Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 14

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

New Template

I have just seen the template {{Football League Cup Winners}} pop up in my watchlist. Aston Villa F.C., Birmingham City F.C.. etc. Is this really neccessary. At the very least, i think it should be hidden, it is huge. Opinions? Woodym555 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering: a) how i should make it smaller but still include all winners, and b) How i could hide it. Eddie6705 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If this takes off, and we have templates for winners of other major competitions, articles for clubs which have won large numbers of tournaments will begin to look ridiculous. I'm sorry, I don't think it has much value. - fchd 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should submit it for TfD, it is really unnecessary detail for clubs. --Angelo 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO Kill it. Imagine a team like Man U. It would have FA Cup, Lge Cup, Premiership, Division One, Division Two, Champs Lge, Charity Shield, ... all in there. It would be longer than the rest of the article. Peanut4 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the creator User:Eddie6705, got the picture. He has orphaned the template. Woodym555 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Any problems with me listing these two as well: Template:Scottish Second Division Champions Template:Scottish Third Division Champions Thanks. Woodym555 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, delete them all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
See League Cup TFD and Champions TFD. Thanks. Woodym555 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about {{Polish Football Cup winners}}? AecisBrievenbus 12:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

War years

Should details of a player's domestic career during the two world wars be included in the infobox, or is it considered too "unofficial"? In the case of George Tadman, for example, some stats appear to be available, but I wasn't sure whether to include them (or whether to include him in the player cats for the clubs he guested for).... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not included any in ones I've added but I've added clubs and noticed some others have included them. The best alternative could be to have a separate section within the box to differentiate wartime football but it would then disrupt the chronological flow. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's unofficial, and doesn't contribute to a player's league total, so shouldn't be counted. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it all depends on the domestic situation. In England, the football competition had been suspended/abandoned during WW1 and WW2. But if you look at the Netherlands, 1944-45 was the only season that the national title wasn't contested. In that case, the domestic competition during WW1 and WW2 (except for 1944-45) should be included in the infobox, imo. AecisBrievenbus 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come accross the article for Joe Bacuzzi, which includes guest clubs and appearances in the infobox. To be honest, I'd include this information in the biography. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Huntelaar FAC

The Klaas-Jan Huntelaar FAC has gone somewhat dead, so perhaps people from this project could add some actionable opposes. I don't really expect this article to be promoted, but what I'm really looking forward to is advice that would allow me to take the article to FA-class next time. Negative feedback would be much appreciated :) JACOPLANE • 2007-11-18 00:17

UEFA Cup 2004-05

All of we know that Heereenven game did not walkovered but they played in one game only because of the airport gate. But no one mention it. I don't know how to write it. Raymond Giggs 10:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Which game was that, Raymond? Ah, I guessing Maccabi Petah Tikva. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I wrote those words with confused sense. The game which should be play in Israel cancelled because of a airport conflict. I forgot what's the event is. But should be included in the article. Raymond Giggs 14:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ELO

The ELO ratings are given on each international team page, however the early record of the Ireland Football team has been allocated to the Republic of Ireland Football team, while it is probably not significant in working out current rankings, it would have a bearing on the peak ranking of anyteam, if this occured in thhe 1920s or early thirties. Has anyone inverstigated how much these figures would change if the international records recognised by FIFA are used in place of those used by the World Football Elo Ratings people? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of football clubs and football competitions

We've now got relatively clear notability criteria for football players (cf. #Notability of Football biographies and #Notability of Midland League players). But what about football clubs and football competitions?
1. Football clubs. Clubs that play or have played on the highest level of the national league structure are by definition notable, it appears, whether they play in England or Andorra. But what about lower league teams? When is a club notable enough for Wikipedia?
2. Football competitions. Looking at the English football league system, every single league has an article, all the way down to the Bristol Downs Football League. Is every competition held under the umbrella of a national football league structure by definition notable enough for Wikipedia?
AecisBrievenbus 22:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need this?

England v Croatia 21st November 2007, I slapped a prod on it. But I thought I'd let you guys check it out. it reads like a copyvio from a sports magazine. King of the NorthEast 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's totally crystal ball. Most of what is said won't be relevant by Wednesday at 10pm. I fully support the prod. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It looks like its been copy & pasted from a magazine or something, and even if it didn't its a non-notable match anyway. Delete. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally agreed. Delete immediately. – PeeJay 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've endorsed the prod. Can't find any source for copy & paste though, if anyone can then please speedy-nominate it with {{db-copyvio}}. Qwghlm (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's from wikinews [1]. I'm not too hot on copyright between wikis, so I've no idea if it's still a copyvio. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I might speedy it as CSD A5, but it would be a very bold decision. So, better to keep it WP:PRODded. --Angelo (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with it falling under A5 as it's not been subject to due process. Wikipedia and Wikinews's licences do differ but the WN version was created after the WP one (by the same user) so it can't be considered a copyvio - more likely something dual-licenced. Only thing we can do is wait for the prod to expire. Qwghlm (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Non-notable. Sports magazine material, not WP. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Damien Richardson

Your thoughts please, good sirs, on the "Quotes" and "Iconic" sections of this article - I took them out as completely unencyclopedic but got reverted..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourceable quotations should be transwikied to Wikiquote, and not included in the article; unsourceable ones should be instead removed as soon as possible. The "Iconic" section is merely trivia, in fact I tagged it this way, you should follow the suggestions in WP:TRIVIA.--Angelo (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Widespread spamming of stadium articles

Inappropriate links to this site are being added to stadiumdatabase.com in stadium articles by Yonna (talk · contribs) (who has made no useful other contributions, as far as I can tell) - the site uses Wikipedia images with no GFDL/CC licence and contains no useful additional information. User has been warned twice already but keep an eye out for any more. Qwghlm (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/172.206.196.206. This is the link search to watch. Rettetast (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferencváros pov

Could someone have a look at Ferencvárosi TC#Ferencváros Scandals? It comes across to me as quite pov. AecisBrievenbus 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold! Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability query (yes, yet another one...)

If a player plays for a League 2 (Level 4) side, but has not featured in any league games, and is on loan to a Level 9 side, but has played for said Level 9 side, would he be notable enough for an article? Methinks probably no, but I just want to check to save myself creating an article that would later be deleted...GiantSnowman (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression a player at level 4 on loan at level 5 isn't even notable. So I can't see this one being notable. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also say a definitive no. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No is right. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Even though some of you probably will, I'm just letting you know that based on tonight's events at Wembley, you might want to keep eyes on the following articles for vandalism: Steve McClaren, Scott Carson, Croatia national football team, England national football team and UEFA Euro 2008. Obviously if there is vandalism, revert on sight. McClaren and Carson are semi-protected, but are still being targeted. Cheers, Davnel03 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Under 21 Football League of Ireland

Hi, this article was tagged as not sufficiently demonstrating it's notability from February till just now. It was tagged with a prod and a prod2. Then an anon ip editor removed the prod and prod2 with no comment as to why the league is notable.

Could the article please be either improved, redirected to Football in Ireland possibly, or deleted if (as the article currently seems to show) under 21's football in Ireland is equally non-notable to everywhere else (I mean, all the good players are playing FA by then anyway....)Garrie 05:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please "Hertha Berlin" no more!

Maybe some writers read these lines. I'm by far no Hertha supporter but please: The club is officially named Hertha BSC, if you want the city name Hertha BSC Berlin is OK as well but in Germany no one will ever say "Hertha Berlin". I read it here very often. Thanks! -Lemmy- 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It can't be that big an issue if both "Hertha" and "Berlin" are in the official name, can it? - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's by far the most commonly used name in English (and many other languages, I shouldn't wonder). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
But it's like 70% of all users would write "West Albion", "Ham United" or something like that. In other cases the right forms like 1. FC Köln are used. I don't get why Hertha is often written that wrong. Anyway, I just wanted to make this problem get some attention and I hope some authors read it ;-) -Lemmy- (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand your concern. Some articles use the proper name (West Ham United F.C.), where the most commonly used name is simply West Ham or West Ham United. However, I suspect the current article name is the proper name in order to disambiguate it from the part of London (West Ham) and the other sports sections of West Ham United (Lady's football, perhaps?). That said, if Hertha BSC has other sports sections to the club, I think it's equally appropriate to include the "BSC" in the article name to disambiguate the football section from the others. I hope that helps. Jogurney (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this is along the lines of erroneous names like Sporting Lisbon or Red Star Belgrade - English convention seems to insert the location into the club name when it is not used. Fedgin | Talk 08:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

List of England international footballers

I note that users Catchpole and Bentley Banana have reverted the list that had been merged from List of England international footballers (alphabetical) and List of England players with only one cap with no real explanation other than comments on Cathcpole's talk page. As the previous discussions seemed to indicate that there was a consensus to merge these 3 articles, I would appreciate other editors' comments/suggestions. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that they should be merged. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they should definitely be merged. Revert their edits with extreme prejudice please. – PeeJay 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been asked to expand on my reasoning. The List of England international footballers used to contain a list by number of caps. While I had no objection to this list been expanded to include all English international footballers in alphabetical order, it was no longer possible to order the table by number of caps (when I tried to do so it merely ordered the footballers by first name - this is not very useful). So in my view the article became less useful after the merge than it was before the merge. If 3 articles contain more useful information than can be found in a single article then we should keep the three articles. This makes it easier to distinguish between 'one cap wonders' and players who made a significant contribution to the national team (those with more than 25 caps). As Bentley Banana had mentioned after he updated the article following the Austria game, the date format used in the table was also confusing. So I restored what I felt were the better versions of the 3 articles. I will reiterate that I have no problem with a merger, if it can be done in a way that allows the information in the article to be sorted in a useful manner. Catchpole (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Was there no way you could have modified the single article to make it properly sortable? You know, do something constructive instead of destructive. – PeeJay 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just gone to the previous version of the list, clicked on the caps sort button, and it sorts into ascending order of caps, click again and it sorts into descending. Unless there's some browser-dependent problem, or I'm being really stupid, I don't know what you mean by not possible to order by number of caps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think my changes were constructive, they made the articles more useful to me. I'll admit to not being an expert on sortable tables, but when I try to repeat Struway's experiment, I get Safari popping up with an unresponsive script warning. I get the same issue when I try it on List of England international footballers (alphabetical). This may just be a problem with very large articles, (when you edit the latter, you get the following message - "This page is 260 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size"). Catchpole (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so it's cos you're on a Mac! I mean, why else would you be using Safari when you could be using Firefox? Well, the vast majority of us don't use Macs, so I suggest that your edits be reverted, to benefit the majority. – PeeJay 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have tried it on IE7 and Firefox and it works. It is a "very" large article though. I think dial-up will groan under the strain. I agree completely with the old version (ie before catchpole reverts), yet I think the size might be an issue. Splitting it in half is not an option though as it will break the sortable table. Woodym555 (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The pre-catchpole article is a far better navigational tool because sortable tables are ace. It should be reverted to the way it was. King of the NorthEast 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't really see why we have to have one or the other. There's no point removing the excellent list as set up by Daemonic Kangaroo purely because some people's configuration makes one of the features unusable, while as demand exists for a more restricted set of information why not have that as well? I'd propose (1) that the main list be reverted to the sortable version, as it is complete and useful for a significant number of users, although the size is clearly a problem for some. And (2) as a separate article, a List of England international footballers with 25 caps, as per the current Catchpole version. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking about that, but what title? top capped players? Notable players? Woodym555 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't thought about it :-) There was consensus on the merger to List of England international footballers, and there appears to be consensus that the complete sortable list should be at that name. You could call the other one List of most-capped England international footballers, or List of notable England international footballers, or if all else fails, List of England international footballers with 25 caps. Each to have a hatnote pointing to the other. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I merged the three articles I thought that there was a consensus that this was the right thing to do. Consequently I found Bentley Banana's comment on Catchpole's talk page describing it as a "rotten merger" and an "abomination" rather offensive and arrogant. I'm therefore grateful that the consensus here is in favour of the merge. Moving forward, it seems to me that we still only need one list covering all England players (good and bad, major or minor). In view of the size of the list this will always cause problems for those on a dial-up connection - as for Apple Mac users, I'm afraid that I have no knowledge. Perhaps this particular problem as pointed out by Catchpole should be put to a techie for advice. WP must be all-embracing and be equally functional whatever platform is used, although good features should not be thrown away to accommodate lesser used platforms.

At present we have four, possibly five, different articles covering the same ground:

All of these will need updating after every England match. The (post-Catchpole) List of England international footballers includes players who have 25 or more caps. Why this particular bar? If the bar was raised to, say, 50 caps this would reduce this particular list to 47 players. This list could then be merged with that in the England team article. Can we agree a final consensus? I can then go ahead and re-merge the articles. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to contribute - firstly, however I have two apologies to make. Firstly, an apology to Daemonic Kangaroo for my terminology in describing his changes. My wording was rather strong, I accept that and withdraw it wholly. My second apology comes in advance of what I'm about to say, as I'm entirely inept with tables and wikipedia terms and therefore exist here purely as a writer with some reasonable understanding of the England team and what is required on these pages.
I would argue most vociferously for the retention of the List of England international footballers page in its reverted form, containing the players with 25 caps or more. I would argue that there is no other way to measure footballers in the international game other than by dint of caps won; doing so by surname or date of birth turns it into a rollcall rather than a list which is defined by actual achievement and notability. Alan A'Court shouldn't be at the top of any list of England players; Peter Shilton should be. It's all about the caps won. Nobody is going to come on wikipedia looking for the information about who would be top of an England list alphabetically, but a new user might use our reference to find out who has won the most caps. This is where this page is too vital to consider merging into something which will change the entire focus of its existence.
I have never used nor accessed with List of England players with only one cap and feel that while it's an interesting list, it's not a be-all and end-all list. There is limited notability about such players; we're dealing with novelty rather than anything else. A page which lists everyone who wasn't goo enough to play for England after one solitary go but not those who were sturdy and steady enough to hang around more than 25 times suggests to me a lack of priorities.
The England national football team records page has, I confess, become a labour of love to me. I am fiercely proud of how that page has turned out and I think it is as vital a tool as any researcher on England can find, even from official sources (indeed, I've seen evidence of more official sources using statistics which I myself researched entirely for the benefit of this page). I would ask it remains as it is.
Lastly, on the subject of the merged page, I would ask that consideration is given to those who choose to keep these pages topical as soon as matches are completed. I had an awful time trying to suss out the dating system, find the players in question etc when faced with an alphabetical list rather than one which relied entirely on achievement and notability. The list of 25 caps or more needs to remain as an independent page; even if the full list of alphabetical players stays separately. To remove the shorter, more easily maintained and digested page says that accessibility for both readers and editors has become too low a priority, and that's where people like me, who just want to keep pages digestible and accessible, are alienated.
One final comment aside - my main bugbear with the England pages are with editors who go on the main England national football team page after a match and change just *one* fact, rather than the several which always need changing - details of games, caps and goals updates, manager stats etc. This gets right up my nose as you end up doing someone else's tidying up rather than merely a gentle update which should not take up too much time or sweat.
Thanks for reading, apologies for my lack of terminology and my previous comments once more. Bentley Banana (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I still think that the sortable table is a far better navigational tool, does anyone know if there is a way to default set it to show the players by number of caps?King of the NorthEast 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of football clubs and football competitions (repost)

