Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

List of York City F.C. players

Could someone please give their opinion on whats going on at List of York City F.C. players. See talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattythewhite (talk • contribs)

See my comment on said talk page. --Jameboy 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Think we could do with a guideline on these sorts of lists. Seems like a controversial topic :-) --Jameboy 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Advert created for WP:FOOTBALL

As I was monumentally bored after all that FU tagging last night, I created a gif banner ad for WPF for inclusion in the new {{Wikipedia ads}} template that people can choose to whack on their userpages (WPF advert is number 64). If you don't like it and can whip up a better one, then overwrite commons:Image:Qxz-ad64.gif and update the fields. Cheers Foxhill 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, I've added it to my userpage. Dave101→talk  18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As have I, about time we got one made ;) Mattythewhite 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Player's primary nationality

Lot's of people have dual nationality, recently i'm facing disputing with other wikipedians with primary nationality.

Such as player born in Serbia but represent Flag of Montenegro Montenegro, player born in Croatia and may be ethnic Croats but represent Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina, and those like Jonathan Santana, Sharbel Touma, Djamel Abdoun, Dutch-Moroccan, Kosovar, German-Turkish, Darío Franco. Matthew_hk tc 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It should go by who they've represented at international level. But if they haven't represented anyone, then by their birthplace I guess. Mattythewhite 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How should we handle FRG/GER and YUG/SCG/SRB national team pages?

I posted an update about my work on updating national team templates, and I had a couple of questions. I posted my message under the original thread, but that's now at the top of this talk page, and perhaps not as visible. Please see my questions there. In a nutshell, I'd like feedback on how we should handle links to West Germany national football team (FRG) and Germany national football team (GER), and similarly for Yugoslavia (YUG), Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) and Serbia (SRB). Reply up there or down here as you like! Thanks, Andrwsc 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is that West Germany and Germany are the same team. The 2 articles were recently merged. Kingjeff 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, FIFA considers Germany to be a continuation of West Germany and I think the genealogy for Yugoslavia is YUG --> SCG --> SRB. Madcynic 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And so they are! Mea culpa. The last time I had specifically looked was before the merge on June 12. Ok, that situation is clear. Andrwsc 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know from the most recent breakup Serbia would be the continuation from the previous Association. Kingjeff 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but Yugoslavia national football team and Serbia national football team articles both exist, with no proposal to merge. Should they be? If not, at which point should articles link to the YUG and SRB pages respectively? The YUG (SFRY) → YUG (FRY) → SCG → SRB train of succession is complex, because SFRY and FRY both used "YUG", but FRY was really the same nation as SCG. Andrwsc 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's dependant of if it's recognized if they are the same national association. Kingjeff 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Just like USSR and Russia, i don't think we should merge it. So do SFRY and SCG. But yes for SCG and SRB. Matthew_hk tc 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I agree with the comparison to USSR/Russia. Although one is the official "successor" association of the other according to FIFA, there is too much history, and two articles are clearly warranted. However, I'm still trying to understand the rest of your comment. There are four distinct periods to consider:
  1. as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — clearly covered in Yugoslavia national football team
  2. as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Unclear! FIFA still used "YUG", but this nation was pretty much the same as...
  3. Serbia and Montenegro (SCG)
  4. Serbia — clearly covered in Serbia national football team
So, I think the first and fourth time periods are clear. I think SCG → SRB makes sense (and that is how the current redirect works). But what of the FRY years? Linking to YUG makes sense for how the nation was named & known, and matches the country code. Linking to SRB makes sense if you consider that FRY and SCG were pretty much the same nation, with different names. So which way should we link for #3? Andrwsc 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the SFRY and FRY should like to YUG because the nation was "Yugoslavia" just under slightly different terms. I think SCG should have it's own page as it was another country officially, although the FRY was macde up of Serbia & Montenegro. The way I see it is:

  1. as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — leave as Yugoslavia national football team
  2. as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - should be covered in Yugoslavia national football team
  3. Serbia and Montenegro - new article (albeit brief) for Serbia and Montenegro national football team
  4. Serbia — leave Serbia national football team 81.104.118.2 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

debut / début

Is there any guideline stating whether 'debut' or 'début' is preferable, or is either OK? I think either are correct in English (the latter is obviously correct in French also). I have been using 'début', which was later changed to 'debut' by another editor, so it seemed a good time to raise the question. --Jameboy 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the anglicised 'debut' is better according to this message just left on my talk page. So I'll stick with that from now on and possibly correct any 'débuts' I happen to come across when doing other edits. --Jameboy 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
My browser flags "debut" as a spelling error, preferring "début" (it uses UK English). I prefer "début" myself, as it looks more pretentious, but I don't think it matters either way, and I certainly wouldn't bother using the character listing below the edit window to find the "é". Here's a debut def.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters, as long as its use in the article is consistent - WP:ENGVAR. Dave101→talk  21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "debut" is the right way: [1]. --Angelo 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Football task forces (pt 2)

(See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_10#Creation_of_WikiProject_Football_task_forces)

I think this will be of huge benefit to the Project...unless anyone has any objections I'm going to try and put together a proposal for an England football Task force, which can then be used as a template for the other Task forces (i.e. watch this space!) Paulbrock 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got my head round the templates finally!! Can someone check my work at User:Paulbrock/WP_Football_work/Football2? It should add the article to a separate English football category, and also add it to appropriate categories to generate assessment stats. Does anyone have any thoughts on task forces before I give it a go? Paulbrock 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Now launched - see Navigation box on main page for the links Paulbrock 11:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed, unless you want to see something quite important deleted...

