of the flags seem to be forgetting (or misunderstanding) is that these "Tables" are supposed to be aids to the text that should be present in the sections where the tables would appear. Take as examples the nicely written articles on the Peru national football team ( and ; which would be good for other South Am. FB team articles to follow, such as Chile and Argentina) and the Scotland national football team ( and , which is a good example for European FB Team articles). The tables are just there to keep record of the team's performance, not to be an international flag-fest. The textual information from the sections are by far more important and instructive than the tables.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that the flag being included for the teams of a particular country (Ex. Chelsea having the English flag) are perfectly fine for the standards of nationality and its association because it has an entity (whether it be a person, club, etc.) associated to it. However, in the case of the World Cup tables, they merely have years and flags. For example, in one hand we can say that Chelsea is an English football club (which makes perfect sense, hence the flag being perfectly fine), but on the other how can we say that 1930 is a Uruguayan year (which doesn't make sense, hence the flag being a problem and not a solution)? That's the logic I see behind it anyways.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This version includes the flags and where the World Cup was held in a text format. This way flags can be used in addition to, but not as a substitute for text. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More information Year, Round ...

Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1930 to 1938	Did not enter
Brazil 1950	Round 1	8	3	1	0	2	2	2
Switzerland 1954	Quarter-finals	6	3	1	1	1	8	8
Sweden 1958	Round 1	11	4	0	3	1	4	5
Chile 1962	Quarter-finals	8	4	1	1	2	5	6
England 1966	Champions	1	6	5	1	0	11	3
Mexico 1970	Quarter-finals	8	4	2	0	2	4	4
1974 to 1978	Did not qualify
Spain 1982	Group Round 2	6	5	3	2	0	6	1
Mexico 1986	Quarter-Finals	8	5	2	1	2	7	3
Italy 1990	Fourth Place	4	7	3	3	1	8	6
United States 1994	Did not qualify
France 1998	Round 2	9	4	2	1	1	7	4
** South Korea/Japan 2002	Quarter-finals	6	5	2	2	1	6	3
Germany 2006	Quarter-finals	7	5	3	2	0	6	2
South Africa 2010	Qualified	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	12/18	1 Title	55	25	17	13	74	47

Close

Left align the first column. chandler 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a good change and compromise but the country and flag are in the year column which could still raise some more potential issues. So to accommodate this, a "Host(s)" column should be made. As Chandler said align it to the left. Also while I agree with abbreviating tables like the Wales ones Kevin posted above, i.e. tables that have over excessive and overdone lines on the lower end of the spectrum that when abbreviated has only a few structural changes in the table and overall probably don't deserve a table, I do not agree or at the minimum do not think it should be obligatory to abbreviate tables on the middle or upper end of the spectrum i.e. those ones that feature alot of changes. Tables should be comprehensive, proportional and unambiguous to adhere to presentation and practicality standards where possible. Just as the flags alone can be confusing and misleading so can unnecessary abbreviating them down to year ranges when the table is meant to record each cup as individual entries to which year it was held. We can't assume that the user immediately knows that the cups are held every four years nor that there were no cups in WW2. Furthermore it makes figuring out how many cups the team missed out on between year x and year y confusing and hard to figure out. Saving space (at least vertically) should not be an issue (there are much much longer tables on articles elsewhere). Just because a poor table is abbreviated doesn't mean it should be done to the good ones. Abbreviating should only be applied to those that have over excessive lines and should be applied situationally depending on the article make up (some articles have tables next to each other for example) and should not be obligatory. Transaction Go (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

More information Host(s), Year ...

Host(s)	Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
Uruguay	1930	Did not enter
Italy	1934	Did not enter
France	1938	Did not enter
Brazil	1950	Round 1	8	3	1	0	2	2	2
Switzerland	1954	Quarter-finals	6	3	1	1	1	8	8
Sweden	1958	Round 1	11	4	0	3	1	4	5
Chile	1962	Quarter-finals	8	4	1	1	2	5	6
England	1966	Champions	1	6	5	1	0	11	3
Mexico	1970	Quarter-finals	8	4	2	0	2	4	4
West Germany	1974	Did not qualify
Argentina	1978	Did not qualify
Spain	1982	Group Round 2	6	5	3	2	0	6	1
Mexico	1986	Quarter-Finals	8	5	2	1	2	7	3
Italy	1990	Fourth Place	4	7	3	3	1	8	6
United States	1994	Did not qualify
France	1998	Round 2	9	4	2	1	1	7	4
South Korea Japan	2002	Quarter-finals	6	5	2	2	1	6	3
Germany	2006	Quarter-finals	7	5	3	2	0	6	2
South Africa	2010	Qualified	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	-	13/19	1 Title	55	25	17	13	74	47

Close

I'm not sure how to left align the first column only sorry. Someone help please? Transaction Go (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry, but here are people saying that blind people can´t see the flags, but can they see the text? This doesn´t make sence... FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And for color blinded people, it was alredy said that moving the mouse the country will apear written... Now we could think about the color-blind and without arms or hands... FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what we're saying, see screen reader. Blind people can hear the name of the country written as text using a screen reader, but they can't hear flags. And then we have people using text-only browsing to consider, who can read text but not images. Knepflerle (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a good screen reader read alt text on images? chandler 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some might, but the handling is far from consistent. Commonly-used text-only browsers, such as those on many mobile phones, wouldn't handle it at all. Knepflerle (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I typed above. See thats the thing. The MOS for flags is IMHO terribly lacking and not comprehensive enough. The thing about caring for the eye handicapped group leans on the over extreme side of caution and hinders what is a perfectly decent format for the overwhelming masses. The screen reader issue is more a technical issue. TV and newspaper was once black and white. And WAP and mobile services should now (or at least over time redirect to wikipedia mobile) and is also more a technical issue. All in all the MOS is flawed IMHO and falls outside our field of scope anyway. Transaction Go (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point

So we are agreed that a table with lots of empty lines is unnecessary? And that the location of a tournament in which a team did not compete is irrelevant to that team's article? And that a flag should not be used without the country's name, but that many readers would like to see a flag if a country is named (although I don't know why: I would suggest that more people can read the word Thailand or Bolivia than can recognise their respective flags)? So the remaining question is whether the name (and flag) needs to be shown in these records of tournament participation (which seems inconsistent to me), or whether we simply let the reader follow the link if they want to know more about the tournament in question. In other words:

More information World Cup record, Year ...