I asked this question on November 18 (#Notability of football clubs and football competitions), but I didn't get a response. I think we need to come to some consensus on this, so I want to ask the question again: When is a football club notable enough for Wikipedia? And when is a football league/division/competition notable enough for Wikipedia? AecisBrievenbus 12:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of clubs, it seems to generally accepted that English clubs are notable as far down as Step 6 (level 10), whilst clubs that play in Step 7 or below need to have some past history of playing higher or entering the FA Cup. For Wales I believe it is down to the fourth level (e.g. Welsh Football League Division Three), and in Scotland any team in a Junior (not to be confused with youth) or Senior league.
However, I think we do perhaps need to define this on a country-by-country basis because we can't define a certain tier which applies to every country (the fourth level in Estonia (a country in which crowds in the top division are around that of the seventh level in England) is certainly not as notable as the equivalent elsewhere) or cup entrance (as the Coupe de France has thousands). Perhaps some kind of seperate discussion needs setting up to make these definitions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking this is the following: I'm in the process of creating articles about the nine levels of the Dutch football league structure. I don't want to spend my time on that only to find the articles being deleted afterwards. The same for the football clubs. The clubs in the Eredivisie (level 1) and Eerste Divisie (level 2) are easily notable; the clubs in the Hoofdklasse and the defunct Tweede Divisie (level 3) and former professional football clubs are probably notable enough as well. Clubs that have merged to form what is now a professional football club might be notable as well (e.g. Enschedese Boys and SC Enschede, now FC Twente), particularly if they've also achieved success in their own right. The Eerste Klasse (level 4) is probably the boundary of notability: a few former Hoofdklasse clubs (e.g. SV Urk and SV Huizen) and clubs that have reached the KNVB Cup (e.g. FC Chabab) are notable enough. Clubs on these levels would meet the notability guidelines simply for playing at a certain level. Below that, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis; only a few historical clubs seem to satisfy the notability guidelines (e.g. Koninklijke HFC and HVV Den Haag). There ends my rant :) AecisBrievenbus 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PROD requests in project mainpage

User:Ceyockey added a PROD-requested article in the list of debated deletions in the main project page. Personally I think we should remove it, because PROD requests are supposed to be used for uncontested deletions, so they should not be placed there. Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see the point of it personally...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, no point. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, in case there's an article with a Prod put on it which anyone here disagrees with - Prods don't get listed in bulk at AfD or the like, so it's very easy for them to slip through the net. - fchd (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Season-by-season articles for non-league teams

Recent AfDs have established that the project feels that non-league teams should not have articles on their individual seasons, but what about season-by-season articles along the lines of Gillingham F.C. seasons? I'm thinking of working on one but I'll nip it in the bud if it would just get AfD'ed....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think they should all be scrapped, but given that other season-by-season articles for clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd have been kept after AfDs, it would be hypocritical not to allow them for other professional teams. Non-pro teams are still definitely a no-no though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think season-by-season articles along the lines of Manchester United F.C. seasons, Gillingham F.C. seasons, etc. for non-league teams would be fine, but perhaps only down to Conference North/South level. Individual season articles are right out though. – PeeJay 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean you want to know if say Ebbsfleet united should have an article Ebbsfleet United F.C. seasons? If so, I don't see why not. If the team is notable enough, has a worthy history section on its main entry, then this would be very perfectly worthy enough. Peanut4 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies to Number 57, whom I seem to have confused with my possibly ambiguous wording...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody speak Portuguese?

If so can you please translate this article and then update the Carlos Alberto Cabral entry accordingly? I will be eternally grateful ;) ... GiantSnowman (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

National team season articles

On my travels around Category:Football (soccer) I discovered Denmark national football team season 2006, and it got me wondering, first, whether such articles are as valid as club season articles, and second, whether there is scope for the creation of more articles of this type. For example, if I was to create a similar article for the Wales national football team's 2007 season, what would the reaction be? Comments please. – PeeJay 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By campaign would be better, I think, e.g. Germany national football team in Euro 2008 or even Germany national football team 2006-08 ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete it at sight. As ArtVandelay13 correctly noted, national teams have competition campaigns (of which, in my opinion, only continental and World Cup ones are actually notable), and no "seasons". --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference in principal between this and, say, 1887-88 in English football, other than the level of detail? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I've answered my own question - I see there is already 2006-07 in Danish football which covers the same ground in less detail. This should suffice, IMHO. I see that Denmark national football team season 2006 has now been "prodded". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, since Denmark national football team season 2006 has been prodded, I should also inform you of the existence of Denmark national football team season 2005 and Denmark national football team season 2007. – PeeJay 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which: what about Barbados fixtures and results? AecisBrievenbus 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I think it's safe to say that all of them should be deleted then. – PeeJay 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Argentine Football Creole Style

Is this article, Argentine Football Creole Style, of any interest? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I take issue with this quote "based their style on...the lack of tactical sense" as complete nonsense. The whole article reads as if it's been ripped off from somewhere. The title of the page is grammatically poor, a move to "Creole football in Argentina" would be a good idea if the article is to be kept. The section about Maradona is completely spurious and it makes no mention of Argentino de Quilmes, the first non-English team in Argentine football. I would suggest merging anything of importance into Football in Argentina. I'll see what I can doKing of the NorthEast 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. I've added references for the quotations. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of football club season articles

As PeeJay noted in this AFD, we need a notability cut-off for football club season articles. So let's start discussing, pals. My personal opinion is to allow only articles covering professional teams with at least nationwide notability and coverage. Please have your say. --Angelo (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll advance on that and say Premier League (and equivalent level one divisions in other countries) teams only. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's simple - where a club's players are inherently notable, then a season article is. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of them at all but I'd say ArtVandelay13's is the best suggestion. Although for England, maybe Conference as well because all Conference clubs, games and transfers will have a decent range of sources, from BBC, club websites and local papers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I'm with Peanut. Provide decent sources and it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions and club names

This issue needs a complete discussion throughout the whole project. Recently Dynamo Kiev/Dynamo Kyiv and FC Steaua Bucureşti/FC Steaua Bucharest. We currently have the community consensus of (WP:NAME#Sports teams, WP:COMMON, WP:ENGLISH) and many precedents (Bayern Munich not Bayern Munchen, Spartak Moscow not Spartak Moskva, etc). After this discussion at AN/I, I think the issue needs to be discussed and a solution reached. We need to either enforce the current guidelines or come up with revised guidelines. The debate is fairly simple. Do we want nationalised names with foreign spellings, do we want official names (UEFA, etc) or do we want anglicised names (common use e.g. Inter Milan, Bayern Munich). (Of course, there are several other grey solutions such as discuss on a case-by-case basis, vary for different countries etc.) Comments please... Woodym555 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely stick with English names - I don't understand why all these people are wilfully ignoring two of the most straightforward policies there are (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH). The current Red Star Belgrade discussion is a classic case of this - even the club refer to themselves (only) as Red Star on their official English website, yet there is still a majority of editors arguing that the article should be moved to FK Crvena Zvezda. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that we should use the name of the club as specified by the English version of said club's official website, e.g. FC Dynamo Kyiv, FC Steaua Bucuresti, FC Red Star (n.b. not FC Red Star Belgrade), FC Bayern Munich, PFC CSKA Moscow, etc. In the absence of an English version of the website, we should simply use the name that the club is best known by in the English media. - PeeJay 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree to a certain extent with PeeJay, but I don't think we should use whatever extra initials the club uses (the local version of F.C.) unless it is needed for disambiguation. I think that things like SK Rapid Wien should be at Rapid Vienna because I don't think your average Joe will search for anything beyond the two words in the name of the club. In cases like PFC CSKA Moscow the PFC has to remain to differentiate it from the other sports clubs. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams was added on June 30th this year without any discussion as far as I can tell, and hasn't been touched since (except on the same day by the same user that added it). This means it shouldn't be taken as being a consensus among the community.
As for the rest of this discussion, my opinion is that all clubs should be at their local official name (though obviously in the Latin alphabet) on the grounds that proper names should not be translated. I have said this on every move survey so far and will continue to do so. - MTC 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But if the club has an English name that it prefers to go by, surely we should respect that? - PeeJay 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you mean FK Crvena Zvezda; UEFA.com uses Crvena Zvezda, why shouldn't we? That goes for CSKA Moskva and Bayern München too. - MTC 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is the English Wikipedia and so we should go with what most users will know it under. I know you could take liberties with this and start mis-naming everything things like United Kingdom. Yet we have to remember that most people who speak English will know it as Bayern Munich. I understand the reasoning behind using official names, i am just not persuaded by it. Woodym555 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As I expressed in my original comment in this thread, I'm talking about any foreign club. If their official website has an English language version, we should use the club name that is used on that website. No exceptions. - PeeJay 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this should probably go to a centralised discussion as it will affect other projects than our own. Woodym555 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Easy. This is the English version of wikipedia, go by the English name. UEFA might use Crvena Zvezda but that's a UEFA name not English. Every time you hear Crvena Zvezda in the media I'm sure it will be followed by formerly Red Star. You would barely read in English press Bayern Munchen or Dynamo Kyiz, so why use them here? Follow it on and we'll have to start using Brasil, Italia, Danemark, Suisse, etc, etc. Peanut4 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course you won't read Bayern Munchen and Dynamo Kyiz, they are both spelt wrong. You would, however, read Bayern München, Dynamo Kyiv and Crvena Zvezda. You also seem misinformed about countries, Danmark is the local name of their country and Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra has 4 official languages with 4 different names.
Anyway, country naming is beside the point, football clubs are organizations and so have official names that shouldn't not be translated, countries are completely different and no-one here (yet) is asking for all countries to be moved to their local names. - MTC 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The move request for Steaua Bucharest has been closed. First by Neil (talk · contribs) as move, which was undone by me, perhaps a bit clumsily. It has now been closed by Prolog (talk · contribs) as no consensus, defaulting in keep. What is relevant to the above discussion, however, is Prolog's explanation: "Because WP:NC#Sports teams was boldly added by one user four months ago with no edit summary or discussion, and there seems to be a dispute about whether this section is descriptive of our current practice and community consensus, it is not really a great argument. This naming debate should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions." Since the naming convention would also apply to articles of other sports teams, I don't think this WikiProject is the right venue for it. I propose starting a centralized discussion on this matter. AecisBrievenbus 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and i made a comment to that effect above. Woodym555 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Naming convention for sports teams, it is? AecisBrievenbus 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that the conventional way to start a centralised discussion? I got the impression from WP:CENTRAL that we were supposed to take it to the village pump. - PeeJay 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I fear that the discussion might clog up the Village Pump. It might be better to post a notice at the village pump, pointing to the discussion. AecisBrievenbus 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Go ahead. - PeeJay 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Riurik(discuss) 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The final result can be seen here: WP:NC#Sports_teams. Again, thank you to everyone who participated.--Riurik(discuss) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Longterm football article vandal: article log

This is a section to notify the football community of counter productive, anti-football article vandalisms. Especially in regards to Italian football, but the this venemous defacer does not stop just there in trying to hold back progress of our articles. I feel this is incredibly unreasonable and unacceptable for this abuser to deface Wikipedia's football articles.

Any admin on hand will already know that this vandalism of our football articles is in violation of many behavioural guidelines and policies such as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in regards to productiveism, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and others, going against "Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia." As such his defacement should be reverted and santions put against him from editing football articles (his only contributions to them are to remove work).

Targets

Below are the articles with still active defacement and next to them links "Pre" is pre-vandal attack, "Post" is post-vandal attack.

Wrongly still deleted

The vandal has had many legitamate article wrongly deleted in an attempt to distrupt, these articles helped improve the quality of the encyclopedia, here is a list of still deleted that it is possible for an admin to undelete.

Articles

Images

  • Image:FiorentinaOldLogo.png - historic club logo with rationale, belongs at ACF Fiorentina.
  • Image:Bolton-Wanderers-FC-Logo.png - current logo of Bolton Wanderers F.C..
  • Image:LivornoCalcioBadg.png - current logo of A.S. Livorno Calcio, improval of current gif version
  • Image:LeicesterCityOldBadge.png - historic club logo with rationale, belongs at Leicester City F.C.
  • Image:LeedsUnitedAFCBadgeOld.png - historic club logo with rationale, belongs at Leeds United A.F.C.
  • Image:PruzzoRomaScudetto.jpg - highly significance player img, with full deep rationale, belongs at A.S. Roma
  • Image:ACMilanOldLogo.png - historic club logo with rationale, belongs at A.C. Milan
  • Image:WilliamChalmersNewcastle.jpg - with full rationale, only known image of William Chalmers (footballer)
  • Image:USDNovese.png - current logo of U.S.D. Novese improval of current messed up gif version

Redirects

Here is a collection of deleted redirects which were highly helpful as many of these are spelled wrong commonly, former names or aliases. The (r) is the article where they're supposed to be redirected to.