Okay, we need some help from users who have lots of time to kill doing something extremely tedious (send your regards to User:BigrTex on this one. Most of the football federation logos have been tagged by the user with a fair-use disputed tag such as this one, meaning unless someone either responds accordingly to the tag, has an argument with BigrTex, or goes back and just removes the warnings, the federation football logos that we have dearly created will be deleted. I took care of a few (see an instance of my contributions here) but I really don't have the time right now to go through all of them and make the appropriate corrections. The list of necessary fair use rationale templates starts here (at the Bolivian NT) and goes several pages back in his contributions... I happen to think it's important that we resolve this before a nutty delete-happy admin goes and deletes all of these logos... --Palffy 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be of use. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of image-Nazis (oops, my bad) working their way through the place. I've been adding fair use rationales as stuff I posted/am interested in gets tagged but its a bit of a pain in the butt to have to go back and do that work when I'd rather be adding new stuff here. I don't think there's any escape unless we get an extension on the 7 day thing and then diligently grind through what needs done. <sigh> While they probably have a point, their approach has been self-righteous and not particularly user friendly. I console myself by occasionally re-reading this essay. Wiggy! 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This happened before - see here, where I mentioned the {{Non-free media rationale}} template.
BigrTex would be a hero to us all if he actually provided the rationale instead.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I made my best to put a few rationales in some of these logos. But now I need a break, because my left hand is aching for good after over a hour of continuous copy-and-paste. If you want to make this job at my place for now, the images marked with (top) on this page are very likely to be tagged as disputed fair-use. A short comment: these users play things this way rather than adding rationales themselves solely because they use scripts for marking images as disputed. --Angelo 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Have FU tagged 150-60 tonight.. more when I can be bothered I think. Foxhill 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. --Angelo 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've cleared all non-orphaned footy team and competition logos out of Category:Disputed non-free images and Category:Images with no fair use rationale as far as I can gather. However, this is by no means all - there is a large number still tagged for deletion elsewhere and a huge amount that haven't been tagged yet. Soooo if you are browsing around articles, check for FU and copyright on everything. There is a moratorium on deletions at least until 2007-07-01 as there is a huge stink being kicked up all over the place (not just with sports logos) (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG). I don't think there is any way that a bot can be programmed to notify Projects of an image's nomination for speedy deletion, which is a bugger as most of these logo's were uploaded over a year ago by users that are now dormant. Anyway, if you see any non-tagged - help us all by providing a Fair Use Rationale. Cheers Foxhill 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dutch football

I have proposed creating a new daughter project of WikiProject Football: WikiProject Dutch football, about (surprise) football in the Netherlands. The proposal, for those who are interested, is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Dutch football. AecisBrievenbus 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have been creating a task force structure, I've included your proposal - homepage now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Holland task force. Paulbrock 11:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stub-Class articles

Here are, up until this point, 66 Football-related articles that are just stubs. Take a look at the list and take a few on if you want to. Kingjeff 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your 66 and raise you several thousand ;-) In all seriousness though, if the current tally at WP:WPFA is representative of football articles as a whole, two thirds of articles about the sport are stubs, and an organised effort to expand the neediest areas might be worthwhile. If anyone knows about football outside Europe or Anglophone countries, pretty much every top division club in Africa and Asia is a substub in need of attention. Oldelpaso 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're either interested in m category or you're not. Kingjeff 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
He was only talking about all the other stubs... Mattythewhite 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
He's comparing a Stub-Class category with for a task force with one for an entire project. So, it's basically comparing apples and oranges. Kingjeff 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If you feel I'm belittling your work on Munich related articles, let me reassure you that I mean no such thing. Your comment reminded me of all the footy-club-stubs I saw when I was doing some article assessment recently, and had intended to mention somewhere but forgot, thats all. Merely a playful comment followed by a more serious one on a related topic, no slight on any group of articles was intended. Oldelpaso 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Football squad

Whats up with the football squads on clubs articles? Mattythewhite 18:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Example, s'il vous plaît. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Its okay now.. the second half of the squads were dodgy. But they're okay now.. Mattythewhite 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:Football squad mid was vandalised.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

Just wanted to check something on here. On the Copa América 2007 article someone keeps adding this link - http://www.univision.com/contentroot/uol/30deportes/content/jhtml/copa_america/NOMETA_partidosEnVivo.jhtml which they add the line that it has live streaming of the matches. The latest user to have added it, they only have two edits, both of them being adding this link. I seem to recall reading somewhere (though I may well be wrong) that links to sites like this aren't allowed, is that correct? Thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming European Cup Competition articles

Just to give a heads up that a discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:UEFA European Football Championship#Requested move for a consensus for renaming post 1996 Euro Cup articles from e.g. [[2000 UEFA European Football Championship]] to [[UEFA Euro 2000]], seems to have caused a mini-move war. Comments welcome as usual. Foxhill 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Football Task Forces

I've noticed that there are a lot of WikiProjects related to football for a single nation. How about we convert them to Task Forces for WikiProject Football? We can incorporate these task forces into the template for WikiProject Football which would give more exposure to these projects. Kingjeff 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've been working on a TaskForce structure for WP Football, starting with England and Holland (following the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Dutch_football). Thoughts welcome, though I suspect I might just have to be bold and give it a whirl...Paulbrock 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It also might be good to run it jointly with a country WikiProject and WikiProject Football. Kingjeff 00:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces, you can make a task force as child of two projects, with its main subpage being located arbitrarily under one of the parent projects (I would suggest to use this one). For existing nationwide football projects, you need to be bold, many of them are actually inactive. --Angelo 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of adding these Task Forces to the templates of each project. Kingjeff 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)]]

The 1st two task forces have launched! Homepages now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/England task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Netherlands task force. Paulbrock 11:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My Football League: Season-by-Season Task Force is pretty much dead. You can add FC Bayern Munich Task Force. I've created 8 steps to a good footballers' article. I got the concepts from WikiProject Biography. Kingjeff 15:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about turning the other existing football-related WPs into taskforces? --Angelo 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what should be done. Kingjeff 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Football assessment rating