World Cup record
Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1930 to 1938	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1950 to 1954	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Sweden 1958	Quarter-finals	7/16	5	1	3	1	4	4
1962 to 2010	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total	1/18	1 Quarter-final	5	1	3	1	4	4

Close

or

More information World Cup record, Year ...

World Cup record
Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1930 to 1938	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1950 to 1954	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1958	Quarter-finals	7/16	5	1	3	1	4	4
1962 to 2010	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total	1/18	1 Quarter-final	5	1	3	1	4	4

Close

? Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat what I said above: such a change would have so many implications for other, non-football related articles, that this is not the proper venue to make such a decision. This shouldn't be decided on this WikiProject. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was such a mass change made in the 1st place??? Everything was okay and standardized since forever. Why the sudden surge in so many issues that were seemly never here in the 1st place? Coverangrydude —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Copied from what I typed above.

That is a good change and compromise but the country and flag are in the year column which could still raise some more potential issues. So to accommodate this, a "Host(s)" column should be made. As Chandler said align it to the left. Also while I agree with abbreviating tables like the Wales ones Kevin posted above, i.e. tables that have over excessive and overdone lines on the lower end of the spectrum that when abbreviated has only a few structural changes in the table and overall probably don't deserve a table, I do not agree or at the minimum do not think it should be obligatory to abbreviate tables on the middle or upper end of the spectrum i.e. those ones that feature alot of changes. Tables should be comprehensive, proportional and unambiguous to adhere to presentation and practicality standards where possible. Just as the flags alone can be confusing and misleading so can unnecessary abbreviating them down to year ranges when the table is meant to record each cup as individual entries to which year it was held. We can't assume that the user immediately knows that the cups are held every four years nor that there were no cups in WW2. Furthermore it makes figuring out how many cups the team missed out on between year x and year y confusing and hard to figure out. Saving space (at least vertically) should not be an issue (there are much much longer tables on articles elsewhere). Just because a poor table is abbreviated doesn't mean it should be done to the good ones. Abbreviating should only be applied to those that have over excessive lines and should be applied situationally depending on the article make up (some articles have tables next to each other for example) and should not be obligatory. Transaction Go (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

More information Host(s), Year ...

Host(s) Year Round Position GP W D* L GS GA Uruguay 1930 Did not enter – – – – – – – Italy 1934 Did not enter – – – – – – – France 1938 Did not enter – – – – – – – Brazil 1950 Round 1 8 3 1 0 2 2 2  Switzerland 1954 Quarterfinals 6 3 1 1 1 8 8 Sweden 1958 Round 1 11 4 0 3 1 4 5 Chile 1962 Quarterfinals 8 4 1 1 2 5 6 England 1966 Champions 1 6 5 1 0 11 3 Mexico 1970 Quarterfinals 8 4 2 0 2 4 4 West Germany 1974 Did not qualify – – – – – – – Argentina 1978 Did not qualify – – – – – – – Spain 1982 Group Round 2 6 5 3 2 0 6 1 Mexico 1986 Quarterfinals 8 5 2 1 2 7 3 Italy 1990 Fourth Place 4 7 3 3 1 8 6 United States 1994 Did not qualify – – – – – – – France 1998 Round 2 9 4 2 1 1 7 4 South Korea Japan 2002 Quarterfinals 6 5 2 2 1 6 3 Germany 2006 Quarterfinals 7 5 3 2 0 6 2 South Africa 2010 Qualified – – – – – – – Total - 13/19 1 Title 55 25 17 13 74 47

Host(s) Year Round Position GP W D* L GS GA Uruguay 1930 Did not enter – – – – – – – Italy 1934 Did not enter – – – – – – – France 1938 Did not enter – – – – – – – Brazil 1950 Round 1 8 3 1 0 2 2 2  Switzerland 1954 Quarterfinals 6 3 1 1 1 8 8 Sweden 1958 Round 1 11 4 0 3 1 4 5 Chile 1962 Quarterfinals 8 4 1 1 2 5 6 England 1966 Champions 1 6 5 1 0 11 3 Mexico 1970 Quarterfinals 8 4 2 0 2 4 4 West Germany 1974 Did not qualify – – – – – – – Argentina 1978 Did not qualify – – – – – – – Spain 1982 Group Round 2 6 5 3 2 0 6 1 Mexico 1986 Quarterfinals 8 5 2 1 2 7 3 Italy 1990 Fourth Place 4 7 3 3 1 8 6 United States 1994 Did not qualify – – – – – – – France 1998 Round 2 9 4 2 1 1 7 4 South Korea Japan 2002 Quarterfinals 6 5 2 2 1 6 3 Germany 2006 Quarterfinals 7 5 3 2 0 6 2 South Africa 2010 Qualified – – – – – – – Total - 13/19 1 Title 55 25 17 13 74 47