  • Redirects: Sligo Rovers Football Club (r); Drogheda United Football Club (r); Shamrock Rovers Football Club (r); Geza Kertesz (r); Geza Kertész (r); József Nagy (football coach) (r); Gyorgi Orth (r); Jorge Orth (r); Gyorgy Orth (r); Alen Stock (r); Egri Erbstein (r); Lajos Kovacs (r); Imre Senky (r); Adolfo Balonceri (r); Felsner Hermann (r); Ermanno Fellsner (r); Ermanno Felsner (r); Toni Cargnelli (r); Anton Cargnelli (r); Antonio Cargnelli (r); A.C. Vicenza (r); Serie A scandal (r); Siracusa Calcio 1924 (r); Fenebache (r); A.C. Cosenza (r); S.K. Victoria Wanderers (r); A.S. Roma statistics (r); St. Lawrence Spurs (r); Alzano Virescit F.C. (r); Stadio del Partito Nazionale Fascista (r)

There might be more but these are just the ones I caught, any ways, atleast now there is a list to fix all this defacement and so the football community knows. - The Aequitas (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I haven't got time at the moment to look through all that, but please could you refrain from using potentially offensive words such as "rape" to refer to edits...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I mean't blanked... forcibly took out without good reason. - The Aequitas (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Aequitas is another sockpuppet of banned user Daddy Kindsoul, and I thus blocked him. --Angelo (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the points he's raised though - for example, I just quickly checked and it's true that the Bolton Wanderers F.C. article has had the club badge removed.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Bolton page looks like it has been the subject of an edit war over to include a redlink to an image file. If the image has been deleted through proper process, removing the redlink would seem to make sense. I guess the real solution would be to create a properly licenced image file of the club badge, and use that. - fchd (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Bolton Wanderers logo wasn't a red-link at that time though, the (ab)user just decided to deleted it without going through any correct nominate process or anything like it.. it had complete rationales and everything needed.
He just trollishly deleted it as an attack on football work and then put a protection on the page to stop any workers improving the article by adding it back. All of the document logs put above are 100% truthful and anyone who goes to click a link next to them can see that I told the truth about this things. Any admin has the power to simply undelete these thing just as easy as the vandal wrongly deleted them, thats all thats needed to fix all of these. - Les Aequitas (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
These contents were reverted by User:Yamla in compliance with WP:BAN, which is official policy. He has the right to do so, and he did, with the intention to discourage this user from returning here. --Angelo (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

-Banned user's edits removed by Jéské (Blah v^_^v)

I don't see the problem with the edits being reverted back if they were valid. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
NOTE) More to it All (talk · contribs) has been blocked on behavior as a Daddy Kindsoul sock. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I was a witness to this situation unfolding, as far as I could see User:Soprani had only made positive contributions to this encyclopedia, he was blocked as a sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul and all of his edits rolled back, including the deletion of all the red links above and many more. Soprani had done a lot of work on Italian football, and also some counter vandalism, all of this was rolled back, in many cases reinserting vandalism and reviving poor edits. I was appalled at this at the time. Since then Soprani has repeatedly shot himself in the foot by creating so many sockpuppets to argue his case, but this still doesn't effect the fact that wikipedia is poorer for the deletion of Soprani's work. Sometimes I think that some of the Admins here are more concerned with strict adherence to every rule than the improvement of Wikipedia. I called for the deleted articles to be reinstated at the time, I still believe that they should be, but I don't suppose that means that they will be. King of the NorthEast 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification time

As with Euro 2008, this will no doubt need a lot of work. 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification Group A already exists, although will need moved to clarify that it is the UEFA section. That's if it shouldn't be deleted until Sunday. With this being the first time WC qualifying group articles will be created, how should they be titled, and should they follow roughly the same format as Euro 2008? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that they should be titled with the organisation name, because i believe that the AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, and UEFA all use multiple groups to decide the qualifiers, but if we are to follow previous campaigns for consistency, then we should just keep them all in one article, I think that we should also make it much neater than the older ones as well - 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) as well as the 2006 page. I am prepared to help with the 2010 qualification UEFA process, as well as any others that may find themseles neglected. As i am no longer a member of this Project, I do not have this page on watch, and would like to be notified of the result. - F9T 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should follow the same model as the Euro 2008 qualifiers, for Europe, at least. I suggest entitling the articles 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) - Group A, and so on. – PeeJay 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need seperate articles for every group in a region? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As per my point, that if we fail to reach consensus, then we need to keep it tidier than the previous campaigns pages (above.) F9T 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In reply to GiantSnowman — I don't see why we shouldn't have separate articles for each group in each region. It seems to have worked for the Euro 2008 qualifiers, so why not World Cup 2010? – PeeJay 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's worked for Euro 2008 then keep it for the World Cup, no problem! GiantSnowman (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My instinct would be to follow the same format as Euro 2008. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
But, can we all agree that it should be 2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (UEFA) Group A or group 1 depending on how FIFA draw it, I remember for the 2006 World Cup uefa was pool 1 2 3 etc. F9T 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would put a dash between "(UEFA)" and "Group A" in the article title, but, as usual, I'm sure that's just me. – PeeJay 11:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it should be 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA Group A), to be consistent with 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC First Round), etc. - MTC (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't like that naming style. I don't know who decided on it, but maybe we should consider moving 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC First Round) to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (AFC) - Round 1. – PeeJay 11:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, how about 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group A, etc? I don't like the look of "2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (UEFA) - Group A", as it seems the brackets should always come last if they are there at all and putting (UEFA) after Group A seems wrong too. - MTC (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks OK to me. – PeeJay 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. F9T 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that look like a consensus to me, so I've been bold and moved all 3 pages that have been created so far and fixed any double-redirects. - MTC (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What about the qualification pages for the other confederations? – PeeJay 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I reckon it should be consistent to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONFED Group X. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another one 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifcation Round 1 (CONCACAF). Matthew_hk tc 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Created this morning. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Offtopic, could someone changed below tree to two leg as Template:CoppaItalia-9TeamQtr?, it is nice for CONCACAF Round 1 and 2. Matthew_hk tc 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Group 1

Legs 1A

  Round 1 Round 2
                 
   
   
   
   

Legs 1B

Legs 1C

Legs 1D

List of countries that have never qualified for a major football tournament

A worthwhile list? Or not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty pointless. And surely will only get smaller till the list no longer exists. Peanut4 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The factual accuracy of the article is also questionable, as I know for a fact that Slovenia were at Euro 2000. – PeeJay 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus Venezuela have played at numerous Copa Americas. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, would Serbia count as never qualifying considering they were formerly Yugoslavia? Eddie6705 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, Serbia's record technically follows on from Yugoslavia's and Serbia & Montenegro's records. – PeeJay 23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed Malaysia, Guatemala and Venezuela from the list, as they have played at least once at the continental championships. AecisBrievenbus 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Zimbabwe have played in the African Nations Cup, Panama have played in the Gold Cup.... couldn't be bothered to check the rest after finding 2 innacuracies in the first 3 I checked. If the list is so inaccurate to begin with, is there any point in keeping it? King of the NorthEast 23:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And another thought: what do we do with the 1964 European Nations' Cup? Malta and Iceland played in the preliminary round, Albania reached the Round of 16 and Luxembourg reached the quarter finals. Do those matches count as the European Championship, or is that just the final tournament of Hungary, Denmark, Spain and the Soviet Union? AecisBrievenbus 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Being my usual assertive self, I've AFD'd it. Please take further discussion and opinion there. Good luck everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be a category, if even that. GiantSnowman (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it even deserves a category, tbh. – PeeJay 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers

Seems like an AFD that should interest you guys and should get more input from members of this wikiproject. Yonatan talk 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of FIFA trigrammes

What is everyone's opinion on using the FIFA trigrammes with the {{fb}} and {{flagicon}} templates? Personally, I prefer using them wherever possible, but I'd like to know where everyone else stands on the issue. Please view recent edits of 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) for examples of conflicting views. – PeeJay 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd definitely use the full country name where possible. There are two many different sets of trigrammes around (FIFA, IOC, ISO etc.), best in my opinion to keep it simple. - fchd (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what difference it makes to the appearance of pages anyway. Does it matter or is there something more subtle at work? Peanut4 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just had a disagreement with User:Jlsa about which to use at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF), etc. – PeeJay 15:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make any difference to the page, but I personally prefer using {{fb|ENG}} rather than {{fb|England}}. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil Cartwright

Would the article for Neil Cartwright have any indication for notability? I prodded it, which was removed by User:DJhinckley and posed the argument of him being Hinckley United's highest appearance holder, but I would say this isn't enough. I thought I'd see what people think here before AfDing it. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he's not notable enough. AfD please. – PeeJay 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the fact it's worth discussion, I've AFD'd it. Please carry on over there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

Any chance someone could please have a look at the 2010 FIFA World Cup article? User:Unschool has for some reason got quite indignant about the "future sport" tag being on the article, seemingly simply because they don't like it. They left a long message about it on the talk page and have now removed the tag. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about those tags could have a look at it?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony Pulis

Can someone take a look at the recent additions to this article. They are a lot more toned down than they were, but I'm still not sure they are NPOV. I've been sworn at for my efforts so will leave it alone. Regan123 (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got it resolved now, although I was intrigued to be told by the other editor involved that apparently telling someone to "f**k off" isn't being offensive. Maybe I'm just not down with how the kids speak nowadays...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ai it looks better now. Nice work. But it's actually getting quite sad and depressing how much abuse there is on here. It's nice and easy to be so abusive while anonymous behind a computer screen. C'est la vie I suppose. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Football_European_Cup.svg

a free version of the original

Do we need this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, it's quite essential for the Honours parameter in the National football team infobox.[/sarcasm] – PeeJay 12:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
These trophies look absolutely appalling. They beg the question 'Why' Peanut4 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the European Championship trophy doesn't look too bad. The Word Cup one, however, looks atrocious, and I agree that neither should be included on this website. – PeeJay 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you imagine what Man Utd, Barca or Juve for example, would look like if we had more trophies like this? Peanut4 (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
They look awful, there is no justification for adding such tacky looking pictures. The information is already there in the honours section's of the articles, the pictures are for purely decorative purposes. They should be binned ASAP before things get out of control. If they are allowed the pages that are going to be blighted the most are the most successful and important teams, AC Milan, Real Madrid, Liverpool etc. If people want to know the number of titles a team has won, I'm fairly sure that they don't need it in picture form. King of the NorthEast 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And where do you stop? Premier League trophy, FA Cup, League Cup, Johnstone's Paint Trophy, Play-off final trophy, Manager of the Month Trophy..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I made this image for the UEFA Euro 2008 article because of the copyright problem. Yes, the world cup version is awful, but it's temporary. If you don't like these pictures in the Honours parameters, I will remove them Jcer80 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Granted it's disappointing we can't have a picture of the trophy, but you don't "need" your image. The caption even says "New version of the Henri Delaunay Trophy". No it's not the new version, it's a pictorial representation. These images just look cheap and tacky, and the relevant pages also cheap and tacky. Fair play to trying to get a free image, but this isn't the way to do it, IMHO Peanut4 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that someone has spent time drawing this, but I'm afraid a drawn version of a cup adds nothing an encyclopaedia. There's no justification for using this in any articles, so far as I can see. - fchd (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's because the trophy has been changed from previous editions. I've removed it from other articles, but I think it's appropriate on the Euro 2008 article. Jcer80 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Such a pictorial representation is a derivative work anyhow. To take the case of the World Cup trophy, we have an image Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg for which the photograph is freely licensed, but in several countries the design of the trophy itself is copyrighted, making a properly free-use image – or pictogram – impossible. A situation where the law truly is an ass. The European trophy is likely to also fall into this category. (IANAL and all that) Oldelpaso (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. We have such images on the italian Wikipedia, so I thought it would have been a good idea to put this image here too... sorry for that --Jcer80 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A little help

Hi. Can anyone help straightening up this visual mess (from "First Round" section down)? I'm not sure of what happened there, since everything was perfectly aligned when I had last looked — the present code, which I had written, was working perfectly a few months back, but now it seems to be ineffective. Suddenly, the text and the images are overlapping, and it is proving somewhat difficult to get it to align correctly again. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code would be able to fix this quicker and better? Redux (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible to clean up, but is the subject matter really that important? It just seems to me like a "cut, paste and rearrange" job from the main 2006 FIFA World Cup articles. Most of the info can be garnered from there, or the CONMEBOL qualification page, so what's the point in this article, other than overspecification? – PeeJay 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair I think this is very similar to the likes of Middlesbrough F.C. season 2007-08 and gives more detail than would be appropriate at either the full world cup or world cup qualifying entries, particularly the World Cup preparation and the stats chart. And it puts both sections in one handy place. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's more like Denmark national football team season 2006, except it focuses on a single competition, rather than matches played in a particular year. The other advantage it has over the Denmark article is that it excludes all the friendly matches played by the Brazil team. – PeeJay 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

M69 Derby

A notable derby? Or not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard Coventry-Leicester referred to as a proper derby myself. I know the two cities are quite close to one another, but I wouldn't say it's a proper derby. – PeeJay 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple of sources for usage of the term, including this BBC story...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And this one? Better written but some contentious statements in it! "[Robert Earnshaw] was often taunted for being ugly by away fans." "Trundle took to the pitch wearing a t-shirt depicting a Swansea fan urinating on a Cardiff City shirt."--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Draft notability criteria

I have made some draft notability criteria for football players, football clubs, national football teams and football competitions. Several discussions on this page have made clear that this is a grey area at the moment. Please join the discussion about these criteria at User:Aecis/Notability criteria sandbox. AecisBrievenbus 11:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Trophy images

Seriously the three images above, do we need them? I have to say a very big no. Just look at Italy national football team to see how cheap and tacky they are. And what do they prove that the honours don't? Peanut4 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need them in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorising caretaker managers

If someone acts as caretaker manager of a club for one or two games, does anyone happen to know whether he should be included in Category: Clubname F.C. managers? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes, in a similar way to someone who plays even one game can be categorised in Category: Clubname F.C. players. In fact there's some players who are categorised in the players cat without even playing. Peanut4 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Manchester United F.C. managers FLC

Hey guys, any chance I could ask a few of you to comment on the above FLC? Only had two votes so far (both supporting), but I could do with some more, please. Cheers guys. – PeeJay 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits to Template:Infobox Football club

So I added proper documentation to this infobox and made the markup a bit prettier (along with ensuring that the template actually matched the documentation by enforcing mandatory fields), and twice it's been reverted on the ground that I have to beg the project to let me edit it. So here I am begging. Any objections to these changes? new version old version

Changes:

  1. Clubname is not mandatory. If not included, it will be inherited from the article title. This means it can be skipped if the article name matches the club name.
  2. All attributes marked as compulsory in the documentation are compulsory.
  3. Markup has been tidied and made consistent with other modern navboxes.
  4. Documentation has been moved to a sub-page, per modern convention.

Chris Cunningham 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me and seems a sensible way forward. Separate documentation is better in my opinion. Perhaps you could add a {{Intricate}} to the top of the page. I think the changes in markup look good. Woodym555 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would have a problem with you adding proper documentation, copyediting, and correcting any faults with the template, that's a laudable thing to do. However, the change you made to the way ground capacity is displayed is another matter. Reducing the font to a size which approaches unreadable for readers with less than perfect vision or those using a small screen is a change which shouldn't be made without prior discussion. Struway2 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see that, ironic isn't it, anyway i have removed the small caps now for accessibility reasons. Woodym555 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Struway2 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I reincluded the "mgrtitle" parameter which was suddendly removed with no explanation at all (very useful btw), and restored the venue capacity row, because it looked really weird that way. --Angelo 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Football biographies