On the football assessment criteria, does the club have to currently match it to be included. E.g., does a club have to currently have "international and top-level players and managers; mid-level leagues" to be included, or is it to have done so in the past? Mattythewhite 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can barely understand what you mean. In any case, club importance is clearly stated in the grading scheme, regardless of their players' (and managers') importance. --Angelo 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Err.. I'll give an example of what I mean. What should the York City importance rating be? Its currently at Low, but it meets the Mid criteria in that they have had "international" players, and have played in a mid-level league.. but I'm just not quite clear on the criteria. Mattythewhite 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The club criteria is "Teams with at least nationwide notability". "International and top-level players and managers" is criteria for bio articles. Perhaps this could be re-worded to make it clearer? Dave101→talk  16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tended to interpret it (for England) as High=Champs league teams, Mid=Other prem through to League 2, Low = non-league for clubs. I'd back York City's low on that basis. (I think the 'mid-level leagues' thing refers to the importance of the league's article)
Preston North End, Leeds United, and Nottingham Forest have all seen better days but in terms of importance I'd say current team status is more important. (I'd also point out that as long as the importance ratings are roughly correct that's fine, it's not a precise science) Paulbrock 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Current status may be more important, but that doesn't mean historical importance isn't important at all. I think clubs that spent many decades in the Football League but have slipped down recently should be treated as equally important to a club that was virtually unknown for most of its history, but has suddenly got promoted to the league, e.g. Cheltenham. If we're only going by current importance, then Sunderland should definitely be mid. Marky-Son 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, Sunderland is mid, they do not have such a worldwide notability, as well as Preston. Leeds and (especially) Nottingham Forest are more debatable, as they are two teams which experienced very successful times at the European level. Personally I marked several Italian teams, classifying a very few ones (AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, AS Roma) as high-importance, all other Serie A and Serie B teams, plus major Serie C1 and a very few Serie C2 ones, as mid-importance, and all the other as low-importance. --Angelo 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy

I created Liverpool F.C. Reserves as an article last year because I believed that the information about the reserve team was notable in its own right, but not notable enough to clutter the main article. It therefore merited a subsidary article, in the same way as History of Liverpool F.C. has its own article. Now, I know there are some people who don't approve of having an article for reserves teams at all, hence the previous heated afd, although given that there is now an Arsenal F.C. Reserves article along similar lines, perhaps attitudes have shifted. However, since that time, the decision was made (primarily by people who wanted to delete the article in the first place), that the article should at the very least be merged with the Liverpool F.C. Academy article. The result is an article that simply doesn't hang together; although there is obviously a relationship between the Academy and the players it trains and the Reserve Team itself, the two entities are simply not the same, having different staffing, etc., compete in different tournaments, etc. In my view, this has been a very unsatisfactory compromise. Given that many high schools now apparently merit their own articles, I would have thought that the Academy was notable enough to have an article in its own right, and certainly should not confuse what is a useful article about the Reserve team, its history and personnel. I know that this is likely to open a can of worms, but I really would like to see some kind of consensus about this. Robotforaday 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it works fine. It needs a preamble at the beginning, to bind the two sections together a bit more, but as a joint article it makes sense, it's two stages of the same setup. ArtVandelay13 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Torres

Fernando Torres has not completed his move to Liverpool, has he? Raymond Cruise seems to think so, even though the evidence he gives contradicts his belief. Can someone please assure me I'm not a vandal. Mattythewhite 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, although he has passed his medical. ArtVandelay13 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This sort of edit war is the result of using Wikipedia as a news service - perhaps you should all wait until a player move is finalised before reporting it in the player's article. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(attempt at humour) We could always make Itsotp a guideline - Foxhill 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm, Kangaroo, I think you're preaching to the converted here, so I don't know who that "you should all wait" is directed to. Mattythewhite (and others) seem to be in favour of waiting until the thing actually happens, but other users seem intent on using wikipedia, as you say, as a news service. Trouble is, they won't read this, or in fact any discussion on wikipedia. This kind of thing always happens, there are some people whose sole contribution to wikipedia it to be "first in" with this kind of news, even if that means being premature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotforaday (talk • contribs)
Revert all Torres-related transfer claims and rumours at sight until the move is finally completed and officially announced on the club website. I've had a similar issue with David Suazo, with several guys (especially IP users) adding him to Inter, then to Milan, and then back to Inter. --Angelo 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Torres is being added to the Liverpool squad every five minutes at the moment. I find it hard to understand the mentality that makes people want to add transfers before they're confirmed, sometimes after the earliest speculation. Transfer windows are a trying time on WP:WPF! ArtVandelay13 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, ask for semiprotection then. It's the easiest and most reasonable thing you can do. --Angelo 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Okay, forget it, it's already been semiprotected. :) I added a sharper and stronger disclaimer at the top of the squad section. By the way, I think every single new club signing should be reliably sourced, that's how I partially solved the issue for the Italian Serie A clubs. --Angelo 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty incredible how people keeps on adding Torres without citing any official statement by Liverpool. I am going to propose a 24-hour full protection for Liverpool F.C., if you agree with it. --Angelo 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggest by User:Mxcatania

User:Mxcatania suggested merge all U-21/Olympic team in to part of senior team page. I think we should discuss here or speedy end it. Matthew_hk tc 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has started at Talk:Germany national under-21 football team.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already 8 against the Germany merger. How much more should we wait? Kingjeff 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the terms of the votation. Go ahead if you want. Mxcatania 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian task force

As per related discussion (here and in the old WP talkpage), the Italian Football WP has turned into a task force, whose mainpage is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force. Do you have any idea about what to do with the old Italian Football WP pages and templates? --Angelo 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a starter, suggest you at least have a link from Italy task force to Italian Football WP, similar to what I've done with the USA and Canada task force. Migrate and archive the talk page? Dunno about the templates! Paulbrock 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Talkpage might be left where they are now as well, as they just reflect the state of hiatus within the former WP (33 paragraphs in a year, many of them without an answer). I would consider deleting the templates (they are quite useless right now). --Angelo 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stadium naming convention

Hi. Don't know if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in the archives), but I was wondering whether there was a standard for stadium naming. I've just moved Saunders Honda Stadium to Deva Stadium on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME (I have never heard it referred to by the sponsor's name even though it appears to have been that way since 2004).