Close

I'm not sure how to left align the first column only sorry. Someone help please? Transaction Go (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh to answer Kevin's point probably the 2nd table. The key here is consistency within the tables. So what should determine the table is how many single line entries it has and in this case not many. To the IP user yeah that is true but an intermediate solution/compromise can and should be reached in the meantime. And with CAG yeah these should never have mass changed in the first place since there was nothing really blatantly or outrageously wrong with them given how long they been here but what done is done unfortunely. Transaction Go (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You put align="left" before the tab, but why create two columns for host and competitions? There's no problem calling them "Country YEAR" see chandler 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and thanks for the help. But while we are making changes it would be prudent to consider any potential conflicts. The flag and country just shouldn't be under a year only column lest some other anal person takes issues with it. Transaction Go (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I favor having at least some kind of indication of the hosts and the year of the World Cup whether in seperate colums or not. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Selecciones de la Vida. And this last version is quite acceptable. FkpCascais (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this idea. I do have to agree that it is an improvement from the other table, but the problem is that it creates plenty of irrelevant material on several (more than 1 or 2) National Football Team articles. Not all teams have qualified to the World Cup to the extent Brazil or Argentina have, and the vast majority of the Nat. teams only have a short record of World Cup qualification (if any). Having a long list of "Did not Qualify" is completely useless and simply takes up space in the article. Moreover, the whole concept behind having a standard table is for all articles to follow it. Obviously, if one article is going to have a flag-fest while the rest don't, the standard concept is not functioning.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If people want to know that the World Cup takes place every four years or what the hosts are, there is a nice FIFA World Cup article available for that purpose.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, of course, then we also have the fantastic South Korea/Japan WC. It looks terrible in the chart with the flags. I checked it out using the "br" (<>) deal, but it still didn't fit with the others.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was exactly wy we were using only the flag... And if other people can´t see the flag, they are not missing anything important. But, the flags are quite nice for soccer-lovers. They are simple, and give a "nice" additional information. FkpFkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and including the flags with the name of the country in text form should solve any MOS:Flag issues. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying that there is nothing important about the flag, then why exactly must it be included in the article? Read over what you just wrote, and you'll see that the argument you propose is broken in its foundations. If it's not important, it shouldn't be in the article. Also, as a football-fan, my joy is to read the history of my team, drool over my team's uniform and hope to some day by random chance be able to play with the team, and to watch football games about my team and scream my lungs out in praises or curse words; oh, and most importantly, play football. I don't play football with a flag, or a flag-pole (Unless there is no goal and I use a random flag-pole(s) for the goal). What you claim to be simple is taking up unnecessary space.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They're very good to identify which World Cup you're actually looking at (I personally have them "paired" in memory mostly for with country that hosted), it adds a extra layer of information very concise for the majority of readers, and as seem to have be pointed out, screen readers should pick up on alt-text and therefore the name of the country. chandler 01:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a perfectly decent standard across the board before, one that stood for a substantial amount of time that was used and added by various amounts of users. I'm all for having a standard throughout the board so long as it improves the quality of the articles which is the ultimate point of our edits anywhere on this site. But this clearly isn't the case as either way you punch it there will be hindrance to a number of articles. Things should be applied situationally instead of dogmatically because of a MOS or whatever reasons. Besides it is much more important for a standard to be applied within themselves first and forthmost. · The other point I was making was that doing this provides a reasonable, easy, immediate remedy that will solve most common queries without expecting readers to (know how/where to) navigate to get such info. · Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. · They are of intrinsic importance to the section subject in relation to the article. Furthermore as chandler stated they bring intangible value that is both rewarding and enrichening. Also they do not take up unnecessary space. Just look at the edition here. It barely takes up half the width of the page, in other words you can put two of these tables side by side no problem. See above. · Finally no one has explained the double standard that is the flags without names attached to those of clubs and people in accordance to the MOS:Flags. Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like. It has nothing to do with them being an entity as you said earlier. This is a purely an accessibility issue. I don't see why this should suddenly be applied to the MOS (no matter how flawed it is) when other violations run rampant. Transaction Go (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Two players by this name, with aticles currently located at Dave Moyes and David Moyes. Is it worth moving them to David Moyes (footballer born 1955) and David Moyes (footballer born 1963) and creating a disambiguation page? GiantSnowman 02:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What with WP:COMMONNAME applying to Dave, and David's being a much better candidate for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, hatnotes are definitely the way to go here. There is rarely a need for a dab for only two terms. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this page exactly the kind of page we don´t need here? FkpCascais (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the matter with it? Yes, it's short but can be expanded. It has a reference confirming the generally-held views on what constitutes football notability. It should probably have a stub added. Eldumpo (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The player is at the beginning of his career: the article reflects that. Are you suggesting that it would be better that the article not exost at all, although he meets notability requirements? If not, what additional info is essential? Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite, one professional match into his career, is there much else to add at this point beyond a stub template? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get it... Nevemind... But it is quite ridiculous. Even my neighbour that has played a couple of matches in the Portuguese First League some ten years ago is more notable, and neither of us never even imagined having an article here about him... Maybe we were wrong... Sorry to bother you guys. FkpCascais (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if he meets WP:ATHLETE then we should have an article about him. Make a stub for him! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You should see the size of some of the articles on South America footballers. But remember, the size of footballer's bios depends on a) if there are sources that talk about them, and b) if users are willing to take the time to add relevant information to someone's bio. Until that happenes, you are stuck with examples like the one above. Digirami (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should think about whether these people deserve articles. But assuming they do, that's exactly what I'd want to see. It's sourced, and it's got as much as can really be written about him. What irritates me is when I see one sentence, untouched articles where no attempt has been made to source the "content". But I daren't AfD, because I can't be bothered with the inevitable 20kb campaign in favour of keeping the unsourced sentence. WFCforLife (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to amend the player statistic tables for certain players so as either to swap the Europe category with 'Other', or to add another column for Other at the end e.g. In terms of English and Scottish football this would allow the Full Members/Associate Members/Challenge Trophy competitions to be added to the stats. Eldumpo (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone with an Allfootballers subscription know the Villa stats for Gordon Hodgson? GiantSnowman 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are stats for every Villa player here. Hodgson's are . --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth does this redirect to Scottish Premier League???? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because you need to type Scottish Football League First Division. – Michael (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know why that is, but I have changed it to redirect to Scottish Football League First Division Jmorrison had changed it to the Prem league and not sure for what reason. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted for the reason given below. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it was the top tier of Scottish football, and the SPL is the successor league to that. It should probably have its own article, as with Football League First Division, but it certainly should not redirect to the First Division article, because that is the second tier. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So the Scottish League Division One and the Scottish League First Division are not the same thing? Can't figure out the logic there....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not. It isn't entirely anagolous to the English situation because the SFL changed the names of the division to Premier, First and Second from Div One and Div Two in 1975, long before the SPL broke away in 1998. Season 1975/76 saw re-organisation with the League undergoing major structural change, with the introduction of three Divisions of 10, 14 and 14 and re-named the Premier, First and Second Divisions respectively. per the SFL history page. ie "SFL Division Two" became the "SFL First Division" in 1975, whereas in England the Football League First Division pretty much continued on as if nothing had happened when the Premier League broke away. As I said earlier, Scottish Football League Division One should have its own article, but it certainly should not redirect to the First Division article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1975ish, there was a Scottish first division and a second division. After that, there was a Scottish Premier Division, a First Division and a Second Division. So the old first division was the top tier, and the new first division is the second tier. Hope this helps. --hippo43 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history (I'm almost old enough to remember the pre-Premier Division days), it just seems bizarre to state that (in any league) "Division One" and "the First Division" are distinct and separate entities. Am I understanding that you are saying that prior to 1975 the top division was called "Division One" but was not called "the First Division" and since 1975 the second tier has been called "the First Division" but has not been called "Division One"? Surely the two names are just interchangeable? Or maybe it's just me being thick. It wouldn't be the first time..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. The old Scottish Division One is now the SPL, and the old Scottish Division Two is now the Scottish First Division. Scottish Division One and Scottish First Division are not the same thing. I know it's a little bizarre, but the original redirect was correct. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, are Football League One and the Football League First Division the same thing? Exactly the same sitation. Logical, no. Unusual, also no. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not - League 1 used to be called the Second Division. (And, before the Premier League started, it was called the Third Division.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of my point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the point. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances, so I'm going to create a complimentary List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals, but what should the cut-off point be? 200 league goals? GiantSnowman 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