Gavin Hoyte

I have seen that this article got undeleted, I'm not sure what for exactly, sitting on the bench 3 times or having a squad number. To me this guy still fails WP:BIO because he's never played in a fully professional league. I can't see how it is justifiable to allow players who have never made a single 1st team appearance just because they belong to a "big club" and ban articles on players who have played hundreds of games for professional clubs that happen to be in a league which includes a handful of semi-pro teams (Football Conference specifically). I really don't see why the rules suddenly got changed to allow this (without discussion here), when the main, recurring complaint about our notablity criteria is that they lead to the deletion of professional, Conference players who have actually played at the national level of the league structure, not that it cuts out articles about 17 year old reserves who have never played a game. Any comments? King of the North East (T/C) 10:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I see your point and entirely agree. That has been my yardstick too. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 10:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this got undeleted after the campaign to keep Paul Rodgers (footballer). It's purely a crystal ball to say he will play soon for Arsenal or another club and then be notable cos that ain't necessarily going to happen. Peanut4 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But whether they've played is (in the short term) not the be-all and end-all. These people are in Champions League squads, and as such they're going to be listed in a lot of major publications, and people are going to want to find information about them. If this application of WP:BIO is making Champions League squads incomplete, then it is self-defeating. Perhaps the criteria needs to be expanded on, to formalise all this accepted consensus? (See also the allowing of internationals) ArtVandelay13 12:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that if we are going to change the notabilility critera, we should change it to say "has played for a fully professional team at national level" not "has never played a game, but is included in a champions league team's navbox and must be included to avoid ugly redlinks". These kids have never played a game, how can they be notable until they have done so? As far as I can see, these articles fail both WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL and whichever admin allowed their recreation or survival did so by ignoring these criteria. Your claim of "accepted consensus" is invalidated by the three preceeding comments who all show reservations about these kind of inclusions. If we are to change the criteria, it should be debated here, not forced through a Deletion review or AfD by weight of numbers then used as a precident. King of the North East (T/C) 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It must be pointed out that the oft-quoted "must have played in a professional league" thing from WP:BIO is filed under additional criteria. Hoyte meets the basic criteria at WP:BIO and also the overall criteria at WP:N and, unlike many articles that are contentious, actually has sources which show his notability. In my experience the WP:BIO professional card can only be played if there are no refs at all, as in some cases just one source can prove notability. 86.21.74.40 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still would argue that the past consensus (if there ever was one) that notability required professional league appearences has disappeared, a requirement that never was absolute on WP:BIO anyway. I think the rationale for changing the notability policy is that the construed requirement of (any) professional league appearence was incompatible with the general (non-Wiki) notion of notability. I think the argument for scrapping the absolute requirement of professional league football is roughly why shouldn't a youth international on the fringe of the first team of a club like Arsenal or Barcelona, possibly signed for millions of pounds, and already attracting a lot of media attention, not be notable when a player who have made one appearence in League 2 is? As for Peanut4, I think you miss the point - the rationale for undeleting Gavin Hoyte wasn't crystal balling he would soon meet the (now obsolete) league appearence requirement, but rather asserting notability regardless of his lack of league football. To catch up on the discussion, see AfD:Paul Rodgers (footballer) and AfD:Curtis Osano. I, however, sense the need for discussing the resent change of approach to WP:BIO on WPF/Notability. If the old consensus has fallen, perhaps we need to come up with a new one? Sebisthlm 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Osano was a different case, as he made a FA Cup presence with his team. I still feel that footballers with no professional appearances generally fail WP:N, because all the available information is usually given by their name, nationality(-ies), club and birth date. This is quite not enough information to start a serious Wikipedia article. Let me also note that notability is not temporary: what if a guy who only managed to achieve a first team jersey, with no appearances with his club, decides to retire from football and start an anonymous software developer's career? --Angelo 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't notability be temporary, in these cases? If they get released and don't join a league club, then they can be prod'ed. I've deleted loads of released players this summer after they haven't joined league clubs. This method seems to work fine. ArtVandelay13 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
@Angelo: If he also had been a youth international and member of a CL squad of a team like Arsenal, I think that would be notable! The point of AfD:Paul Rodgers isn't that any player given a first team jersey automatically is notable (I agree that most footballers without league appearences isn't notable), but that it is clear that there isn't a consensus on the absolute requirement of professional league football (wich also was shown in AfD:Curtis Osano, even if I agree that that case was slightly different). Sebisthlm 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the Paul Rodgers AfD I find the hypocrisy unbelievable. How many professional Conference players have been deleted because they have not played in a fully professional league, but then it is stated in as an argument to keep Rogers that has played a professional game, a friendly against Barnet which is not a professional league. Another Keep comment read "There is no doubt that Rodgers will, within the next year at least, play football in a professional league", if that isn't WP:CRYSTAL I don't know what is. As a supporter of a Champions league team and a Conference team I find it ridiculous that one of the "big team" youth players who has never played a 1st team game suddenly deserves an article, when a professional with years of experience, playing in front of thousands every week at national level for a professional club, in front of live TV audiences doesn't. It seems that the football notability criteria are now just a tool for the fans of larger clubs to deny articles about players for smaller clubs, which are then conveniently ignored or bypassed when their teams page includes a redlink. King of the North East (T/C) 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Both of the arguments you quote are wrong, but the actual reason for keeping Rodgers is compelling. You're wrong to think that there's any sort of agenda at work, and you're wrong to think that Rodgers' notability as opposed to Conference players is hypocrisy - the reasons for notability are dfiferent, therefore it's an unrelated issue. There has to be a cut off point, and the end of league football is the most sensible one. It's not like the current rules are restrictive, they allow for thousands of players, including about 60-70% of the Conference. But as I say, this is kind of an unrelated issue, and one that we've been through before. ArtVandelay13 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong words King! Hypocracy? Do you really think that it is hypocratic to think that notability rely to some extent on what level of football a player is playing? I would say that saying a Conference youth player is equally notable as an Arsenal youth player and youth international is hypocracy. I would also say that it's hypocracy to say that one appearence in League 2 is equally notable as an appearence in the PL or WC final, wich is what the strict criteria of professional league football was saying. Since it seems we are walking away from this criteria, why couldn't a player with hundreds of Conference games be notable? Sebisthlm 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think my use of the word hypocracy has been misunderstood here, I definately don't think its hypocritical to think that notability relies on the level of football. I think its hypocritical to bin dozens of articles citing Wp:BIO and notability criteria, then bypass it when it stands in the way of someone who clearly fails. Answering AV13, I think that a much more sensible approach is to cut off below national level, since most of the league structures around the world don't really have a league-conference divide, but principally because we shouldn't be so anglo-centric and define the criteria around the English football league.King of the North East (T/C) 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the criteria should be spelled out beyond English football, but I don't think national/regional is the way to go, we are the only country to have national leagues down to level five, and to apply that would cut out players from other countries who are far more notable than most in the conference (it's usually the 3rd level that is regionalised, sometimes even the 2nd or even the top flight). So national/regional isn't a reliable gauge of notability, it has to be based on quality, and there should be a clear divide. The FL to the Conference is a much clearer divide than the Conference National to Regional. ArtVandelay13 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking the "appearance in a fully professional league" rule too seriously can lead to ridiculous situations - if Hoyte had walked on the pitch in the 93rd minute and 10 seconds later the whistle went with him having not touched the ball, this would have suddenly lifted him above the threshold and we would not be having this discussion - even though he would have done nothing at all substantial. Furthermore, I agree with ArtVandelay13 - if a player is named in a first-team squad people are going to want to find out about him and Wikipedia is a natural place to look up that information - it is ridiculous to have a red link among all those blue ones, just because he hasn't played a game yet. Regardless, the circumstances under which he was originally deleted (as an Academy player well outside of the first team) are now very different (a professional player selected for not just the League Cup, but an FA Cup match) and a reconsideration of the decision was in my view. Qwghlm 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note again that the "appearance in fully professional league" thing isn't a rule. As stated in WP:BIO - "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This very statement has been used in the past to overturn deletion votes at AFD. I would imagine this was the thinking behind the draft criteria at WPF:Notability stating "It is generally accepted that Players, Managers and Referees who have not participated in a fully professional domestic league are not notable, however notability can still be shown as per the general notability criteria. The article might not be deleted if adequate proof of notability has been provided." 86.21.74.40 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we do need to clarify the criteria. As far as I can tell, a player is notable if he:

  • Has played in the Premier or Football League (or equivalent - may need to be defined for individual countries)
  • Has played in the Football League Cup
  • Has played in the FA Cup for a (Premier League?/Football League?) team
  • Has played in the Football League Trophy (?)
  • Has played in a Continental (or Intercontinental) competition
  • Has played senior international football
  • Has been in a World Cup squad
  • Has played in the Olympic Football Tournament (finals)
  • Is a first team squad member at a (Champions League?/Premier League?/Football League?) team (defined as having a squad number)

--ArtVandelay13 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still strongly opposed to amending the notability criteria to include players who have done nothing more that get a squad number if it is still used to block fully professional players at national levels of competition. I know the Conference issue has been discussed before, with no consensus and the status quo was kept. Since we are amending the notability criteria now, I hope we can come up with something simple like:
  • Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure or in the FA Cup.
  • Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.
  • Has played in a Continental (or Intercontinental) competition.
  • Has been included in a squad (squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or for a senior international team.

--King of the North East (T/C) 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How many clubs are fully professional and furthermore, how many players in the Conference are actually employed as professionals? I ask this out of genuine curiosity, as the gates of many Conference clubs [17] to me look like they cannot support a full team of professionals. I would be genuinely interested, because at the moment the picture is unclear. Qwghlm 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think at least 2/3 of Conference teams are professional now.
As far as I'm aware most of the clubs are professional barring a few semi-pro teams who have been recently promoted, like Farsley Celtic. Even though there are semi-pro teams in the league I don't really see Farsley Celtic having anything to do with whether Oxford United or Torquay United players meet the notability criteria. Imagine the unlikely event that Farsley get promoted to League 2, do we then delete every player who has failed to play above that level because it is no longer a fully professional league? What if a league 2 team decides to go semi-pro to avoid bankruptcy? King of the North East (T/C) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why the 'fully professional' thing is a bit of a misnomer - the First Division used to have amateur players, the important thing is that the league is [i]nominally[/i] professional - which the Conference isn't. Also, while professionalism is important, it shouldn't be the ultimate factor - ultimately, the cut off point needs to be the standard, football has very objective levels of 'quality', the cut-off point needs to be between these. The drop fron League to non-league is the most sensible place for this. ArtVandelay13 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Having just done a quick check I can only find evidence that nine (Aldershot, Cambridge United, Crawley, Exeter, Oxford United, Rushden & Diamonds, Torquay, Woking and York City) clubs in the Conference are currently professional - just over 1/3. There may be more but as it stands it does not give the impression of a largely professional division. Qwghlm 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ebbsfleet, FGR, Grays, Halifax, Kidderminster, Stevenage and Weymouth are all pro too as far as I am aware, making the total 16/24. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting the information from that these club's are professional? Mattythewhite 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Mostly from memory, stuff I've read over the last couple of years. Gravesend [18] and Weymouth [19] turned pro a couple of years ago, Kidderminster and Halifax have not lost their pro status since being relegated from the league. Stevenage and Grays [20] have been pro for a while, and FGR were the latest to make the step up change. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a red herring anyway; even if the Conference was fully professional, the difference between league and non-league is a big deal; in the public consciousness; in the media, and in books, such as football records. ArtVandelay13 18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quibbles with King of the North East's suggestion:
  1. I can see a catch in the new criteria. Truro City are (as far as I can tell) now a professional club. Although they play in the Western Football League (four divisions below the lowest national league - the Football Conference), they still take part in the FA Cup. Would the new criteria therefore make TCFC players eligible for an article (either at present, or if the club reaches the 1st round of the cup)? Even if I am mistaken in my belief that Truro have turne pro, there are still some professional clubs below the conference to whose players this could apply.
  2. I wouldn't say being called up to the squad of an senior international team (e.g. Liechtenstein) makes someone notable - I would prefer to keep it to appearences only at international level.
пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Good points, for the FA Cup, I meant to allow the inclusion of players like AfD:Curtis Osano, perhaps I should have worded it better:
  • Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure or represented that club in the FA Cup or League Cup.
The Lichtenstein argument is a difficult one to resolve because if we are assuming that people want to know the kid on the bench of their champions League opponents, then maybe they want to know about the kid on the bench next England play Liechtenstein. King of the North East (T/C) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a good point this because you could roll it out over and over again when a league team plays some non-league team and wants to know about each squad member. Peanut4 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, because the FA Cup is a much more open competition than the UEFA Champions League, or the World Cup qualifying campaign. Borth of those would represent a fairly tight notability criteria, while the FA Cup wouldn't. ArtVandelay13 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "more open" but if say Chasetown got through to play Man Utd, or Threave did Celtic in Scotland, you could argue you wanted to look up their players. To use an argument that if England play Liechenstein, then we need Liechenstein international players is a little flawed. Though I agree about the tightness of your notability criteria for CL or internationals over FA Cup, etc. Peanut4 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
More open as in open to more teams, and by definition including less notable teams. There's no reason why one notability criteria can't apply to one competition and not the other (any useful notablilty criteria in football will do that) provided that there are objective differences between the two; and the relative 'eliteness' of the Champions League/International football/etc as opposed to the FA Cup provides that. ArtVandelay13 17:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I would pretty much agree with that. Though I reckon Chasetown players would become more notable if they did manage to draw Man U in the third round and the inevitable TV slot than some Liechenstein internationals against even England. This is all completely hypothetical mind. Peanut4 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference in that Liechtenstein are always going to play England, or someone of similar stature, whereas Chasetown are one of hundreds of clusb that might, and in your example, just happened to. The criteria is less concrete. ArtVandelay13 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the eliteness is the point, if we are to allow non-playing players we should restrict them to only those players that don't play at the very highest level:-). World Cup & Euro Cup, World Club Cup, Champions League, Copa Libertadores.King of the North East (T/C) 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with coming up with any notability criteria is that it can't be more restrictive that WP:N, we can witter on about different leagues and levels until we're blue in the face but the ultimate criteria is still "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If an article has no sources that prove notability then it's a candidate for deletion. As the conference/non-league football now has a couple of newspapers devoted to it, sourcing articles to show notability shouldn't be too hard. As I see it, any criteria such as the one above is only useful in the cases where the article itself has not shown any notability or is unsourced, the criteria say "well this should be notable if only someone had bothered to add in the required info" or "this probably isn't notable, and since we have no information to the contrary, it shouldn't be here". You can come up with nuances and refine things down as far as you want, but ultimately if it meets WP:N, it's notable. NB. WP:BLP requires sources as well. 86.21.74.40 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is a guideline, and not a policy (as stated in the page, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"). I doubt it's notable as well to be a Liechtenstein international, who often plays football in his freetime (I still remember of the Italian press covering the Faroe Islands team because of the fact many of their players were actually carpenters, and then footballers); in any case, let me note that all international footballers from mid-level and high-level national teams, and many from low-level ones, are professional footballers as well. Either way, if you agree with WP:N, you must agree as well that notability is not temporary, because it's part of it. UEFA Champions League teams, in case you don't know, are obliged to include a minimum number of players coming from the team's youth system. As many of these teams actually have some trouble in finding good players who were promoted from the youth system, they are forced to include a number of youth team players knowing they will never be featured in the first team (for instance, S.S. Lazio recently included Cesare Previti's son in their list, a 18-year-old guy who is not even featured in the official first team squad published on the club website). I don't even want to talk about youth internationals, which often include players who quit football before actually entering a first team. --Angelo 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on the champions league issue, but the fact is that a few articles have crept through using their CL squad number as a means of bypassing the normal notablity guidelines. Whatever happens from now these articles will be paraded as having set a precident so we need to nail it shut before we get every 9 year old youth team player clogging up their clubs player categories. If it were up to me I'd say they need to have played a game, others clearly disagree, but surely we need to set limits on it because as soon as one 9yr old apprentice gets let through, loads of people will want to include their club's too. Imagine the prestige of creating the next Wayne Rooney's Wikipedia entry when he was only 3, then you could say you know a good footballer when you see one.King of the North East (T/C) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My problem with creating entries for those with CL squad numbers is because those under 18 (at least I think it's 18) get a free place and don't count towards the 25. And someone also suggested that you have to have a certain amount of national-based players. For Wenger with a squad packed with foreigners, it's an easy way of making up the numbers. Yes they may play when Arsenal are through with one or two games left to play, but I'm not sure these players are simply in the squad on football merits alone. Peanut4 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Get a free place"? You make it sound like they got it in a raffle. In Arsenal's case Lansbury and Hoyte and played for England in the U-17 World Cup (along with Rhys Murphy), while Randall, Rodgers and Gibbs have also played for their country at U-17 and U-18 level, and a nearly all-English Arsenal U18 side got to the FA Youth Cup semi-finals last season. Hardly the mark of substandard players picked to make up the numbers. Qwghlm 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer KOTN, the criteria of squad numbers keeps notability way, way above 9-year old future stars, and, to answer Peanut, it keeps it above just any youth team player. Clubs don't give numbers to every youth player above the age of 18, it's usually only players expected to make the squad in the near future; subsequent players get numbers when they do. So while there's no onus for club's to register U-18s in their CL squad, nor is there to give them a number until they play. Liverpool, for example, have loads of players from 16-20 with no number. There is a clear difference in notability here. ArtVandelay13 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry for exagerrating, but unless we come up with some clear guidance on which non-playing players are notable we will end up with dozens and dozens of kids with squad numbers and no playing experience cluttering up the club player categories. When people look in Category:Templeton F.C. footballers, they expect to find players who have played football for the team, not kids who may or may not go on to play for the team, or players that once sat on the bench or had a squad number but are now bricklayers, computer programmers or whatever. If we allow it for Liverpool youth players, Birmingham fans will will want their youth team players, then West Brom, then Port Vale then Mansfield. I've got nothing against any of these clubs, but an encyclopaedia is not the place for articles about reserve team players who have not played, and may never play a game for their club.King of the North East (T/C) 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If the problem is cluttering up the player categories, why don't we just wait to put them in the categories until they have debuted? Sebisthlm 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Christ, not this again. We've been through this so many times, but consensus is against you. Players = contracted players, you don't hav to play first team football. We've been through this so many times, and it's a separate issue, completely irrelevant to this - no club's players' category is overcrowded; most of us are trying to populate them. With the rest of your point, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a cut-off point for whose non-playing players are included, as has been mentioned throughout this discussion. Christ, WP:Football is maddening at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this thread has gone a roundabout way to discussing notability backwards and forwards 3 or else 4 times. However correct me if I'm wrong in saying notability is permanent, once you've got it, you keep it. Secondly if this guy never manages to get a first-team game would he be notable? If yes, keep him; if no, surely we delete for now under my assumption about the permanence of notability. Or am I wrong in reaching that assumption? And in deciding whether he's notable or not, we need to standardise the guidelines (and ensure we realise they're guidelines and not rules). Peanut4 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, I don't see why notability can't be temporary. I deleted several players who lost their notability this summer, it wasn't a problem. ArtVandelay13 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why. --Angelo 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
But (a) that's a guideline not a rule; (b) and the way it's written seems to apply to minor news stories, and this is a different issue. You've got to consider what is useful, and apply WP:IGNORE here. ArtVandelay13 10:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in full support of King of the North East's notability guideline suggestions here (though I would add League Cup appearances to his first bullet point). So how do we get them installed as proper, official guidelines? - PeeJay 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested criteria