Should stadium articles be at their "proper name" or their sponsorship name? In some cases the stadium has never had a proper name (such as Doncaster's Keepmoat Stadium), but in several others it does. League One's stadium list looks very strange as it includes:

If there is as yet no standard, I am personally inclined to go with the proper name based on common use (who calls Brisbane Road the Matchroom Stadium except the stadium announcer!) .

Thoughts? Number 57 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well at one point the norm when naming the stadium to what road it was in or the place. My personal view would be to stick to that naming convention. Govvy 14:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


For the article name, the sponsor's name is used. During FIFA tournaments, we use official name. Kingjeff 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Use the standard/common name for the article name, noting in the text the fact that it is officially named after a transitory sponsor. This is the way league articles are treated, and I see no need for stadia to be different. - fchd 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But what I'm saying is that the wikilink for lets say BMO Field would be BMO Field|National Soccer Stadium. This link would recognize the article name which would be the common name and it also recognizes the official name when the common name is not the official name. Kingjeff 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think the article itself should be at the common name. In many cases absolutely no-one uses the sponsor name (as in the case of Brisbane Road for example). Also I don't like the idea of using sponsors names on Wikipedia - it seems like advertising by the back door... Number 57 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But the National Soccer Stadium is what we use to name BMO Field during in the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup article. The article itself would be still named BMO Field. If you look at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, You should see how stadium names are done during International soccer tournaments for both FIFA and UEFA. Kingjeff 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your argument. It wouldn't have been verh helpful to have all the stadium articles named "Fifa World Cup Stadium, wherever". Why "hide" the sponsor name in a wikilink when you can just have a direct link to the real name of the stadium rather than the name some company has given it for a couple of years? Number 57 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the sponsors name is not the current name of the stadium. BMO Field is called National Soccer Stadium right now. Kingjeff 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand, but my original point was not about renaming stadiums during tournaments. It is about stadiums in England which for a long time have gone by a certain name, but then in the last couple of years have adopted a sponsor name (to boost clubs' incomes). In these cases I believe they should continue to be listed in Wikipedia under their non-sponsor name. Number 57 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just follow the WP:COMMONNAME standards. In short, use the commonest name used by people to identify the venue, forgetting issues related to sponsorship names vs "official" ones, and all the other stuff. --Angelo 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, that basically means non-sponsorship names in most cases. Number 57 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to butt in, to say that I think the way the Deva Stadium is how football grounds (stadiums) with sponsors names should be in the UK as that is relevant to this country. The one that seems to be different of course is Arsenals Emirates Stadium. The unofficial name when it was being built being Ashburton Grove, but there is a note in the Infobox stating, "Arsenal stadium (by UEFA)" which I am presuming means that UEFA refer to it as Arsenal Stadium. However, I doubt anyone outside of UEFA calls it that. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar topics has been brought on before without any real results, if any of you are interested to see what we've been discussing, here is the link to the archived discussion. Martin tamb 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How to find articles based upon the assessment ratings?

Hi all, I was just looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Current status table, and it occurred to me that it would be good if you could click on the numbers listed in it. For example, say I have some time on my hands and look at that table and see that there are 8 stub-level High importance articles, it would be useful if i could click on the "8" and get a list of those articles, so I can decide what I want to spend some time on. I can't see myself being bothered to check through all 172 High importance articles to find the 8. Can anyone fix this? aLii 11:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it would be a nice feature, however I think it is technically impossible. That list of articles would actually be an intersection of two article sets represented by their correspondent categories (in your example, Stub-class and high-importance). However the MediaWiki software does not support the intersection of two or more category sets. --Angelo 11:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a little fiddly,but you can find articles sorted by both importance and quality using the automatically generated worklist.Paulbrock 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 North American Summer of Soccer

Does anyone know what this article is for and more importantly whether it should perhaps be nominated for deletion. Firstly it is inaccurate anyway as it says it is a list of matches taking place in the Americas, yet the title is "North American Summer of soccer". So the title is for a start at best, misleading. And it just appears to me anyway, to be a list of indiscrimate information that serves no purpose. Apart from which no results have been added for any matches after 8th June. Anyone? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should. Wikipedia is not a random list of information. Kingjeff 03:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an abandoned duplication of material properly tabulated on 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup, Copa América 2007, and 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason at all for match results from those three tournaments to be repeated and combined on this list. Feel free to WP:PROD it, and if contested, put it up for WP:AFD. Andrwsc 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deni Acevski

Please be on the look out for the above name appearing in football articles. Its creator has been indefinitely blocked under the usernames Dannyacevski and Vn5ltrcalais for creating hoax articles about himself, but one of his sockpuppets (58.175.240.226) hasn't yet met the same fate. He'll like return under another name or IP. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of transfers

I am seriously considering nominating List of Italian football transfers 2007-08 for deletion. This list is potentially very long, almost impossible to fully verify and source, and an indiscriminate collection of information. Thoughts? --Angelo 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't become too long, if we go by the "only moves from Serie A and Serie B are listed" criteria (which is odd in and of itself). - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would be about 42 teams, each of these signing not less than 6-7 players; this would make a list of at least 300 players, not including players sold to minor and foreign leagues. --Angelo 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how this can be managed. I am not particularly knowledgable about Italian football, but I've already spotted one transfer missed. Dave101→talk  12:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion here. MaxSem 12:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Should not be deleted. Does not fall under indiscriminate as explained on that article. English transfer articles have gotten free passes for the years they have them. The Italian transfer page from last season was never put up for deletion. Ridiculous nomination. Same thing posted on the deletion page. Bigdottawa 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