200 seems a sensible cut-off point depending on how many players would then be included in the list. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Errr, you do know that the first list is sortable eh?. Seems kind of redundant to me to make yet another list duplicating the same information.--ClubOranje^T 09:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Way back in 2007, I started a topic on the insertion of "greatest" claims in football articles. These typically claim that X is "regarded by many as one of the greatest/the greatest footballers of all time". These claims breach WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL and should be removed. The leads should simply state the player's awards/achievements, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. For example, Cruyff's article is correctly worded, Maradona's and Puskás' are not. Opinions on removing these type of claims? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear case of failing POV, and so should be removed. However, if a WP:RS says something like "Player X is considered one of the greatest players in the history of Burkino Faso", then I would say include it and reference it. GiantSnowman 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But it should be attributed. ie, "GiantSnowman considers Stu to be one of the grestest Wikipedians", or "GiantSnowman's 2009 poll found Stu to be one of Wikipedia's grestest editors" not just "Stu is considered one of the grestest Wikipedians". Assuming GiantSnowman is an authority on the subject :-) Most of the articles involved don't have claims like these, just results of various surveys as the source. In these cases the results of the survey should just be stated. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, Stu! Keep earning those accolades. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it should be put into context. If it just says "this player is a legend" or "this player is the best ever", then remove at once. Oh, and I think you'll find that my 2009 poll found JohnnyPolo24 to be one of Wikipedia's grestest editors; a late flurry of votes put you into second place Stu! GiantSnowman 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I demand a recount! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more input on this? I'd prefer a bit more consensus before making any changes. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Lionel Messi violate this despite the sources? Spiderone 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement 'one of the greatest' is a bit pov on most footballers bio's who have had success. But on the likes of someone like maradona or pele it would be suited. Although statements like 'one of the most sucessfull' are generaly unquestioned.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

If an article, in this example Messi's, states that "he finished as runner-up in 2007 and 2008 for the FIFA World Player of the Year award" then I think it's pretty well understood by the name of the award that he's one of the best in the world. The encylopedia needs to reflect verifiable facts, not opinions. The same should go for examples of players who have had notable success for their own countries. Landon Donovan is probably the best-ever American in the sport, but again, to say so would be POV; it's preferred to highlight his six Honda Player of the Year awards and American international scoring records than to use superlatives. Facts trump opinion. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Squad templates from every county in the world have manager only, yet American ones, such as Real Salt Lake, have multiple staff...is this acceptable? Personally I think this is too much - where do we draw the line? - but want some consensus before we start editing them, as I have had my edits reverted. GiantSnowman 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that someone had done it on the San Jose Earthquakes template, and thought it was a useful, informative addition, so I added the same info to all MLS and USL squad templates. I like it, and providing we limit it to the main three of four people (General Manager, Head Coach, Assistant Coaches) I don't see a problem. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

But surely we want uniformity across football articles of all nations? And outside the US, there isn't such things as General Managers etc. GiantSnowman 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity on the quality of the information, absolutely. Uniformity on the way stats are collected, absolutely. Uniformity of what info is in club template boxes - not necessarily. The info that's available varies from country to country, and what is important to one country is not always important to another country. As you say, General Managers don't really exist outside the US, but they are an integral part of US sports teams... as for the others, I actually think adding the senior assistant coaches to club templates (like adding Ray Wilkins to Chelsea for example) would be a nice touch, and would give more at-a-glance detail to the club templates with regard to the most senior backroom staff. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I could perhaps see adding an Assistant Manager to squad templates, but beyond that we are entering a slippery slope - where do we stop? Physio? Kitman? Groundsman? Receptionist? etc. GiantSnowman 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest having no more than four or five staff members per squad template. Head Coach/Manager, obviously. One, perhaps two senior assistant coaches. The senior goalkeeper coach. And perhaps one more "management" person, like a General Manager for US teams, or the person in the Sven Goran Eriksson role at Notts County or its equivalent. I think that would add a nice level of management/coaching detail to the templates without going overboard.--JonBroxton (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with assistants, but the General Manager/Head Coach setup is an essential part of sport generally in the USA. I think limiting it to those two is the way to go. 82.13.161.114 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We stop wherever the notability stops. That apparently varies from country to country. I'd be cautious about including the "four or five staff members" JonBroxton suggested unless they're covered by multiple secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to the financial structure of American sports, the GM role is integral in all major professional sports: soccer, American football, basketball, ice hockey, and baseball. The GM performs all roster and personnel moves as well as all contract negotiations. The coach/manager is generally only tasked with the "in-game" aspect of the sport, though occasionally in American sports those roles are both handled by the same person, such as Bruce Arena for the Los Angeles Galaxy. To my point though: I think that the GM role should be included where applicable. I could also easily understand the inclusion of top assistant coaches. I guess one way to put it is: is the 37th senior roster player more notable than the coaches/managers? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this category be renamed to Category:Georgia international footballers? We're not going to have any international footballers from the state, are we...? GiantSnowman 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This actually came across my mind when I was creating some articles on Georgian footballers recently. I would agree with you. Unless Georgia (the state) decides to secede from the Union, I don't think we're going to be running into Category:Georgia (state) international footballers. And if secession does happen, I think a lot of things that are more important will need editorial attention. I'm in favor of this change. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Let's get the discussion up. matt91486 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... Those jerks already did it once before. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that the arguments are going against this - see here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This proposal never should have been placed in the speedy rename section, since it actually directly contradicts speedy criterion #6 that is listed there. If it is going to have any hope of renaming, it needs to be nominated for a full discussion. Once it gets opposed at the speedy stage, it can be removed after 48 hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have started a CfR; the discussion can be found here. Thanks, GiantSnowman 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently added some more detail to Jaime Moreno's biography, but now the text I added to the page appears in a small font, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to make it appear in normal size. Can anyone help? It's two sections towards the bottom of the page. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that better? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect!! What did I do to make it screwy in the first place (so I know what not to do in future...) --JonBroxton (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a stray "<small>" left between the two tables. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if someone can help me to understand better this tag. I like it, it is quite usefull for players biographies which were donne some time age and never actualised since then, but I also find it in cases where it doesn´t wuite make sence. The exemple I talking about (I saw more, but now I remember this one) is about Nenad Jestrović. He is currently in an advanced time of his career, he´s without club, waitting for some good contract, if not, he´ll hang-up his boots. So, hi´s situation is Curret club: Free agent, wright? Hi´s situation is not "unknown", as the tag says. Should I remove the tag? I have also another question. There is some User:Rettetast that is removing the "Retired" or "Free agent" from the current club place in the infoboxes. Is he right? He makes sence, by saying that those words are not clubs... but on the other way, using this words makes a reader understand inmedistely his current status. Any sugestions? FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox documentation has long said to not include the current club when there are none. I also think it would be bad page design to say that the current club is "retired" or something similar. However the information is important and should first sentence in the lead. But the infobox should a short summary of some facts from the article and the goal should not be that it contains all important information. Rettetast (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just want to know if there is consensus about it, so I do it myself when find those situations or when I´m making some biography in that situation. Regards.FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what the views are on articles like this, but could this be classed as too much unnecessary information? Eddie6705 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the principle of recording 'foreign' players in domestic leagues is a sound one, although not sure if it warrants one for each season. Would it be too arbitrary to split by decade? Also, I notice that Andy Dorman is included on the list under Wales, but his article states that he has expressed an interest in playing for England, Wales or USA, so maybe he should move to the England section as he's English born? Eldumpo (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that for each individual season it may be too much. As for Dorman, he probably should be moved. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