My suggested criteria, amended as per suggestions. Please state whether you support or oppose the proposed criteria, or state any suggested improvements.
  • Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure or in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) for a fully professional club playing at national level.
  • Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.
  • Has played in a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.
  • Has been included in a squad (squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or the World Club Championships.
  • Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in a World Cup/Continental Cup qualifier or the final stages of such tourmaments.

--King of the North East (T/C) 02:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - I fully agree with those criteria. They are completely unambiguous, and set a great standard for the types of articles we should be including. Compare the league systems of England and Wales, if you will — England's national league system extends down to the Conference National, allowing for the inclusion of articles for players from teams like Oxford United, Torquay United and York City, who until recently were Football League teams. In Wales, however, the national league system only covers the League of Wales, whose players are barely notable. Perfect, IMO. - PeeJay 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I go with that too. How about also adding 'Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a club in a country's top division.'? Peanut4 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A problem with that is the vast disparity between English Premier or La Liga and Welsh Premier or Armenian Premier League. Another reason I think were better off without it, is because unlike the Champions League or La Liga, there are no limits on the number of squad numbers handed out in the English Premier league. King of the North East (T/C) 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As soon as I suggested it I started to have second thoughts. Your reasoning backs them up so I'll more than concede. Peanut4 10:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do these rules establish notability once and forever? I mean, what if a 16-year-old guy is awarded a UEFA Champions League jersey number, then fails to play a match and retires without to play a single match? --Angelo 03:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support With the caveat that articles on players who get a Champions League squad number, but then disappear from the professional game without actually every playing in a major competition, are later deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd broadly support it but with both Peanut and #57's caveats. I also think we should spell out (per country) which specific leagues are notable - catch-all terms like 'professional' and 'national' create anomalies, but for inclusion and exclusion. Spelling it out also solves the problem with Peanut's point. ArtVandelay13 11:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
O.K so if we treat non-players as special exeptions who are not to be included in the clubs players category and subject to deletion if they do not otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion. How long should we give them to actually play a game?
The other potential criteria for inclusion which was raised by Peanut and supported by AV13 of allowing the non-playing exeptions for some top flight leagues. I'm still against it, but if there is enough support for it and we absolutely have to allow them would be for top flight leagues in these countries:
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
  • England
  • France?
  • Germany
  • Holland?
  • Italy
  • Mexico?
  • Portugal?
  • Scotland?
  • Spain
Assuming we allowed non-playing players for all of the teams in these leagues, we would have 200 clubs worth of non-players to keep under review, added onto the participants of the continental cup competitions (64 for South America & Europe). Perhaps this task could be made easier with a talk page category like Cat:Footballers under review, which could be removed once they fully meet the notability criteria. If an article is in there for 12 months? 18 months? 24 months after it's creation? It should be deleted. How does that sound? King of the North East (T/C) 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No thanks, let's not begin creating exemptions. They are non-neutral by definition, and don't solve the problem. Better applying the previously proposed rules in this case. --Angelo 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure I support my previous idea. I don't entire support those in CL squads who haven't played either but that's another matter and if others do I won't make anything of it. I'd just go with your initial idea KotNE. Peanut4 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I should add that I was suggesting a country-by-country list for players as well as non players; i.e. which level is notable for each country, e.g.:
Country Notability Threshold Level
Flag of England England League 2 4
Flag of Germany Germany Regionalliga 3
Flag of the Netherlands Netherlands Eerste Divisie 2
Flag of France France Ligue National 3
etc. ArtVandelay13 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy for us to bin the idea of allowing the inclusion of non-players with squad numbers. If it is to be allowed I believe it should only be for the very highest level of continental club football or international football, subject to deletion if they fail to meet any of the other criteria within 1 year(?) of creation. As for the Conference, it seems that most people are indifferent to, or support allowing players that have played for fully professional clubs at that level. If we stick with the "played professionally at national level" criteria, and then spell out any exceptions for regionalised leagues (potentially applicable for Spain, Germany or Italy) in the small print.King of the North East (T/C) 12:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Support I fully agree with the criteria outlined above by KotNE. Might I also suggest the inclusion of players who have represented their country at semi-professional level (England C and the equivalent teams for the other home nations and suchlike). Invariably players capped at this level are already full-time at fully professional Conference clubs. Bigmike 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep hammering on about this, so far 4 support (myself, Peejay, 57 & Bigmike) 2 broadly support (AV13, Angelo) and 0 oppose the following criteria. I hope you agree this is a fair reading of the responses so far. I believe we need more responses to call this a consensus, come on guys, have your say.

  • Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure or in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) for a fully professional club playing at national level.
  • Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.
  • Has played in a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.
  • Has been included in a squad (squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or the World Club Championships.
  • Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in a World Cup/Continental Cup qualifier or the final stages of such tourmaments.

Opinion seems to favour this caveat:

  • Non-playing squad members are subject to deletion if they fail to fulfil any of the other criteria (by the following season?).

--King of the North East (T/C) 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the first three crtieria, though wouldn't give full support to those who simply have a squad number unless they have other criteria which can back up their notoriety, though the proviso about being subject to deletion makes it more favourable. Peanut4 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would perhaps say "before the end of the current season", rather than "by the following season" in the caveat. I know it effectively means the same thing, but I think the former sounds a little better. - PeeJay 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- I agree completely with these criteria, also agree with Bigmike's suggestion about semi-pro internationals. Simon KHFC 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support With the caveat, before the end of the current season. Should we not advertise this a bit more. Perhaps the Biography project at least. We would get more opinions and a more valid consensus. Woodym555 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    I have left notes at the main biography project and at the sports and games task force. Woodym555 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, by all means go for it. King of the North East (T/C) 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have contacted everyone who has contributed to this debate, who has yet to comment on the proposed criteria, seeking their contributions. King of the North East (T/C) 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Coming from the Biography project, I think it should be noted that if a player were to qualify for an article based on general WP:BIO guidelines, regardless of what level he played add, he would still qualify for inclusion. Semipro players might later become heads of government or something similar which clearly establishes their notability. Other than that one proviso, however, I can't see any objections to the proposed criteria and support them. John Carter 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Something like: These criteria are not independent from the standard WP:BIO guidelines and any subsequent acts, such as manager of a team, taking a position of Government, may by itself make the person noteworthy. (or words to that effect). Woodym555 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still a bit concerned on finding out which Conference National clubs are professional. It's not really information which gets advertised, so is hard to find. Mattythewhite 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that's my main concern too, I can see lots of articles springing up on Conference players which, if challenged, get defended by editors saying "but their club is definitely professional", based on something they heard from someone down the pub or read somewhere but can't remember where..... ChrisTheDude 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Until we can make a definite list of club's which are professional, which can be backed up by recent sources. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason as User:Mattythewhite. If you think it is difficult establishing it now, think back in time. Were Kidderminster Harriers fully pro in 1998-99 for example? - fchd (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, I stopped checking this discussion for a while, and now I see you've put in a lot of thought and work into reaching a consensus of a notability criteria. Good work guys! However, since I'm the one who thinks youth internationals are (if they play for a big country) more notable than some player playing a couple of League 2 games, I must be a pain in the ass and come with a few suggestions this late...

For non-players, they can still be notable if they are contracted to a first division team (or have a squad number?) of major league (those suggetsed above) - and

  • has played for any of the 'big' (those with the big leagues) youth international teams or in a big youth international finals competition for a smaller country. or
  • has been transfered to the club for a substantial sum or leading to substantial independent publicity. or
  • has been named in a continental club competition squad (e.g. CL) (and sat on the bench?) or
  • has recieved substantial independent publicity.

(I came up with these suggestions on the top of my head so they might need some tweaking...)

As for conference players (and as a non-English I would include League 2 (and possibly 1?)) and other players in a notable semi-professional or amateur league, instead of playing a single game - count seasons. A season is accrued if a player has played in more than half of the season's league games (NHL style). Sebisthlm 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Not Conference - One point I feel firm about is not including players who have not played above the Conference. TerriersFan 11:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And why is that? - PeeJay 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Because it is a clear dividing line between League football that is widely considered notable and the Conference that gains significantly less national media coverage. Further, though the Conference is mostly full-time professional it is not fully so. TerriersFan 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It is being argued that there is a clear dividing line between Conference and Conference North&South, as the dividing line between the national level of football in England and the regional levels. The conference receives a reasonable amount of media coverage in England at least. Conference games are broadcast live on two dedicated sports channels, I am fairly sure that there are actually more live televised Conference games per season than League 2 games. BBC Final Score and Sky Sports News give details of Conference scorers, results and league tables on national TV. The BBC Sport website includes club profiles for Conference teams, making the national level of football their cut-off point. There are also a number of reliable news sources for Conference football.King of the NorthEast 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with KotNE - the Conference has a decent amount of coverage - the BBC sport website has dedicated pages for each of its teams. The facts that there are so many former FL clubs in the conference now, the majority of clubs in the division are professional, and that many of them get higher crowds that League One/Two clubs (or even the Championship last season - Oxford's were higher than Colchester's), means that the line between League and non-League has been considerably blurred. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreeing as well - the Conference even has a few weekly newspapers now (including Nonleague Today and The Non League Paper). Sourcing shouldn't be a problem. 86.21.74.40 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why Olympic Games? - I should like to query this criterion. Some countries send a full senior squad but others use the Games to provide practice for, for example, youth players. Since we already have inclusion for full internationals do we need to include this? In most sports the Olympic Games is the pinnacle but it is not in football. TerriersFan 11:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, no nations send full senior sides to the Olympic football tournament as it is against the rules of the tournament itself. The football event at the Olympics is an Under-23 event, with the allowance for up to two (or three) players over the age of 23. - PeeJay 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It's still an extremely major event, though, even if in footballing terms it's relatively insignificant. It's enough of a distinction and gets enough media coverage to be notable. ArtVandelay13 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • We need to have regard to its status within this sport and in that context it is not a major event. TerriersFan 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with PeeJay. The Olympics may not be a major football tournament but it's the biggest sporting event on the planet. Anyone who plays in the Olympics is surely worthy of an entry. Peanut4 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics has consensus that anybody who competed at any Olympic Games satisfies notability criteria for athletes, and football players would not be an exception to that. Andrwsc 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I popose that we add the following caveats to the criteria set out above.

  • Non-playing squad members are subject to deletion if they fail to fulfil any of the other criteria by the end of the current season.
  • Footballers can assert notability through their achievements off the pitch (becoming politicians or celebrity chefs for example)

--King of the NorthEast 11:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. Notability is not temporary, and not even cumulative. If a non-notable player becomes a MP, he is notable as a politician, not as a footballer. --Angelo (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Its not like someone would nominate Pavarotti or Pope John Paul II (to choose two over-the-top examples) for deletion because they didn't play in a professional league. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

Is Template:Rangers f.c. reserve squad really notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tfds such as Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_16#Template:Chelsea_F.C._Reserves_squad and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3#Template:Arsenal_F.C._Reserves_Squad would suggest not. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In short, no. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In which case, should it not be "Prodded"? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can PROD a template, can you? It has to go through TfD..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, take it to WP:TFD. Prods are for articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - see log --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Club naming convention

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Naming convention for sports teams is drawing towards its conclusion if anyone fancies making an input. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Football World Cup.svg

Without meaning any disrespect to the image's creator, did anyone else laugh their arse off when they saw this image (assuming you've seen it)? I mean, it's not terrible as a free alternative to an image of the actual FIFA World Cup, but surely we can do a bit better. – PeeJay 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's not as bad as Skinner and Baddiel's version. Though I reckon it comes close ;-) Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I've not seen Baddiel & Skinner's version. Got a link, mate? – PeeJay 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it - maybe on YouTube somewhere (I will look). But from recollection, Frank put a melon or something in his hand and then dipped his arm in a bowl of custard. Classic Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Result. Found one. [21] Peanut4 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha, that's quality. Actually, I think I remember seeing that at the time :-D – PeeJay 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Though what's worse is the pages it's linked on. Those 5 stupid trophies beneath Brazil's badge. Not to mention half the teams with one of the those trophies won the Jules Rimet anyway. Get rid pronto. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. – PeeJay 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to make a better version as soon as possible. But you can't remove images just after half a hour of discussion Jcer80 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rimet trophy image added. Jcer80 (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these images are good because they depict which trophy each country won, now that they made a Jules Rimet Trophy image. And no I didn't laugh my "arse" off when I saw them. The creator did a pretty good job on these images. --MicroX 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anwar Uddin

Anwar Uddin's article claims that he has played internationally for the Bangladesh national football team, and the national team article also lists him as a 'famous player'. I haven't been able to find any sources to back this up, the closest I could find was this article from kickitout.org where he says that he would consider playing for them. Does anyone out there have enough knowledge of Bangladeshi football to find out whether he has been capped or not? — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 12:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This site says he is the only Bangladeshi football player in the UK, but not if he played for them or not...GiantSnowman (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the claim from the article, as the infobox says his international career began in 2002 and the kickitout article above was dated 2007. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, maybe add the article to you watchlist to make sure no-one reverts your edits? GiantSnowman (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TFD

Another non-World Cup squad template nominated for deletion --> here. - Darwinek 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/FIFA World Cup

Hi you may want to look at this and comment. Thanks This is a Secret account 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

Using {{fb|Ireland}} gives Flag of Ireland Ireland, however looking at MOS:FLAGS this would seem to be a breach of the section "Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins", does anyone know where the use of the St.Patrick's Soltaire comes from in relation to Irish Soccer? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to me to be historical, referring to the old Ireland national team which is always represented with the St Patrick's Saltire. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that is exactly what I was after, do you have a reference? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This page and the links on it provide some context. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I had looked at these pages, which on the whole use the soltaire, however, it was more a reference along the lines of WP:Verify I was after, I had mentioned this at Talk:Northern_Ireland_national_football_team#MOS:FLAG, but without a response Fasach Nua (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be blue murder to find, but if you accept that in 1882 the England squad flew a Cross of St. George, the Scottish squad the Cross of St. Andrew, then the Irish squad would have flown the Cross of St. Patrick. It's really no big deal. Easiest and simplest way might be to email the IFA. That would on first sight be OR, but has been used sometimes in the past.