See another page Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Transfers - not the best idea in my opinion. Punkmorten 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD'd. I'm slightly less strongly opposed to that type of article than ones sorted by league and season, it'll be interesting to see the debate. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"A legend"

I seem to have taken this out of a lot of articles recently. Should we ever use it? --John 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think not. In my opinion, describing someone (or something?) as a 'legend' is a subjective assessment and not the rendering of a fact. --Malcolmxl5 23:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a weasel word, in my opinion. Dave101→talk  10:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As any non-referenced uses would be highly contentious - and any flat-out 'the sun shines out of his backside' comments would just be POV - It's a phrase I usually only ever use in a sentence such as 'They are considered a legend amongst <team>s supporters' with a decent reference. Always best to qualify with 'so-and-so call them a legend' to avoid the POV issues. I find that official club histories or sources such as Huddersfield Town F.C. - The Fans' Favourites or Swindon Town Football Club 100 Greats to be adequate for this. Any other use of such blatant POV/Weasel Words are worth removing on sight or tagging the article for cleanup. Foxhill 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're overreacting. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...currently playing for club in division

I've noticed there's a tendency for editors to include a club's division when mentioning a player's current employer. I'd like to suggest not doing this, since nobody's likely to update each player's article if that club changes division at the end of the season. It's just creating more work for people. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The wikilink to the club is enough. ArtVandelay13 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it just provides extra hassle. What I do like doing, though, is stating in any transfer something like this: "In July 2007 Robson moved to League One side Millwall on a two year contract." Because then the reader quickly gets an idea of what level they moved to, which in the future would be hard to work out from browsing the club article, should they be promoted/relegated. HornetMike 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough Athletic F.C.

There is a squabble going on as to whether it is appropriate to include a detailed history of the earlier club Scarborough F.C. or whether the article on the new club should start with a description of the liquidation of the old as context, but leave other parts of the history to the article of the old club. I am in the latter camp but my edits are being determinedly reverted by a single editor. In other, recent, cases the histories have been kept separate - see A.F.C. Telford United and A.F.C. Hornchurch. I should welcome views and participation in a straw poll at Talk:Scarborough Athletic F.C.#History - straw poll. BlueValour 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08

I think this article should be deeply revised: this is the latest proof of a dangerous tendency to include as many information as possible in team squads, as well as other non-notable information. Do friendly matches deserve to be mentioned in an article? I think no. Let me know your opinion. --Angelo 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only competitive matches should be listed. Bridgeplayer 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I think all club season articles are completely useless. What do they contain? Extra squad detail - we deleted separate squad articles for Barcelona or whoever the other day, statistics on players can be found in their article. The squad for that particular season - excessive info, again, we can tell when a player was at a club from their own article. Transfers, ditto (we've also got season pages for them) Match scores - excessive statistical information for that level of competition, we've deleted results pages by month before. Match reports - even more excessive! (also prone to POV) I'd love to delete them, but what with American Football editors loving them, and the reason for Man City Seasons failing FLC the other day being lack of individualised season articles, I can't see any way of getting rid of them, despite their huge flaws. HornetMike 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Players on loan: which club?

If Player A (for example Juan Román Riquelme) is on loan from club B (for example Villareal CF) to club C (for example Boca Juniors), is he considered to be on club B or C? It feels like he's still on club B. eae 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the players infobox, both are mentioned usually. And they are on the loan teams squad template and hidden on the contracted club. Mattythewhite 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What Matt said. Normally I find on the current club field it's best to put it thus:

Lymington and New Milton
on loan from Real Madrid HornetMike 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Football national team template replacement complete

I have replaced virtually all instances of the old national team templates (such as Template:BRAf) with the equivalent replacement using the new {{fb}}, {{fb-rt}}, {{fbw}} and {{fbw-rt}} templates. (Only a small handful of archived talk pages were left alone.) I have just finished deleting all the old templates. I also created a couple of new templates — {{fb-big}} and {{fbw-big}} — that I've used to greatly simplify the formatting of the all-time results tables on several tournament articles. I'm sure my work has touched upon many of the articles in project members' watchlists, so you can see the effect of these changes. I hope you all agree it was helpful! Thanks, Andrwsc 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Emirates Cup

Are friendly pre-season tournaments notable? To me they're not, especially when they have no history at all to be mentioned. Please discuss it here. --Angelo 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

History section in club articles

Some club articles have continuous prose for their history sections (e.g. Arsenal F.C.), whereas others have the history split into sub-sections (Manchester United F.C.). Which is generally preferred? I am currently writing a history section for Stoke City F.C., but I wasn't sure which style to adopt. Dave101→talk  11:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal is a Featured Article, whereas Manchester United is not. Does that answer your question? aLii 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because Sheffield Wednesday F.C. has sub-sections but it is also a Featured Article. Dave101→talk  14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The key consideration is that the history section in the main article should be a reasonably compact summary (with a longer version as a seperate article if required). I would say that the more sub-sections there are, the longer the history section is likely to become. So I'd go for continuous prose. Robotforaday 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Morecambe FC

Just a quick note: Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Davies (English footballer) I have restored previously-deleted articles of Morecambe FC players. I only restored the articles about players who are included in the current squad, of course. The players in question are: Paul Lloyd, Wayne Curtis, Garry Hunter and Adam Yates. Punkmorten 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Futsal Players

Ben Watson (football player) is currently at Grays Athletic. However he does not meet the criteria needed for an article (basically he hasn't made a league appearance). However, he has represented England's national futsal team on a number of occasions, does this warrant him to have an article?