An overview of foreign players in the league throughout its entire history? Fine. Season-by-season? Nonono. And Dorman should be moved to England until he reresentes a different nation. GiantSnowman 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The user (who is incidently currently blocked), has also created these similar articles: List of foreign football players in the Slovenian PrvaLiga 2009–10, List of foreign football players in the Slovak Superliga 2009–10, List of foreign football players in Allsvenskan 2009–10, List of foreign football players in the Swiss Super League 2009–10, List of foreign football players in the Hungarian National Championship I 2009–10. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

None of these lists are worth anything, whatever time period they cover, unless each player has a reference to prove they played in the league in question and one to prove they hold the nationality in question. Preferably instead of the flags. Also, not at all sure that "foreign" is a suitable choice of word to use in the title... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also List of foreign football players in Liga I 2009–10 by Mario1987 (see block above). Eddie6705 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a gander at Category:Lists of footballers playing for a foreign country. GiantSnowman 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To those wondering where Dorman should go, take a look at this, spotted on the page: "A player is considered foreign if he is not eligible to play for the national teams of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland." (Although I wouldn't include the RoI in the "non-foreign" teams.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Arbitrary collection of information, will inevitably end up being flypaper for pointless nationality discussions. Delete the lot of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An Irish player called Kelleher, who played club football for Barnet, played at the 1948 Olympics. However, was his first name spelt Denis or Dennis? GiantSnowman 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with sports-reference.com, but having read this, my natural reaction is go with FIFA. WFCforLife (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but even FIFA isn't perfect - a player they have called Aitkew is actually called Aitken, for example. GiantSnowman 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, FIFA are far from perfect, and in many cases not a particularly good source. But between those two sources I would personally trust FIFA more. WFCforLife (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We use sources that FIFA can only dream and we do a lot of research, FIFA don't. --necronudist (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Necronudist on that point. Sports-reference is sometimes very interesting about some individuals.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find a link which shows the starting lineups for the final of the North American SuperLiga 2008? I've been trying to find one, but have so far been unsuccessful. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.weltfussball.de/spielbericht/north-american-superliga-2008-finale-houston-dynamo-new-england-revolution/ cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You rock! --JonBroxton (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This photo seems to indicate that William Voisey managed the England national team for one game against Scotland on 13 May 1946 - over a year before Walter Winterbottom became national manager. Am I reading this situation correctly, or am I missing something vital? GiantSnowman 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not an official England match; see here for list of matches against Scotland — it was a post-war "Victory" international. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See here for further details of Wartime/Victory internationals. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, RSSSF (which reveals Voisey played in a Victory International in 1919), doesn't list the manager. Do you have a source which does so I can add it to the article? Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"England - Player by Player" by by Graham Betts has a short bio for Voisey, but says nothing about acing as "manager" for England. Sorry - but I will add his dates of birth/date to the article. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway! Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on his article for the next few days - German media (kicker, for example) has just reported his death... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by BBC - how terribly tragic. RIP. Seeing as he was "hit by a train" I know we're going to have IPs saying it was suicide, so we'll need to keep an eye as the story develops. GiantSnowman 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide is precisely what the German police say: "Wittke erklärte, dass alles darauf hindeute, dass es sich um Selbsttötung gehandelt habe" (Wittke (police spokesman) declared that everything looks like has been a suicide) kicker.de. So the IPs may have a point. Madcynic (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I only speak basic German you see...and the BBC just said it was "an accident"...GiantSnowman 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries there. It is not yet confirmed as a suicide, but it looks like that'll happen within the next few days. Madcynic (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit, my immediate thought when I saw the word "train" was that it was a suicide. GiantSnowman 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Spiegel online, his agent has confirmed it was a suicide, although I don't know what facts are behind that statement. Press conference scheduled for tomorrow. Madcynic (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Premier League Manager of the Month/archive1 needs eyes, if anybody has the time. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Sports Reference, Andrew Carmichael, who competed for GB at the 1948 Olympics, played his club football with Queen's Park. Neil Brown doesn't have a player by that name playing for QP at that time; he does however have an Angus Carmichael. Are these two players one and the same and, if so, what is his real name? GiantSnowman 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can Angus be a short form of Andrew? I have often noticed that UK sources tend to use short form, whereas continental use full names.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are completely different names -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone with an allfootballers access could check this point?--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