Painful stuff, but I'll keep looking. Anybody, know of any old images of pre-1952 Irish national football teams (non-Free State) - we can try looking in the background for what flags might be fluttering overhead. --sony-youthpléigh 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They flew the union flag, but my understanding was, that was used to represent the competition, not the actual team, I am uncovinced anything was used, but I dont know for sure Fasach Nua (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the place to begin then - when did England and Scotland start flying their own flags? --sony-youthpléigh 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if other associations did it, it doesn't mean the Irish did, and even if they did fly a flag, there is no guarantee that it was the St.Patricks soltaire, there were plenty of other flags to choose from (even more back then than now) Fasach Nua (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The question of which flags to use for Irish national football teams were discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Football aliases for Ireland. I remember thinking they made the right decision at the time. - MTC (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the title should have referred to Ireland national football team (IFA) (not Northern Ireland national football team as it did i.e. 1953 onwards). I've fixed it. What consequence does this debate have for Ireland national football team (FAI)? Is there any like evidience for the use of the tricolour by the southern association prior to the 1953 split, or should that be removed also as being unfouded? --sony-youthpléigh 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the use look at the evidence and refer to MOS:FLAG and WP:Verify. Im sure you are more familiar with the topic of the Southern autonomy than I am, and are capable of working out the consequences (if any) for yourself Fasach Nua (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The "consequences" are no more than good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander type stuff. If one has to be removed for being unsourced then the other has to be removed for the same reason. The magic bean grows fast in the six counties, I know, but how far are you willing to push this one? --sony-youthpléigh 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The must be some basis for the use of this flag, the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Football aliases for Ireland seemed to choose the flag on the basis of neutrality, WP is not about rewriting history, but should be about documenting it. Why use this flag and not , or . If a reference could be found, I would be happy, but it is inappropriate to dress something up as being encyclopedic if there is nothing to back it up. Fasach Nua (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the {{fb}} template used the flag of the nation represented by the football team, which is not necessarily the same as the flag that the team displays at matches. If this is the case, then surely the saltire (NOT "soltaire"!) is the correct flag to use here. – PeeJay 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost always true, for all of the national sport team templates ({{fb}}, {{ru}}, {{bk}}, {{cr}}, {{ih}}, etc.) but there are several exceptions. Certainly the all-Ireland teams are atypical cases, and the Chinese Taipei teams are represented with non-national flag icons. Some of the multi-national teams (like Flag of the West Indies Cricket Board West Indies) also have unique (yet real) non-national flags. So I would say it isn't a hard and fast rule either way. We use national flags where they make sense, and alternate flags where they national ones don't make sense. However, if we're looking for verifiability for every flag icon, then that's a monumental can of worms being opened. Did any nation compete "under a flag" a century ago? We use Flag of Italy Italy and Flag of Germany Germany in old match tables. Should we? Andrwsc (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Left as message on Fásach's talk page. Actually, I'm buying into this - but don't really know how to proceed. I think removing the saltire without a substitute would be wrong, at least without giving a good go at trying to find out what flag would be most suitable - since I think that the saltire is an appropriate "filler" in this case in any event. --sony-youthpléigh 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, after a long morning of searching for any clues that might shed light on this (after I had put an afternoon into it a couple of month's back), I've fully bought into this.

What I would suggest is changing the saltire to the shirt crest of the IFA during the period (or at least the most part thereof). That was an old style celtic cross with a harp in the middle on blue, as seen here. This was used until the mid-1930s, as discussed here. This covers 50-something of the 71 years of the all-Ireland IFA, an all of the period that "matters" i.e. up until 1922, or 1923, or 1926 (see here for why this date can't even be decided on) as favoured by most authors. --sony-youthpléigh 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you are thinking, it is a verifiable emblem with a clear association with the team. A flag would be nice, as this would give uniformity to all international soccer articles, but maybe this is not achieveable! The other issue would be copyright, has this expired on a 125 year old emblem? (I would guess, yes). It also makes the connection with team and the association rather than with the team the country, which will be useful as the change of status is not a simple thing to define, and it's use in the hazy NI/IRL changeover period might prove useful later on Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OKay I've looked into the copyright status of the badge, and I dont think we can use it :-( Fasach Nua 12:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So summing this up, typically a country's soccer team is represented by its state flag, or in the case of the home nations, the flag used by that association. The problem with Ireland is that it had multiple state flags, used for various purposes, and we don't know what (if any flag) was used by the Irish FA before 1954 (apart from the union flag, which probably represented the competition). The old IFA logo cannot be used as it is copyright, therefore we use the Image:St_Patrick's_saltire3.svg as the least bad option. Fasach Nua 13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. jnestorius(talk) 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiji Melbourne Soccer

Is there really a soccer team in Fiji called Baa? Notable tournament? Or not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any more information quick to hand. But there is this entry that may help. Fiji Football Association. Peanut4 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact Fiji Melbourne Soccer appears simply to be Inter-District Championship (Fiji). AfD or Prod maybe? Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reading through the article again, it seems to be a round-up of Fiji soccer in 2007 with the results of the 2007 season competitions. As these topics all are thoroughly covered elsewhere (though may need updating), I'll go ahead and prod this article. --Malcolmxl5 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW Ba F.C. has its own article on WP. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Managers list

I've been putting together the List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers (and at the same time correcting the template Template:Bradford City A.F.C. managers and the list of managers at Bradford City A.F.C. main article. I still have a couple of gaps, one of which is from 9 November 2003 to 23 November 2003. I've now found the info to plug the gap, during which time there was just one game but four managers. Basically four senior pros, David Wetherall, Dean Windass, David Wetherall and Peter Atherton were in charge. It doesn't seem wise to put all four down as managers - any suggestions as what to do? Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that actually three senior players......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were taking the piss out of one of the four - which I wouldn't blame you for - but I missed out Wayne Jacobs who according to Dean Windass' autobiog was the one who actually did most of the stuff. Peanut4 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting something like "Senior players" with a fuller explanation in the text. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my best bet for List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers. But what about the template - would you leave it out or simply put Senior Players again? Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd leave it out, but then I favour leaving all caretakers out of templates. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, I favour them in, if only for completeness sake, but this is swaying me towards taking them out. Because caretakers aren't always the simplest of appointments. Peanut4 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Oldelpaso - keep caretakers out if possible as they rarely manager more than a few games and therefore don't mess up templates that much e.g. Manager (2003-2005), Caretaker (2005), Manager (2005-).

However, if they are there for a significant period of time (e.g. the guy who was recently sacked from Gillingham, his name escapes me) then maybe put them in with a footnote that they were pnly present in a caretaker position. GiantSnowman 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To CfD or not to CfD?

Recently made categories Category:English footballers who played for other national teams and its offspring Category:English footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland seem to me to be wrought with problems:

  • Could listing be considered an accusation of cheating against a player? (He's English, but he played for Templatonia)
  • As an extension to that idea, is it potentially libelous?
  • Nationality is being misrepresented as a simple cut and dried matter with one uncontrovertible outcome: for many of us, it is not.
  • Is it accurate to describe a person of dual nationality as "English" in the category title without qualification?
  • Given that their right to represent another country has been recognised, what degree of Englishness makes these individuals "English"?
  • There is no such legal status as "English": is Englishness therefore verifiable?

A proposal has been made to merge this with Category:English expatriate footballers, but this seems inappropriate: playing club football away from the place of one's birth (or whatever other definition of Englishness is being employed) is not the same as representing another national team.

It seemed bad form to directly propose deletion while another proposal was up for discussion, but unless another title can be thought up (Category: English-born footballers who played for other national teams or Category:Footballers eligible to play for more than one country, one of which was England, who played for another national team instead anybody?) then I cannot see how it would stay. Kevin McE 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If they played for another nation then they're not really English in my opinion...maybe change to 'British-born players who represented a foreign nation or similar. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Either way, it strikes me as overcategorisation. ArtVandelay13 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rathfarnham Punters

Rathfarnham Punters, a notable Irish football club? Or not? Needs a rewrite, certainly. --Malcolmxl5 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Gone bye bye now. The Rambling Man 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

World Cup winners medals for non-playing squad members 1930-1974

I have belated caught a BBC news item[22] about non-playing members of World Cup-winning teams between 1930 and 1974 being awarded retrospective World Cup Winners medals (in those days, only the members of the team itself received medals). It means, for example, that Pele will receive a third World Cup winners medal having missed Brazil's win in 1962 through injury. This strikes me as something worthwhile to add to all sort of articles, about World Cups, national teams (perhaps) and individual players, but it will need to be done in a co-ordinated and systematic way. --Malcolmxl5 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already added an "Honours" section to the non-playing England squad members from 1966 (as well as for several of the World Cup Final team). --Daemonic Kangaroo 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are non-competitive matches notable?

The creation of Match of the Century (soccer) raises the interesting question of whether non-competitive matches are notable? Do we have a view? BlueValour 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it depends on the match. Last season, User:Polominty created UEFA Celebration Match as a report of the match between Manchester United and the European XI. Now, I would have said that the UEFA Celebration Match was notable as it marked the half-centenary of the European Union, even though the match was not considered a competitive match. – PeeJay 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In this specific case, I do not think the match is notable, but it and the charity campaign it was part of could be mentioned in Professional Footballers' Association. Each one should be taken on its own merits. Most are not notable, but some are. Oldelpaso 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This must be the first match report I've read that says nothing about the actual match - not even the score. --Daemonic Kangaroo 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image of Teddy Sheringham

Is anyone knowledgeable about images? Someone has uploaded this image claiming that he is "the copyright holder of this work", and placed it in the Teddy Sheringham article. Yet it is clearly sourced from the BBC website here (the url in the comment to the image history was a give away!). From what little I know, the copyright for everything including images on the BBC site belongs with the BBC and this picture seems dodgy to me from a copyright pov. What should be done? --Malcolmxl5 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the pic and warned the user. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal updates

I've updated the portal over the last couple of days to make the following changes -

  1. Remove the old World Cup 2006 page and archive it
  2. Remove the old non-updated news section and archive it
  3. Add the news box as it currently stands, linking to Portal:Current events/Sports and Wikinews:Portal:Football (so we won't have to manually update the list at the portal too)
  4. Add a randomised Selected picture box

Pictures I've selected for the latter are available to view at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, if you know of any other half-decent free images that could be added with a description/hook - feel free to do so. I intend to do the same random type affair for Selected articles soon. My longterm goal is to turn this into a 3 tabbed portal such as Portal:Religion but with Main - Competitions - Contribute at the top. Feel free to slap me down if this sounds crap. Nanonic 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Have now added the random article selection bit to Portal:Association football and made the whole thing into a 3 tabbed affair. Tabs are currently: Main - Categories & Topics - WikiProjects & Things you can do. I will be working on these 2 new tabs over the next few days, but in the meantime - go and have a look. Tell me if it's poo. Nanonic (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone up for some copyediting?

If anyone could have a go at copyediting the 1980–1999 section of History of York City F.C., it would be fantastic and would be greatly appreciated, as TRM suggested an independent copyedit for the GA review. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through it and changed a couple of things. Feel free to change anything or give me a shout for any questions. Peanut4 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool-related Spam

Any Liverpool fans might want to look out for the work of 82.31.122.47 (talk · contribs) and possibly other IPs, which is adding spam for a commercial memorabilia site to various Liverpool players' articles regardless of context. Qwghlm 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Even easier, use this link to see if it's added anywhere else. I found three more sneaky links... And BAMM, they're gone. The Rambling Man 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow - I never knew that special page existed. Nice one, thanks. Incidentally, if this spam persists then I'll request an addition to the meta:Spam blacklist. Qwghlm 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User to watch: posting wild changes of caps/goals again.

89.216.188.69 (talk · contribs) is at it again, posting unsourced changes of caps and goals and even player's weights for whatever reason. Please keep an eye out for him. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland template

Anyone else noticed that in club squads etc. the Northern Irish flag has completely vanished? GiantSnowman 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can still see them. Peanut4 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Odd, very odd...could be something wrong with my internet then. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There was an issue with someone messing about with the image name, not sure of the exact details but there was something about it on WP:ANI. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There has always been a bit of a kerfuffle. It now resides at Image:Ulster banner.svg. See the Commons page, and Wikipedia page (now deleted) for the history of the mess. Woody (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Every instance of that flag in football articles should be rendered via the flag template system (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template), using {{flagicon}}, {{fb}}, etc. The image name change across a couple of thousand pages was effected by a single edit to Template:Country data Northern Ireland, and as soon as the servers catch up, all should be well. Can you point to a page where you see a problem, so I can check into it? Alternatively, try the instructions for your browser in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and see if that changes anything. Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is working for me. Woody (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Inverness Caledonian Thistle

Anyone know why this has been moved from Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. to Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club? It doesn't seem to follow the naming protocol for any other football club article. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was moved by User:ICTFC, who gave the reason as simply "This is the full name of the team"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Peejay moved it back, correctly in my view. Woody (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, should never been moved in the first place. Also interesting to note that the user and the club share the same initials...GiantSnowman (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ben Watson

Two footballers called Ben Watson, both born in 1985 - one is Ben Watson (footballer) and the other is Ben Watson (football player) - what should we rename them as? Maybe Ben Watson (midfielder) and Ben Watson (striker)? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(footballer born July 1985) and (footballer born December 1985)? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, I don't really like the "striker" ones because positions can change. Although the born .... seems a bit cumbersome, I personally think it is better. Woody (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Woody. Davnel03 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On reviewing Ben Watson (football player)'s career (with Bognor Regis and Grays) it seems to me that he doesn't pass the proposed notability tests set out above. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case why not list the non-notable player for deletion, and keep the Crystal Palace player as Ben Watson (footballer)? GiantSnowman (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Done -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonny Pike

Is Sonny Pike notable? For those of you who don't know, he was a famous child player in the 90s who was constantly called "the next [Insert footballing superstar's name here]" and signed for Ajax before quitting the game after having a nervous breakdown. He is also the nephew of Mark Falco. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, as I have heard of him on several occasions, and I'm sure that even though he probably doesn't meet WP:BIO for players, he would qualify under significant coverage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
How does his case differ from that of Rhain Davis........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On a personal basis, because I never heard of that guy aside from his Wikipedia article, and I consider myself to have an excellent knowledge of English football. Secondly, I believe the Pike story went on for a few years, whilst I have still not heard anything about this Rhain Davis guy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sonny Pike has become synonymous with the extreme pressures that young sports players are under, and became famouse because of that. Anyway, I have now created the article, so it's up to the Wikipedia community to list it for deletion if they deem it neccessary. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Double standards

Romania, Italy, Netherlands and France already met during the Euro 2000 tournament, but it has been dubbed as "unnecessary info" in the UEFA Euro 2008 - Group C article. However, the fact that Greece, Spain and Russia already met at Euro 2004 is considered interesting in the Group D article.