Jimbo online 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not as futsal is a relatively minor sport in this country but he (and other members of the England futsal squad) could be included appropriately in the Futsal in England article. Any other views anyone? --Malcolmxl5 23:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Time saving template

I am proposing a template that will save time for Editrs, in stead of typing [[England national football team|England]] to get England i am proposing only typing {{Nat|Scotland}} to get Scotland Chaza1000 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can already do this with {{nft}} where you type {{subst:nft|Scotland}} to get [[Scotland national football team|Scotland]] Foxhill 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we supposed to use them? I its like using {{fc|York City}}, which we're supposed to be not using, instead typing it out in full (I think). Mattythewhite 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember being encouraged to subst: the fc template to integrate it into the article. The only real difference for editors is that once subst'd the link would appear as [[York City F.C.|York City]] whereas unsubst'd it would be {{fc|York City}}. There may have been talk about server overheads as well. I still use it as {{subst:fc|Team}} and {{subst:afc|Team}} Foxhill 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive8#fc was the last comment on these templates recommending the use of subst'ing Foxhill 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox standards

Italicisation of players' names shouldn't bother me, but, since the majority of player articles don't adhere to this format, it does. Is it worth bringing these articles into line? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PlayerHistory.com

does anybody have use of this site?... it basically has a complation of many indepth player history in terms of stats. i was looking to use it for Giuseppe Cavanna article, but it only reveals some of the stats unless you are a paid member of it[2]--SalvoCalcio 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just use it as a reference for players' middle names. In my opinion it contains enough basic information for non-subscribers. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Cavanna's PlayerHistory.com profile states he made his international debut in 1931, but his article gives 1934. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the national appearances and goals were wrong. Matthew_hk tc 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Football article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive needs updating. The deadlines on all four noms have passed, one more than a month ago. It seems that one nom has passed, the list of men's national football (soccer) teams. AecisBrievenbus 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:FIFA World Cup squads

Does anyone think Template:FIFA World Cup squads is a bit excessive, please see FIFA World Cup article and see the templates at the bottom. I think the box is becoming too large and there are already templates that have links to each World Cup editions, I don't see the point in adding another templates to links the squads specifically. What do you guys think about this? Martin tamb 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Calmet

Could someone have a look at this article which I just discovered? Is it a hoax or is it real? It is difficult to tell as it is written in very poor English and with totally irrelevant wiki links. There is also this Template:RFS Rebelde Squad which if this is a hoax, then needs looking at too. If this is real then it needs a complete re-write. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The creator's now-blanked talk page doesn't instill confidence. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a hoax or an attack (CSD G10). The only google hits for aaron calmet are to this article. The club name, "Quakekaikano (Quake y Kaik)", reminds me of the ethnic slur kyke. Presumably this Aaron Calmet is a Jewish boy who likes to play Quake. AecisBrievenbus 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for speedy deletion per G1 (nonsense), G10 (attack) and A7 (non-notability). AecisBrievenbus 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, just to add though there is also the squad template which if this is a hoax and it certainly looks like one, perhaps shoudl also be included for deletion? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Both have been deleted. Thanks for the heads-up. AecisBrievenbus 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebelde referred to the Mexican telenovela Rebelde, btw. AecisBrievenbus 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

European football records

I have a content dispute with another editor over the inclusion of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the European football records article. If you could have a look, would be appreciated. Talk: European football records BestEditorEver 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but if the Fairs Cup is not officially recognised, then it shouldn't be listed in with the UEFA Cup. Perhaps a seperate section could be made to highlight Fairs Cup records, and explain that it isn't officially recognized (with a reference). aLii 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There's still a standstill. If some of you would like to comment on the discussions here and here, then by all means, go go go. -- BestEditorEver 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Goal keeper info boxes

Would it not be better to have, for goal keepers - instead of a "goals" column, to have a cleansheet column, seeing as this is more notable for a Goalkeeper to be able to achieve Chaza1000 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Goalkeepers do score. Not often, but they do in some rare cases. And theres no real resources for clean sheets. Mattythewhite 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It is impossible. Punkmorten 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality of players in Current Squad sections

What is the criterion for the nationality of football players in Current Squad sections? I just came across Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.#Current squad, which lists players by their place. Lionel Medeiros for instance, a Portuguese player born in France, is listed as a French player, while he is Portuguese. Filipe Teixeira was born in France as well, but is listed as Portuguese. I think this is very confusing. I think we should use the football licence instead of place of birth. If the criterion of Académica de Coimbra were to be used elsewhere, Deco for instance would be listed as a Brazilian football player, even though he plays for the Portugal national football team. AecisBrievenbus 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Fix them, otherwise someone might have the brilliant idea of defining Claudio Gentile as a Libyan (well, they actually did it on Juventus F.C., I am serious!). --Angelo 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This comes up a lot. A player's primary nationality is the country that he has represented at the highest international level, or most recently. With uncapped players, their nationality is usually listed, it's not as simple as the country they were born in. ArtVandelay13 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had a similar discussion before about Daniël Rijaard, who is Dutch, but played for the Netherlands Antilles national football team (for which he qualified through his parents). Quincy Owusu-Abeyie is like this as well: he holds dual citizenship iirc, has represented Dutch national youth teams and has requested permission from FIFA to represent Ghana instead. AecisBrievenbus 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In the context of articles about football, it seems sensible that flag icons should represent the country that the player represents at international level rather than country of birth. --Malcolmxl5 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In terms of categories, should we be using (in the case of Bill Perry, for example) Category:South African soccer players (nation of birth) and Category:English footballers (nation represented in football)? - Dudesleeper · Talk 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no problem acknowledging dual nationalities with categories (and other things). The issue is when you have to list players by only one nationality, e.g. the squad lists. ArtVandelay13 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But it should not be acknowledged that way. If he never represented South Africa he is not a South African soccer player, just a person of South African descent. In this case he would go in Category:British people of South African descent. Punkmorten 17:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's generally true, but Perry came to England when he was 19, and lots of other South Africans who represented England came much later - they represented England because of the sanctions against SA. If someone changes nationality in adulthood, I don't see why this dual nationality shouldn't be listed. ArtVandelay13 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A similar discussion could be held about for instance Moroccan-Dutch football players. Almost all of them were born in the Netherlands and they all hold dual citizenship. I think almost all of them play under a Dutch licence, while some have chosen to represent Morocco (e.g. Bouaouzan, Diba, Sinouh), some have chosen to represent the Netherlands (Afellay, Aissati, Bakkal, Boulahrouz) and Driss Boussatta has represented both the Netherlands and Morocco. I think that those players who represent Morocco should be listed with the Moroccan flag in Current Squad sections, but can be categorized as Dutch football players. AecisBrievenbus 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not if they never represented the Netherlands. In that case they should be Moroccan footballers and Moroccan-Dutch people. Punkmorten 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I also started a section above, Player's primary nationality. per wikipedia policy (somewhere in not excessive use flag), people born place may not equal to their nationality. It may cause by his mother went to another nation for short term job, or visit. I think the primary rule is use their national team, and then where he primary spent his childhood (but difficult for some African players spent their youth football outside), and then born place, and then ethnicity. But it is difficult for BIH people/Croats/Serbs. For Jimmy Bullard and Anthony da Silva (Tony), I will list them for English and Portuguese respectively, latter started his career at Portugal, not capped by Frence, his father from Portugal. Matthew_hk tc 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