His name was Angus M. E. Carmichael according to the Litster CDROM of postwar players in Scotland. There was an Andrew Carmichael playing for Kilmarnock 1954-57 (no appearances for the first team) but I don't think that was the player in the Olympic team Angus was a fullback, Andrew an outsideleft --Cattivi (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So Angus is the Olympic player. Thanks.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Has already earned four caps for Mexico but is somehow eligible to play for the US- what's up with that?!? Can someone enlighten me please? GiantSnowman 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says that there is a new FIFA rule whereby "players of any age can make a one-time change of footballing nationality if they hold citizenship in their new country and have not played in a competitive match at senior level for their previous country". It looks like Castillo has only played in friendlies and youth internationals for MEX, never a full competitive game, and so is eligible to make a switch because he was born in the USA. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is also the rule that could also potentially make Manuel Almunia available for England, or Nacho Novo available for Scotland. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I always that friendlies did count as official, senior matches...GiantSnowman 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the key word is 'competitive' rather than 'senior'. Maybe if he'd played for Mexico in a World Cup qualifier, or a CONCACAF Gold Cup game, as opposed to friendlies, it might be different. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Castillo's article needs rewording then - saying he "has yet to make an appearance for Mexico in an official match" is just plain wrong. GiantSnowman 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Goal.com says that "FIFA relaxed the rules on switching national teams, letting players of any age make the shift, provided he does not have any senior caps" - but Castillo does have senior caps, four of them according to his article and three according to NFT. GiantSnowman 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The relavent rule is from FIFA Circular 1147 from June 2008. It specifies non-participation in official competitions a the main criteria. Nanonic (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. So it looks as though all Castillo's senior caps came in games which were not part of official competitions; i.e. friendlies, which when combined with his US citizenship would make him eligible to switch. I agree that his article needs re-wording to make this clearer. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FIFA has relaxed/changed its rules. The same situation applies to Jermaine Jones wanting to switch from Germany to the United States. GauchoDude (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In resonse to the Novo and Almunia remark, it's not FIFA rules stopping them. The respective FA, SFA, IFA and FAW have an agreement not to use players in this way, for fear that it could threaten the future of four seperate national teams if players are declared eligible for "England" or "Scotland" based on becoming "British". Unfortunately, this doesn't sell papers, so the press decide to ignore it. WFCforLife (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A goalkeeper by the name of F.W. Hobbs played 24 Football League games for Blackpool in 1927–28, but he isn't listed in Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. If anyone finds him in one of their books, please pass on his full name. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His name was Frederick Wilfred Mobbs --Cattivi (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And Mobbs went on to play for Grantham Town - "Goalkeeper who had previously made appearances for Gainsborough Trinity, Blackpool, where he played in 24 games during their 1927/28 Division Two season, Aldershot and Newark Town. He played for Grantham in the first game of the 1930/31 season at Mansfield Town and then missed just two league fixtures during the whole season. Died 1973 at Gainsborough." Nanonic (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Born Gainsborough, 29/07/1904 --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, men! - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about football, but I created this article on Nawaf Al Abed. My concern is that he might not be appropriate under WP:ATHLETE since he is on the under-23 team. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He might be notable regardless because of his holding of a record. matt91486 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He'll probably have garnered enough media attention to pass WP:GNG; although WP:BLP1E needs to be considered as well. GiantSnowman 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Playing for Al-Hilal probably makes him notable anyway. They're fully professional, and one of the best teams in the AFC. That said, it could do with an Arabic source or two IMO (I doubt English equivalents exist). WFCforLife (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings all. I created this article today and have been working on it meticulously. I could use some help with some of the internal linking to subsections within the article. I want the qualification links in the table of the first phase of the Clausura to go to their respective groups in the tournament, and not to the Apertura groups. I don't know how to do that, so can someone do that for me or show me how? Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them. I might have missed some but hopefully you can get the general idea from those edits. Let me know if you need any more help. WFCforLife (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks! Digirami (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have always been confused why we do not have the sponsored name of a tournament as the article title. In rugby, we have the 2009–10 LV Cup, 2009–10 Heineken Cup etc.; in tennis all articles are known by their sponsored name e.g. 1996 Lipton Championships. Any reason for this. 03md 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because sponsors change, and we need uniformity between article titles...or something. GiantSnowman 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. General consensus was the deviation from WP:COMMONNAME in the interests of a little consistency is a good idea for cup competitions, especially as when they're being discussed in past tense they are frequently referred to by their generic names by reliable sources (as it would confuse readers to refer to them by obsolete sponsored titles). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sponsors are ephemeral, and can lead to confusion. Take the Football League Cup as an example. In its history it has been the League Cup, Milk Cup, Rumbelows Cup, Coca-Cola Cup, Worthington Cup and now Carling Cup (plus any I have forgotten). Oldelpaso (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best to avoid sponsored names whenever possible because, as mentioned, the sponsored names tend to change, but sometimes, unfortunately, it can't be avoided. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, wrong, again. I don't know how any times I've had to point this out - there's no absolute uniformity on this issue. It is true for the majority, but certainly not automatically true for all cases, and repeatedly saying otherwise doesn't make it true. Veikkausliiga, Gambrinus liga, Umbro Cup, Emirates Cup, Suruga Bank Championship, Russian Railways Cup, Vodacom Challenge, Kagame Inter-Club Cup, Setanta Sports Cup, Danone Nations Cup, Kirin Cup, VTV-T&T Cup, Alma TV Cup... different reasons in each case, but can we please, please stop claiming there is an absolute rule on this, when there very obviously is none? Knepflerle (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

All those cases are not the same, for example the Emirates Cup, Umbro Cup, Setanta Sports Cup (and perhaps others) they don't have any underlying names, those names are not only sponsor names, but the actual names. A big difference from the Carling Cup vs. the Football League Cup imo. There could be the same deal with Veikkausliiga which is the name the league was founded with. chandler 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.

Chandler - I did not say they were like that for the same reason. I said the opposite. I actually said myself that they were like that for different reasons.

The point I am demonstrating is that occasionally there are cases where we use the sponsored name. Therefore, saying that we always, always, always use unsponsored names is false. This is hardly complicated. Knepflerle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against something that nobody has said. I don't believe that anyone has argued that we should contrive up names like "Arsenal pre-season friendly tournament" for the Emirates Cup. The question was "is there a reason that these particular articles use the sponsored names while their footballing equivalents don't", and all the examples given were temporary sponsorship situations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We understand the difference, but the guidance above might have been misunderstood by the casual reader, and the myth propagated further.