Seriously, what is the logic behind that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.139.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a number of teams met up in varying rounds at Euro 2000 (eight years and two tournaments ago) is not as interesting as the fact that three teams have been drawn together in the same group two tournaments in a row, IMO. Sure, I could be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me. – PeeJay 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you find it a more interesting coincidence than the other. Does that make it a "necessary" info?--87.2.139.193 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the group C match ups being a coincidence. There are always bound the be re-matches from previous tournaments. The fact that three teams are drawn in the same group for a second consecutive tournament is a more coincindental, and more interesting, though perhaps slightly trivial. Peanut4 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Is being interesting an objective criterium? Absolutely not. So why preserving a trivial info and deleting another similar? That's not fair --87.2.139.193 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Because they are not similar, and its the Group articles, and those 3 teams where in the SAME group. The teams from group A where not in the same group, so all teams did now meat eachother. And you can't have every international meeting between the teams as it has probably happened in more than one final tournament, this is 3 teams, consecutively being drawn together. Chandlertalk 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.#Chants

Surely we don't need all this crap.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 12:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable players

Hello everybody. I've got an idea about what to do with "Notable players" section. Instead,
1) shouldn't "Legendary players" section be in the article (only if a player was described as a legend in at least two reliable sources)?
2) shouldn't key players be bolded in the squad list (only if a player was described as key by the manager of his (club or national) team or another team played with player's (club or national) team recently)?
What do you think about it?   Jhony  |  Talk   22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. Both highly subjective. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, maybe. It seems that subjectivity of reliable source (my idea's case) is allowed in Wiki, while subjectivity of single editor ("Notable players" section's case) is not allowed.   Jhony  |  Talk   23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability of players included in "Notable players" lists should be determined by numbers of appearances made and goals scored, as well as captaincy and individual awards. That way the selection of such players is entirely objective. Even with your suggestion of "legendary" status having to be confirmed by two independent sources, both of those sources would most likely involve someone's opinion somewhere along the line. – PeeJay 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that notability itself is an expression of opinion of large group of people. It's impossible to evaluate real-life notability of players through number of appearances and goals. Value of appearances, goals, captaincy and awards changes from season to season, from position to position. As a result, some players considered notable by many will fail to pass the criteria, while some players considered notable by nobody will pass it. The idea is that "list of notable footballers" won't be original research of single editor or even group of established wikipedians. For the firm belief, let it be ten independent sources.
Why I prefer "legendary players", not simply "notable players"? It seems to me that it's more strict (nobody will call not notable player a legend), more interesting (what is more interesting, "List of Unknown F.C. notable players" or "List of Unknown F.C. legends"?) and more popular (legendary soccer player -wiki (1 330 000 hits) vs notable soccer player -wiki (105 000 hits)).   Jhony  |  Talk   00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your argument has more holes than a fine piece of emmenthal. Take a look at List of Manchester United F.C. players, for example, and I doubt you will be able to find me a single player who should be in that list but isn't. The first defining criterion for notability should be, and is, a set number of appearances (in the case of Man Utd, this number is 100). If, by some freak, one of the club's top goalscorers has not reached the required number of appearances, there should also be a notability criterion for number of goals scored. Finally, all players involved in the club's major historical landmarks should be considered inherently notable; for example, Liam Whelan of Manchester United is included in that club's list of players despite only making 98 appearances and scoring 52 goals as he was one of the victims of the Munich air disaster. Similar criteria should be applied to all lists of clubs' notable players, with cut-off points for each criterion set on a case-by-case basis. – PeeJay 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The legends idea is really daft - taking the example of my own club, if we applied the criteria set out above concerning being described as a legend then a quick Google search suggests that List of Gillingham F.C. players, a Featured List, would be replaced with a grand total of two names out of the club's 115 year history..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea of "key players" is even more inappropriate - as I read it, if the manager of Example FC blathers away in a post-match interview after one random game that Steve Example was the key man on the park in said game, he'd then get to be shown in bold in the squad list for the foreseeable future? Ridiculous idea. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about key players. And you didn't understand the idea about legends. Firstly, notability in case of List of all Example F.C. players is different from notability in case of Example F.C. article. Secondly, honestly, I was not with featured articles or English teams' articles in mind. The idea was to propose "Legendary players" section as an alternative for "Notable players" in case of articles not many people wants to work on. But if both ideas are such a cruft, simply forget about them.   Jhony  |  Talk   22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuju

Cuju - the original soccer? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What of it? – PeeJay 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What's this 'soccer' you speak of? Chandlertalk 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Man, that's just ignorant. – PeeJay 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes

Sorry for being dim, but how can overlapping in navboxes like this {{Estudiantes de La Plata squad}} be prevented? (It overlaps in my browser anyway). King of the NorthEast 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wheelbarrow song

A notable football chant? Or not? Sounds like twaddle to me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable as a chant, yes. Notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, probably not. I'd say merge into Notts County F.C., although it also needs referencing properly. --Jameboy (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange. "I had a wheelbarrow, the wheel fell off" doesn't scan well enough to fit properly to the tune "On Top of Old Smoky". Or do you have to stretch "whee-eel" to do it? I go with Malcolmx15 on this one. If nothing else, the article reads like a piece of original research, the references support only the fact that it's a chant, not the stories and anecdotes recounted in the article. That lot could be justifiably whipped out as unsourced and OR. Ref (chew)(do) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm more baffled by how, even when sung in a Shropshire accent, the words to Old Smokey could sound like "I had a wheel barrow, the wheel fell off"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RD:M - How many men's clubs are there worldwide?

A question has been asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#How many soccer clubs? seeking an answer for the amount of "mens soccer clubs are there worldwide, including all countries and all divisions of play". If anyone can assist in answering this question, please do. 62.136.140.178 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nebraska Cornhuskers soccer

Someone might want to add to the article a bit. It seems kind of empty. --Rockfang (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

African football improvement drive?

The African Cup of Nations is just around the corner, and in the spirit of countering systematic bias I was thinking about pushing to get a related article to FA by the tournament's final. Anyone interested in joining in? Mido is a current GA, but he is likely to miss the tournament through injury which rules him out. Cameroon national football team perhaps? Didier Drogba? Samuel Eto'o? Oldelpaso (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Drogba would be a decent choice, but he might be on a colision course with Chelsea about whether to go. Eto'o would be my second choice for a player. Peanut4 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for Drogba, personally. (Or maybe push Mido to FA!) Mattythewhite (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image issue

Can I just confirm that this image is incorrectly tagged? I can't see how taking four copyrighted club crests and putting them together in one image would allow the user to claim to be the copyright holder........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an invalid license, as a derivative work based on copyrighted non-free content (the club crests), I am going to delete it. --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Beb or Bep?

Does anyone know the correct name of former Dutch international Mr Bakhuys - is it Bep or Beb? - Google brings up results for both. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which spelling is correct, but I noticed that his name is given as Elisa, whereas on a couple of websites it's given as Evert. Which is correct? – PeeJay 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Another name that has been put forward is "Eberhard". Now I'm more confused than ever! – PeeJay 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dutch FA has articles using both Beb and Bep, which would say to me that they're both valid ways of spelling the same name. There's a former Birmingham player called Eddy Brown, and on Google and in print sources you get him spelt both Eddy and Eddie. Not sure this helps ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
His own autograph said Beb. This is also the spelling used by the Royal Netherlands Football Association. It is very confusing, because it's a nickname, noone knows where it came from, and the common spelling of the name is Bep. AecisBrievenbus 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the origin of the nickname is concerned, Beb and Bep appear to have been abbreviations for Bert and (Elisa)beth. See for instance Bertram Johannes Otto (Bep) Schrieke, Elisabeth (Bep) Voskuijl, Hubertus Willem Abraham Christiaan (Bep) Warnas, Albertha (Bep) Weeteling and Lambertus (Bep) van Klaveren and Elizabeth (Beb) Vuyk. AecisBrievenbus 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Everton FAR

It is now a FARC. If you don't want to help try and keep it as a FA at least vote for it to be kept or removed. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Everton F.C. Buc (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer Players in the World

Worthy of deletion? Or just needing a MAJOR clean-up? GiantSnowman (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say it should be categorised to Category:Canadian expatriate footballers. – PeeJay 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay. This should be categorized, in accordance with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese footballers abroad. AecisBrievenbus 14:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The same user has now added Canadian Soccer Players; both articles are copyvio, having being copied and pasted from a website. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There's another similar to this to do with American footballers - List of American soccer players abroad. Jimbo online (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in match articles

Hi projecteers, I've just had a look at 2005 UEFA Champions League Final and discovered it now has four screenshots of the match all used under Fair Use - the "historic event" template being touted as the rationale for fair use. It certainly has enhanced the article but I was just wondering if this is a good or bad precedent (I haven't seen it before) and whether we'll end up with every penalty being an "historic event" so we get fifteen fair use images for a match? I'm just interested in your opinions really. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Celtic - Milan 2004.jpg certainly can't be claimed as fair use in an article on this final, given that it's taken from a different match entirely..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The first two images aren't of the match in question, they're of other matches en route to the final which, in my view, isn't remotely justifiable as fair use. (Also they're not screenshots, they're off the UEFA website copyright AFP.) The Crespo one comes from the BBC website, and only the players group is actually a screenshot. Is there somewhere where image rationale experts hang out, if so perhaps someone should ask for an informed opinion before it does get out of hand? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the first two images definitely fail WP:FAIRUSE for the reasons already explained above by Struway2, whereas the third one slightly fails WP:FAIRUSE #8 since it doesn't really increase a reader's understanding of the topic. I would only keep the picture depicting the award ceremony. --Angelo (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I ask is that it's currently sitting at WP:GAN and it probably ought to quick fail according to this discussion, or, at the very least, have the dubious images removed and probably deleted.. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the only images that could count are the iconic moments in the game, decisive goal/celebration, decisive penalty save, celebration at final whistle, award of trophy etc.King of the NorthEast 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd go along with that, although I wouldn't support the inclusion of goal celebration/final whistle celebration shots unless they were widely considered to be "iconic images". For instance, this image might be OK for the 2000 Division two play-off final because it was used as a book cover (and has been used in a million other places) and therefore has some form of "status", but any old generic close up shot of a player with his arm in the air wouldn't add much to an article IMO..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio images

I'm pretty sure that Special:Contributions/Gordo2112 is adding images that are copyvios. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-11 11:45

Well Image:Ashley-cole.jpg has a Getty Images tagline on it, so that one certainly is a copyvio.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A different user, but I'm sure the picture of Peter Crouch at Image:Crouch_special_k1.jpg is copywrite. Considering that I've had pictures deleted for players from the Victorian era on the grounds of copyvio, I'm surprised this one hasn't been challenged. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Getty Images, and an award-winner, no less. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A brief Google Images search returned the provenience of all of the pictures he uploaded, so I deleted them all and I advised the user to stop this practice. --Angelo (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Saving a static copy of a referenced article forever

As FIFA.com keeps shuffling their pages around and annoying the living.. poop.. out of me, I've started turning my new refs into archive links using WebCite. FIFA.com is well known for moving and deleting it's articles just when you least expect it and then leaving you with a dead link that points to fifa.com/index.php so I thought I'd recommend this to you all too. WebCite allows you to save a copy of a page and gives you a url such as http://www.webcitation.org/5U0dhgqcK that permanently links to a full stored copy of that article (have a looksee). This helps prevents dead-links which is especially useful in Featured Articles's and the like. Hope this helps someone. Nanonic (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Premier League Official website - all their referee profiles disappeared, leaving many articles with HTTP404 non-sources - grrrrr! Ref (chew)(do) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, is an artificially-maintained, or cached, webpage a valid reference in Wikipedia? It seems to me there might be serious problems with the credibility of such a source if challenged. What do others think, or what do you already know that we might not? Ref (chew)(do) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's acceptable as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Archive_references and {{cite web}} already has the fields for archive urls. WebCite is also one of the tools recommended at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Nanonic (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

German football

I'd like to get this off the ground: Wikipedia:WikiProject German football. It's past due. Wiggy! (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I already stated lots and lots of times, it's simply senseless to create WikiProjects with no prior discussion. There is a page created exactly for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals so please use it first. Let me note your brand-new WikiProject (btw, why a WikiProject and not a taskforce instead?)b has merely two members, which is a terribly low number. So, I am going to reiterate my good-old proposal: this WikiProject should accept only taskforces and related WPs with at least 4 or 5 members, prior discussion in the WikiProject Council and proved usefulness of its aim. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Angelo, I'm just trying to gather up some interested folks and put some resources on the table. It would be handy to be able to work on something like this as a group. Only two members? Yeah, its been up a whole fifteen minutes. I don't think it'll be too hard to gather up some interested editors. As to project vs. taskforce, I'm not entirely clear on the difference so just picked one. I'm sure it can be re-cast if need be. As to WikiProject Council, there is also a place to make a similar request at WikiProject Football. I don't want to over-bureaucratize the thing - I just want to gather up some like-minded folks who probably have access to information and points of view that I don't. Be happy. Wiggy! (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I would support the creation of a German football wikiproject/taskforce and would be prepared to help out. I think its daft thet Bayern have a taskforce but German football doesn't. I would also support any proposal for the creation of a Brazilian football project as these are two of the most significant footballing nations. King of the NorthEast 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mich auch... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ich unterstütze die Idee. Ich könnte etwas ins Englische übersetzen. Support the idea and could put my rusty German to use by attempting to translate from German sources, no doubt with hilarious consequences. --Jameboy (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Angelo's sentiments. Creating task-forces for the sake of it helps no-one. That being said, I do think there is enough support to keep it maintained. I do think it should be a task-force though. Woody (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a set of criteria that differentiates projects and task forces available somewhere? Or am I going to have to get off my e-butt and look for it? :) Wiggy! (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. basically, taskforces use the main projects manuals of style and banners and assessment tags so that they can focus on working on articles without having to come up with their own bureaucracy. A stand-alone project might have to create all of these (like what Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia has partially done). Nanonic (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now it seems there's enough support for a German thing. In any case I would turn it into a taskforce, and still ask for clear rules for anyone willing to start a new football-related WP/taskforce. Danke schōn (my German really sucks :). --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:EG M.M