fixtures and result

User Eodw (talk) has been making individual pages for national football team's fixtures and results. Anyone know how to propose a mass merge for these articles? -- BestEditorEver 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather a mass speedy delete, they're CSD A7 at my eyes. --Angelo 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Could work, although deleting seems cruel to what looks like informative and good-faith edits. If I left a request on his talk page to merge the articles, would I be correct in stating that the fixtures and results belong on the national football team articles themselves? -- BestEditorEver 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We have deleted results pages before. This information has no place in Wikipedia at all. Punkmorten 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham

It's all kicking off (no pun intended) at Talk:David Beckham. England v US war over whether UK English or US English is appropriate for the article following Becks' move Stateside. Join in at your peril... Paulbrock 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kids! I have told them to be civil!! --Malcolmxl5 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be little point trying to discuss it on there as has been said it seems to mostly be kids. I saw some of when it started and tried to reason with one of them, but all I got was, Wikipedia is an American project, he is playing in America and he should be called a soccer player when he is here. And all the usual rubbish about how gay football (soccer) is. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Football chants

This article was recently very briefly discussed when one chant was proposed for deletion. I am just wondering if anyone would have any objections if later today I make a start at trying to sort the article out? In doing so, much of the content is either going to have to be removed, or at least moved to the talk page (or hidden maybe?) simply because it is unsourced. I will work on getting some sources, though that in itself could prove difficult. And I thought it best to add the "in use" tag. Any objections, ideas? cheers. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs a good sorting out. Some of the (UK) broadsheets occasionally dip into "Where did chant x originate?" so that may be a source, but I suspect the sources meeting WP:RS will be very limited. Paulbrock 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuly and AS Roma

Several people are continuously adding Ludovic Giuly to AS Roma's roster despite lack of any official announcement by the club. Could you please revert the latest adding, as I am a bit concerned about not breaking the 3RR? Thanks in advance.

Secondly, have a look at AS Roma 2007-08. These articles are proliferating, I think we should stop them all as soon as possible. --Angelo 16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Ludovic Giuly, when googled I couldn't find anything to confirm he is definitely going to AS Roma. However, this article dated 14th July, suggests that he won't be signing for Roma -No Roma In Giuly's Future. Is that correct? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He will probably join AS Roma, as he is already in Rome and passed a medical test. But he is still not an AS Roma player. --Angelo 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah right so similar to numerous other situations where people add players to clubs before they sign. The only thing then of course, is that the section heading says "confirmed signings for the 2007-08 season"? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is actually also a disclaimer suggesting not to include unconfirmed signings. But nobody really seems to care about it. --Angelo 16:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed and just after I posted the above, I had a look on the article and it quite clearly states not to add "new players before their signing is officially announced by the club". So on that basis, and of course because the user adding him has provided no source, I have reverted it again. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally made official by AS Roma. In any case, please have a look at AS Roma 2007-08, the latest of a long series of such articles (with F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08 being probably the craziest one). I'd like to share some thought about what to do to let these articles look a bit more encyclopedic. --Angelo 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Zac Beda

I found this article, Zac Beda, this afternoon when browsing a Blackpool FC fan message board where some fans took great delight in having vandalised the article. I have reverted the vandalism. Unfortunately though, since then they have vandalised it again and would appear to wish to continue doing so, calling it "great fun".

He appears to be a youth team player who presumably fails notability. As I haven't proposed any articles for deletion before, could someone please have a look at the article and let me know if I have done it right? thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasters

I think that for the Broadcasters we should have a seperate article for each tournament, and each Edititon (trial on Premier League 07-08 works) Chaza93 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly disagree. Lists of broadcasters of TV programs have been repeatedly removed via AfD as unencyclopaedic, and I can't how how broadcasters of sport events is any more so. - fchd 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ooof, yeah, awful idea. Seeing as the Premiership gets a lot of attention I suppose there might be room for some kind of Premiership media coverage article, in which some of this could be incorporated, but season by season/separate tournament articles? No way. HornetMike 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Club by club subheadings in player articles