It's important to make crystal-clear that any statement of the type "Tournament names/Stadium names don't use names of sponsors" is just not true. It's a mistake so often repeated in discussions that it needs putting to bed once and for all. Let it be on record that there is a small class of examples where we do use the sponsored name, even if the majority do not. Knepflerle (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing against something which has never come up in my experience. If there isn't a generic name then we use the sponsor name. That's the long and the short of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I think in a cases like Gambrinus liga Knepflerle has a point, that is a sponsor name on a league, which seems to be named 1. Liga (uefa doesn't use sponsor names for any leagues I've seen, the exception being the Finnish league which might be an exception just because it not just a sponsor name but the only name), Czech WP has it at "1. česká fotbalová liga" chandler 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue on that particular article appears to be that nobody can decide on a generic title, according to the move discussion. In that case, going with what appears to be the universally-acknowledged common name (including sponsor) is the least worst option. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Chandler, that's an interesting point about the name of the Czech league on the Czech WP. So although there's been a lot of banter, it doesn't sound as if anything has changed. Avoid sponsored names where possible, but use sponsored name if a non-sponsored commonname consensus can't be determined or a non-sponsored name simply doesn't exist. Am I right?

Additionally, I'd be in favor of moving the Gambrinus liga – and other similar examples where an official name if available – to its official name. The Gambrinus Liga talk page shows two previous move discussions, but those discussions occured 1½ years ago. The latter discussion produced 3 of 4 editors supporting a move, but all three supporting a different move. Because of that, I'd like to open it up here first since more eyes will see it. Czech 1. liga, Czech First League, or what? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't move it just for the sake of moving it. I'd prefer to see what English reliable sources (preferably journalistic rather than statistical or official) refer to it as before any decision is made here. It's not doing irrepairable harm to our naming conventions right now, so there's no urgency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One step ahead of you... er, kind of. But that's exactly why I didn't actually nominate it for a move. What's wrong with having "Gambrinus Liga" redirect to a proper name? It's very possible for Gambrinus to drop their league sponsorship, similar to the example of Carling to the Football League Cup. If and when Gambrinus does that, 'Gambrinus Liga' will become a redirect anyway. Similar to all of the redirects that lead to 'Football League Cup'. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Search engines pick up on the current title. It avoids unneeded overhead on having thousands of links going through a redirect instead of being direct. And basically all the other reasons behind WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is handy only insofar as it provides some benefit to readers and editors, which moving this to either an opaque Czech title or a contrived English one would not do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to fix the error in the "goals" field in Template:Infobox football tournament season? I don't have a clue how those "if" functions work! Or am I just not using it properly? Thanks in advance, --Jimbo^[online] 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just fill out the "matches" parameter with the amount of matches played (as seen in the box) and the average thingie should work. If a goals-only display without the average is desired, the respective chunk of code should be copied from Template:Infobox football league season. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. If there are any problems with the infobox templates then please feel free to ping me: they should never produce errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm updating some of the articles on current MLS head coaches; can someone with access to such things please take a look at the article for Gary Smith (footballer born 1968) and see if they can fill in the stats blanks for his playing career? Soccerbase doesn't go back that far... Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to fill in the stats from www.allfootballers.com, but the chronology differs from the article. www.allfootballers.com gives:

1985-86: Fulham - 1 appearance
1986-87: Colchester United - 11 appearances
Then (no dates as not in Football League): Enfield, Wycombe Wanderers, Welling United
1993-94: Barnet - 9 appearances
1994-95: Barnet - 4 appearances
Then (no dates as not in Football League): Aylesbury United

No goals scored in any season. It also gives his place of birth as Harlow, not London. I hope this is of some help. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust your research. Many thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Neil Brown also gives POB as Harlow and appearance stats as above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether allfootballers gives historical data for cup and other matches for all players? If so, can someone with a subscription help me out with sourcing List of Fulham F.C. players and List of Fulham F.C. players with fewer than 50 appearances. I have added most players who have complete stats on soccerbase (1996-97 until 2009-10) but for older players Neil Brown only lists league appearances. Please let me know if you can help. 03md 16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently nominated the article for FA review. I wanted to post a notification of that here and invite any of the project members to join in the review and provide feedback. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Georginio Wijnaldum look strange to anyone else? This is what it looks like to me, can't exactly figure out what's wrong with the page. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-12 18:49

Nope, mine look's fine, nothing like yours...GiantSnowman 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that error a while ago. I think there was a problem with the inter-Wiki links on a site-wide scale. --Jimbo^[online] 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fine now. I only saw it on the one article, so I thought it was something specific to the article. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-13 17:49

Hello WP:FOOTBALL, hopefully you guys can help out here. I stumbled upon 1. deild some time ago, and have been puzzled over whether any action needs to be taken in regards to the name of the article. 2. deild redirects to Faroe Islands 2. deild, so I figure that at the very least, the article ought to be moved to Faroe Islands 1. deild, correct? Further, each season of 1. deild football seems to have its own article, from 1. deild 1976 all the way though 1. deild 2004. Is there some kind of naming convention for seasonal articles that WP:FOOTBALL employs? I figure again at the least that these should be renamed to Faroe Islands 1. deild 1976, etc., but I wanted to clarify and get additional opinions.

Additionally, while employing Special:PrefixIndex/1. deild just now to find all the season articles for 1. deild, I also discovered 1. deild karla, which appears to be something entirely different; still a football league, but located in Iceland. According to Special:Prefixindex/1. deild karla, there are also seasonal articles for this league that probably ought to be renamed, and just for good measure, 2. deild karla, 2. deild karla 2008, and 3. deild karla exist as well.

So, my question is...what exactly should be done with these articles? First, are they notable enough to exist? Second, do they need to be renamed? Those are the issues to be figured out first. Thanks for any and all input, GlassCobra 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of WP:SOCCER, but thanks for popping by anyway ;). The league is notable enough, although I'm not sure about the seasons. As for the naming convention, we have Football League Championship, Serie A, Division 1 and Fußball-Bundesliga. On that basis I don't think 1. deild is a particularly bad name, but they should definitely be consistently named.

I don't know the leagues, but assuming 1. deide karla is the correct name, my suggestion would be to name the Faroese articles 1. deild and 2. deild, keep the Icelandic articles as they are, and potentially put hatnotes on the Faroese and Icelandic articles leading to the other country's similarly named division. WFCforLife (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Sorry about that. I made the same mistake on someone's talk page, too. My bad. GlassCobra 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Faroese 1. deild also has a second name (at least in here), as its season articles go under 2009 Faroe Islands Premier League Football, for example. The Faroese league system in general spans only over four levels. The Icelandic 1. deild karla ("karla" meaning "men", by the way), however, is the second level of the Icelandic league system, with the Úrvalsdeild being the top league there.

What should be done now? Well, given that we have two leagues named 1. deild, and assuming WP:NAME has been correctly applied, it would probably be the best to turn 1. deild into a disambiguation page and rename the articles 1. deild (Faroe Islands) and 1. deild (Iceland), respectively. If WP:NAME has not been used appropriately, determine the most common name for the Faroese top league and put it there. Once this has been done, move all season articles to the agreed new names (and don't forget to use the format "<season> <name>" as per this consensus). Finally, move the related categories and stuff. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I really should not state anything while still being asleep... *grmbl* The Faroese 1. deild is, of course, a second-level league and not a synonym for the FIPL. Sorry for any confusion. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We might wanna opt for naming these leagues in English translations. Bundesliga is called Bundesliga in English, rather than Federal League, and that is fair enough, but I seriously doubt these leagues have any common name in English. And incidentally, all national leagues are notable, even if some countries are very small. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cambazero has a habit of adding players to the squad list of Fenerbahçe S.K. regardless of whether they play for the club or not. They've been warned several times but to no avail. Could an admin keep an eye and perhaps block if they persist? Ta. Dancarney (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They've just done it again. Dancarney (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well since he (I assume) has an account, protecting that article won't stop him from editing/vandalizing it. I guess you can try blocking him completely. If anyone out there knows how to do that, help the guy out. Digirami (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected. I was suggesting a block on the user, which I've figured out how to request properly. Dancarney (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my monners (this question is originally written in Talk:CAF Women's Championship). In the official website of CAF, this competition is called African women Championship. What would we do? Should the title of this article be changed? or can we leave it as it is? If you have some knowledge on African women's football or CAF football competitions, please help me. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know where I get the details for Krisztián Németh's U21 appearances. I can find three so far, against Luxembourg (06/06/09); Wales (12/08/09) and Italy (13/11/09). I am pretty sure he made his debut for the U21s as far back as 2008, maybe 2007. Anyone provide me with a source to check, so I can update the infobox Steve-Ho (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus anywhere on wikilinking (red-link) WP:ATHLETE failures in club articles? There are plenty of clubs about that pass criteria themselves, but have squad lists where the largest proportion of them fail, and probably fail WP:GNG as well, but all players have redlinks which just seems to me to be an encouragement for editors to create a deletable article. --ClubOranje^T 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Are you talking about possibly deleting a club article based on the fact that a squad's list is mostly red-linked? Digirami (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he means squad members at league clubs who have not played a match that would render the player notable, or regular members of a Conference team who have never been attached to a league club, although many of his treammates might have done (if the Anglo-centric example can be forgiven). I remembering asking the question a year or two ago, and the reply was that they should be "blacklinked": red-links suggest that an article should exist but as yet does not, which is not the case for such players. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct Kevin, no beef with the club article, but if it is an article on a low level non-professional club (ie, second tier NZ) then I don't think the players should be redlinked as they have no notability by virtue of playing for that club, and should only be linked if a legitimate article exists--ClubOranje^T 08:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely delink them. More often than not, when an entire low-level squad is linked en masse, one or two players with relatively common names may appear blue but actually link to a completely irrelevant article. Bettia (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:WEB, any who are likely to get articles (i.e. anyone who probably passes notability, but who doesn't have an article) should be redlinked. The rest shouldn't, for the given reason. In practice this doesn't matter for English teams (because they've got enough eyes that articles are usually created for players the minute they hit the ATHLETE threshold) but it's worth remembering for other leagues. For instance, by a quirk of history and the nuances of the GNG anyone who plays for Ayr United should be notable even though the players in question might be part time (the Scottish First Division is treated as fully pro even if it isn't in practice), so the whole squad should be redlinked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on principle, although I'm sure there is going to be an exceptions (none that I can think of off the top of my head, but it's possible). It's likely that there are players out there who at their present situation do not meet the notability of ATHLETE, but probably did sometime in their career. Digirami (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary: my example above about ex-league players at Conference clubs gives an example of players blue-linked although their current status would not merit it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just came across Tercera División Groups 1-9 and Tercera División Groups 10-18, which simply list the teams in each group. However, those aren't season articles, seeing as how 2009–10 Tercera División the season data. Should we delete the former two articles? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As much of the same information is in the 2009–10 Tercera División article, I think the other two should be deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Would you delete an article on the Premier League in favor of the 2009-10 season articles? The articles just need some work on them. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) has already made the right move - a merger proposal for the two articles in question into Tercera División. WP:SIZE won't be an issue since each of the two articles is roughly 25kB large. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting very confused by the career stats table on Sean Morrison's page - basically I'm trying to include his loan to Southend in the 2009-10 season, but can't seem to work it out. Anybody care to help me out? Thanks, GiantSnowman 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Stats are grouped primarily by club, not by season, so I would suggest that if he returns to play further games for Swindon this season, that those games be added to the already existing row for Swindon in 2009-10; if the move to Southend becomes permanent that a bracketed note of loan status at Southend be removed at that stage. I would suggest that loans don't need a subtotal. I have set up a sub-page of my user page rather than have lots of tables on this talk-page, and am perfectly happy for others to post their suggestions there. I do this without checking precedent. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Kevin, that's fantastic work! GiantSnowman 13:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thorpe made his debut for Blackpool on 29 March 1911 and appeared for the final time on 25 October 1913, at which point he was sold. In that time, he played in all of the club's 98 League and (FA) Cup games. It's not a record for the club — Georgie Mee holds that accolade with 195 — but it must be up there for a games available/games played ratio. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

if you were desparate you could contact the clubs historian. Every club has one(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Indeed - the official Blackpool club historians are Gerry Wolstenholme and John Cross. Wolstenholme tends to write the club history books. The earliest book I have, "The Khaki Years" goes back to the 1915-16 season only. I have contact details for John Cross if needed?--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently working on List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10 and wonderd if players that raised from the youth squad and are given a contract with the senior team are counted as a signing of the club and should be added to the list? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say no...GiantSnowman 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)