A contributor recently reformatted the article on Boudewijn Zenden to include subheadings on each of his stints at various clubs - so a seperate section for PSV, Barcelona, and so on. Now, I'm not against this, and can see that from a certain perspective it makes sense. I went to look at the Manual of Style to see where the project stood on these subheadings, but this level of detail doesn't seem to be something anticipated, so really I'm interested in finding out, should we be working towards continuous prose in player biographies, or are subheadings like this the way forward? Robotforaday 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally I'm against the overuse of subheadings, but in some cases it aids the readability of an article. Different sub-headings for stints at different clubs seems perfectly fine to me too. One thing that I prefer not to see is a seperate section for International career as then you get sequencing problems — it's harder to tell where in their career each international milestone came. aLii 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this works for long articles, but right now we have quite a few articles being edited with only one line per sub-heading (Stuart Beavon for example). This seems a little ridiculous to me. WikiGull 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ebbsfleet & Gravesend categories

Should Category:Gravesend & Northfleet F.C. players and Category:Ebbsfleet United F.C. players be merged? Considering they're the same club.. Mattythewhite 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely - it's the still the same entity regardless of the name change. Number 57 10:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Itsotp - notable or not?

Just wondering, does anyone think Itsotp is really worth an article?

The article says it's an acronym probably originating on Aston Villa message boards. As I'd never heard of it I googled for it, and according to Google it ONLY appears on Aston Villa messageboards (and Wikipedia). I wouldn't have thought that was enough to make it notable. Struway2 | Talk 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard it used by anyone and can't see how it merits an article. It would be like having an article on Some bloke down Atomics, which is a running joke on the Gillingham boards. Bin it, I say ChrisTheDude 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of it. I would guess it's of extremely limited circulation. = fchd 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I will nominate for deletion, anyway (if I can work out how to do it). Struway2 | Talk 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of youth international players

Just wondering, but what are the guidelines on youth international players? I mean teams such as Under-21, Under-19, but not really any younger. GiantSnowman 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


U-21 players usually played at least one or two profesional season, but a player just played not more than 50 games be notable? Matthew_hk tc 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be no guideline at all. They are likely to be notable only if they played on a professional basis (and I agree with this). --Angelo 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Juan Pablo Carrizo

Yet another unconfirmed signing added to S.S. Lazio by some ruthless IP user. Might you please help me in reverting these edits, as I've already used all my three reverts. --Angelo 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This guy's getting on my tits. Alexrushfear 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've request semi-protection, so let's wait (however I think it might get a little long before, as there are very few admins for covering such a large project). --Angelo 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah well, he seems to have stopped for now anyway. Oh, by the way Angelo, would you happen to know in which season Lazio had their shirt sponsored by Parmacotto? Alexrushfear 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • From 2003 to 2005, according to Parmacotto itself: [3]. --Angelo 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot, haven't been able to find it; didn't actually think of looking on the Parmacotto site itself. Alexrushfear 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look also at List of Italian football players with dual nationality, another target of our friend. Oh, by the way he seems to have an account as well. --Angelo 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt Baker?

Has anyone heard anything about where Matt Baker's going to be playing next season? I've been itching to edit his page for months but I haven't heard a thing. Alexrushfear 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shabani Nonda

This guy is completely ignoring all my messages, keeps on changing Nonda's nationality from Congo DR to Burundi, despite the fact the player played internationally solely for the former. Could you please revert his edits on A.S. Roma, as I've no more reverts available. --Angelo 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave Hancock

Is Dave Hancock notable? He's a physiotherapist for a big club. Doesn't really look like it. Mattythewhite 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No. By the way, a Corinthians physio's article was deleted some time ago as well. --Angelo 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest I'd say being physio for Chelsea is notable enough, although the article could do with some expanding, but if not much more can be found, then perhaps it could go. Alexrushfear 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the physio for Corinthians isn't notable - and that article was definitely deleted - then this one is no more notable just because he is Chelseas phsyio. In my opinion he is as non notable as the Corinthians phsyio. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I'd say Chelsea are bigger globally than Corinthians, I'd have said the Corinthians physio was notable enough too. Alexrushfear 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apologies :) but I still disagree. It is also questionable whether Chelsea are a bigger club, given that Corinthians are the second most popular club in Brazil. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bournemouth Gasworks Athletic F.C.

I recently took some steps towards wikifying the article for Bournemouth Gasworks Athletic F.C.. However, having done so, I have a couple of questions: first, is the team notable? Their finest hour appears to have been appearing in the final of the FA Amateur Cup in 1930. Secondly, the creator of the article put that the team have folded, and I have obviously not changed that. However, I couldn't find any further information about this fold, and was wondering if anybody know when they went defunct? Robotforaday 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The club folded in 1973. As Amateur Cup finalists, they would (in my opinion) easily pass the bar of notability without any further achievements, but they were also Hampshire League Champions on five occasions, Hampshire Senior Cup Winners twice, and Dorset Senior Cup Winners on no less than 10 occasions. I'll try and expand the article somewhat. - fchd 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I felt pretty sure they were notable myself, but thought it was best to check here before too many people put in work - also, seemed like a good idea to flag it up here, as I knew that there were people here with access to far more sources than I have. On which note, do you have a reference for that 1973 date, perchance? (I assume the "Gone But Not Forgotten" volume which has been added as a reference would include that, I don't have access myself to say for sure, provide page no. etc.) Robotforaday 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

English competition templates

For some reason {{Football League Championship}}, {{Football League One}} and {{Football League Two}} (and possibly more) are non-standardised templates - this is why nesting other templates with them is such a complete pain in the arse (causing templates to sit inside each other or just break). Fixing them would be a piece of cake as per diff but would mean changing all inclusions on club articles to using {{fb start}} and {{fb end}}.

So before I go around thinking of changing 3 leagues worth of club articles, would changing these templates to the standardised version be a good idea? Foxhill 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to add, the errors (like the FLC template sitting inside another) mainly happens when someone tries to nest a standardised team template with this bunch. A quick and dirty workaround to enable your standardised template to nest with a non-standardised one properly is to add an extra table close |- before the final