It may be worth looking over the contributions of new editor User:EG M.M[23] if these contributions, Karim Zekry, Amr El-Safti and Ahmed Ghanem Soltan are any guide, they are instant candidates for speedy deletion at the moment. He has also done something weird; he's 'moved' his user and talk page to article space, which will need to be undone, I think. Does anyone know how to undo that? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just click back on the "redirected from" link, go into "Edit page" tab and blank the redirect and save. Same for the User talk page. An edit summary of "abuse of account" or something like that should suffice. Wish I was bold enough though. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I see Peejay had a go at the article page. I've blanked the redirect on the talk page ("inappropriate use of redirect") but there are messages on the article talk page that should go on the user talk page. How do they and the history get 'moved' back? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. The article has been deleted, which ends that, I suppose? :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold names for winners in the group tables

Well, in articles like Champions League and the UEFA Cup ppl are making the names clubs bold because they've won the group or qualified for no apparent reason, with the color shaded background its easy too see who've won the group/qualified, imo it looks more sloppy to have them in bold and for some clubs like Bordeaux in the uefa cup, it goes over two rows because it doesnt fit the width. Is there any guidelines that promote this? Just to show some examples of that it looks weird cl 05-06 vs wc 06 if you look at older CL articles its, advancing teams in bold and the bottom teams in italic... it just seems unnecessary and dosnt give anything Chandlertalk 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It provides an alternative to people who are partially-sighted and may not be able to discern the different colours in the table. – PeeJay 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it that hard to understand that the team at the top with most points won? Chandlertalk 11:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:COLOUR says editors should Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information. Following this Manual of Style guideline also helps that 10% of the male population (and small percentage of the female) who suffer from some form of colour blindness. Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
But ppl who don't know the team on the top is the leader/winner... well lets just say i dont think bold and italic text will help them. Chandlertalk 14:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
People only uses six more letters, you know. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more in favour of removing the coloured backgrounds than the bolding. - fchd (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon Macken

"...Following this success, Macken moved into the Premiership with a transfer to Manchester City in February 2002, for a fee of £5,000,000. However, severely hampered by a lack of ability, only made 27 league starts in over three seasons and that was due in most part to a chronic injury list and the tealady forgetting her kit...." Nick mallory (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Carlo Corazzin picture

I take it that this image of Carlo Corazzin has the wrong copyright info and isn't licensed to be used on Wiki? Jimbo online (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Deciiva

I have started a small clean-up drive on some of the contributions of Deciiva about Ghanaian football. I'm starting with the articles on Daniel Opare and Ahmed Barusso, but it's hard to know where to begin. I know some of you have already come across some of his works and even had the fortune to discuss with him, but if someone would like to help out that would be appreciated. Also, if you don't hear from me in a couple of days, please come look for me... Sebisthlm (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_12#Category:Captains_of_Norwich_City_F.C.

Spotted this CfD. What's the convention on club captains - list, cat or both? I'm open minded. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a list of some sort. You can usually put it in somewhere else. See the AFD of Liverpool and the current setup at Aston Villa F.C. (included in List of Aston Villa F.C. players). I don't think there is a convention at the moment to be honest. Take it as it comes, although I wouldn't be averse to creating a consensus. Woody (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year

Is it just my browser, or are the columns on List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year dodgy? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Birmingham City F.C. players does the same for me at the corresponding point, i.e. after the flag template thingy. I'm using Firefox 2. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Can see that too, and I'm on IE7. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone who may not see the problem but who may know enough to do something about it:-
for me, each table row renders properly until the column containing the {{ENG}} (or other country) flag template, which transcludes OK but nothing after it renders. I.e the offending table entry contains the flag, the country name and the unrendered markup for the rest of the row, and all column entries after the offending one on each row are empty. Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Showball

"Showball is often called, when the football club from Spain/Catalunya FC Barcelona allways play beautiful games or they win big...." Hmm... Is it worth merging into FC Barcelona?? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is worth being speedied (no assertion of notability at all), that is what I'm going to do. --Angelo (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ireland national football team: proposed article mergers

I have proposed the following mergers:

Proposal Talk:Ireland national football team IFA#Proposed_mergers with lead-up discussion earlier on that Talk: page. jnestorius(talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of football clubs in Egypt

I see that List of football clubs in Egypt has been tagged for cleanup since January 2006. Is there a preferred style for such a list? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think such lists should be sorted by division or alphabetically. They shouldn't be tabulated, or include details of trophies won, but the city/state a team comes from should be put in brackets next to the team's name. – PeeJay 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Lists of football (soccer) clubs and taking a few lists as examples, I don't really think there is a preferred style. It seems a bit haphazard. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries is a featured list, so I'd suggest adopting elements of the style used there. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to not to use sortable tables containing extra information like trophies won. More information is better. jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And how did you jump to that conclusion? There is such a thing as too much information, you know. – PeeJay 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It took me decades to jump to that conclusion, mate. Yes, if there were 20 columns, or the layout was really untidy, it would be " too much information"; but I don't think the 7 columns in the Egypt table is overload. Even with its current shoddy formatting, I was able to see in a couple of clicks that Al-Olympi is the only Alexandria club to win the league, and that Al-Ahly and Al-Zamalek are the Rangers and Celtic of Egypt. An alphabetic club-city list would be much less infomative. jnestorius(talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
By way of background, I added the controversial table several months ago after seeing the cleanup tag and the general state of disarray of the article. I found the sortable table on another article listing clubs for another country and thought it would work well for Egypt. The only thing that needs to go in my opinion is the list of clubs beneath the table. I left them there in hopes that someone would know what league they participate in and the city and stadium, but after several months it looks unlikely. If no one disagrees, I'll be bold and remove the misc. clubs and the cleanup tag now. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Birmingham City F.C. players peer review

List of Birmingham City F.C. players is now up for peer review here. I'd be grateful if any of you could spare the time to have a look at it and leave your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Omar Brissett - Notability?

Does this article on Omar Brissett meet notability? Or is it a case of a serious clean-up?... Jimbo[online] 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He does exist, a quick Google search shows a player playing in Jamaica, but there's no mention of him on any club article...GiantSnowman (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning if he exsisted or not. Was wondering if his career met the criteria for him to have an article...Jimbo[online] 15:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If his biggest claim to fame is indeed that he played for Old Stationers, who play in the Southern Amateur Football League, then he 100% does not merit an article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually he also seems to have played in Jamaica's premier league, but I very much doubt that league is fully professional....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood United F.C.

Is this American team notable - their only 'claim to fame' is that former players and celebrities sometimes play for the side...GiantSnowman (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing more than a Sunday League team, with a few famous faces. 100% bin it...Jimbo[online] 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Jimbo on this one, notability is not transferred from the famous names ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnathan McKinstry

Notable or not? – PeeJay 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable, probably a hoax - very few Google hits for someone who has apparently worked in America, England, Holland, Ghana...GiantSnowman (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Decorative use of logos

User:Blgeoverlord has been adding minature logos to player infoboxes, see Emiliano Ariel Dudar‎ for an example. He must have seen the fair use rationales stating "to be used only on the article on...." and just ignored them. I will warn him not to do it on his talk page, but I don't have time to undo them all at the moment, could someone else look into it please? Cheers. King of the NorthEast 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Ugly' football team names

What are people's thoughts on team names which are suffixed by (football club), such as AZ (football club) and NEC (football club)...personally I think they are ugly and should be, if possible, renamed. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely to be renamed as AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen respectively, for WP:COMMON and good sense. --Angelo (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
So what would you like to move them to? Yes, it would be nice if they were at AZ or NEC, but if they can't, to include a descriptor as a disambiguating term is Wikipedia-standard. - fchd (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with Angelo's suggestion? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The AZ article was moved from AZ Alkmaar a few months ago, see the user's reasoning. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the move to AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen. Do we have Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers? No. So let it be as the original name. -Lemmy- (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Rangers and Celtic are distinguished by being Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. respectively; however, seeing the rationale behind moving AZ and NEC, I oppose moving to AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen BUT I still think that (football club) looks ugly. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It does look ugly. NEC can't be moved to its name because the Japanese corporation is a wee more important but AZ could be moved, I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Lemmy- (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If people found it preferable to (football club), the full names could be used; Alkmaar Zanstreek and Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie. Doesn't really satisfy WP:COMMONNAMES though. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AZ (football club) should stay where is, but NEC (football club) should be moved to NEC Nijmegen, IMO. The new football club naming guidelines state that if there is no ambiguity about a club's name in English, then that name should be used, and ambiguity is determined by whether or not the club has an English website and the name they use on said website. At the moment, AZ has an English website (where they call themselves AZ), but NEC only has a Dutch site, meaning that we should use the name that is most commonly used in the English language media (n.b. the Dutch version of the NEC website calls them NEC Nijmegen). – PeeJay 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
NEC has the same problem as AZ in that their hometown is in their initials; NEC Nijmegen would be Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie Nijmegen. However, if the NEC website uses NEC Nijmegen then so should we GiantSnowman (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see where on the official NEC site it calls them NEC Nijmegen, other than in the domain name. I've looked on a dozen pages or so, and it 's always just N.E.C. (usually with the full stops). - fchd (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
N.E.C. Nijmegen is used in the titlebar and the domain name, but I guess you're right about it not being used anywhere else. That being the case, NEC should remain at NEC (football club) That being said, since NEC don't have an English website, their article should be named per the name they most commonly go by in the English language media. – PeeJay 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Angelo on this - AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen might not be correct, but they are very common (1.8 million hits on Google for "AZ Alkmaar" and 1.3 million for "NEC Nijmegen"). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The newly-established naming conventions for sports teams would disagree with you both about the AZ article. The NEC article, however, should probably be moved to NEC Nijmegen per my above amended comment. – PeeJay 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if the name "NEC Nijmegen" is completely wrong? If that's what you're saying, the policy is mad. - fchd (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
AZ is probably not that ambiguous in football, but it is outside of its main field (e.g., AZ is more popular in Italy as a Procter & Gamble toothpaste brand). Maybe the current guideline need to be amended in order to solve this issue; in this case I think we should go back to the English media and see the relevance of the AZ Alkmaar name: if this is actually used by a significant part of the sources, we should choose this form, otherwise let's just maintain the status quo. --Angelo (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be moved. The titles may not look all that beautiful, but this is not a beauty pageant, is it? AZ are called just that AZ, so I don't see why we should move it to AZ Alkmaar. NEC is called just that, so I don't see why we should move it to NEC Nijmegen. In fact, it should be the other way around, imo. PSV Eindhoven should be moved to PSV (football club) and Willem II Tilburg should be moved to Willem II (football club). AecisBrievenbus 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Captaincy in football

Not only we have a Captain (football) article, but also Vice-captain (football) and even Vice-vice-captain (football). How about a merger? --Angelo (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was never all that opposed to having separate articles about captains and vice-captains, but to have one about vice-vice-captains is just silly. – PeeJay 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Captain (football)...having a vice-vice-captain is ridiculous; whatever next, a vice-vice-vice-vice-vice-vice-captain or something? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't for one second believe that vice-vice-captain is real. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The term may not exist, but the concept certainly does. Some teams, such as FC Barcelona, nominate a hierarchy of five captains, the fifth of which I would say could be referred to as the vice-vice-vice-vice-captain. Obviously no one would ever bother saying all those "vices", but technically it's correct. – PeeJay 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've prodded it, as a dicdef it's certainly not encyclopaedic and is unreferenced to boot. If 'no one would ever bother saying all those "vices"' then it clearly fails WP:CITE by a long way. Qwghlm (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a Vice-vice-captain is actually a vice-captain caught inflagrante dilecto? Ref (chew)(do) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and made Vice-captain (football) become a redirect to Captain (football), as the former article adds absolutely nothing to what the latter says, and looks more like a Wiktionary entry. This was reverted by User:Pbradbury. What are your thoughts on the matter? --Angelo (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Support turning it into a redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that vice-vice-captain is ridiculous, however the vice-captain is a recognised and distinct role. I believe that the redirect causes confusion. I am not opposed to merging the artcles into one article per se. However that article should not be captain (football). Maybe there should be an article on football positions and they all redirect there. Making one position redirect to another is like redirecting deputy prime minister to prime minister or vice-president to president, they are not the same thing. Pbradbury (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
But the deputy prime minister and vice-president have official duties. Does vice-captain have any distinct official duties? Or is he simply a stand in captain when the captain is missing? So basically I support the re-direct. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That will vary by team, just like it does by country. Basically they will take on the duties delegated to them by the captain (just as in the instance of a vice-president etc.). The point is that they are distinct roles and the redirect is confusing. A vice-captain is not synonymous with a captain and as such should not redirect to such. Again I am not opposed to merging the artcles I am just opposed to redirecting vice-captain to captain Pbradbury (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I also notice the article is completely unreferenced. If you can find some sources about vice-captain and captain with separate duties then fair enough. As for the re-direct, how about having a separate section on the captain page, title == vice-captain == and re-directing to the sub-section? Peanut4 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That works for me I will try and dig up some references to the role as well Pbradbury (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made the suggested edits. However I still have a few fundamental issues with this, having thought about it more. Firstly, what is the disadvantage of having two articles, even though there is some repetition? Maybe it just requires better editing and writing. Secondly even though it is now consolidated on one page (neither of the contributing articles being referenced by the way) it contributes less to the overall user experience (e.g. meta data, such as 'vice positions' has now disappeared). Thirdly it is still contained in an article that is titled as another position. Pbradbury (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Manager history templates

I see someone's been through and changed all the manager history templates such as Template:Gillingham F.C. managers so that when you expand them they display in a great long list. Is it just me or does this look really silly? It's just about bearable, I guess, when there are multiple templates on an article such that they collapse, but take a look at the page of someone who's only managed one club like Ronnie Jepson - it looks ludicrous!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's kind of weird, since I don't see what change produced this exactly. {{Football manager history}} doesn't seem to have been changed, nothing at {{Navbox}} either. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-14 08:46
Done now. PeeJay notified me of it last night. One of the protection templates screwed up the nowrap. Some of the templates are still running of the old "screwed up" version. To purge the template, you need to make a null edit and it should reset it. Woody (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the constituent parts don't like any form of the <noinclude> or any other template on the page. I have left a note on the talk page instead. Should all be working now. Woody (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Cup/ CL appearances/goals

Does anyone know of a good source that lists UEFA Cup appearances and goals? I've been looking for the stats section on Julio Ricardo Cruz, but I haven't been able to locate a good source. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-14 08:39

Abroad Iraqi players

And we've got another list of football players abroad: Abroad Iraqi players. Should this list be categorized, like the list of Portuguese footballers? If kept, it should definitely be renamed. AecisBrievenbus 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I am in favour of categorizing it. --Angelo (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Another one here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet another...Jimbo[online] 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PFC Pirin 1922 Blagoevgrad, PFC Pirin Blagoevgrad, FC Pirin Blagoevgrad

Two or three teams? — DenCA (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say all the same. Crossovers between squads and official club badge. Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The two first are the same club playing in A PFG (the 1st Bulgarian league), the last one appears to play in the V AFG, (the 3rd league) and is an amateur club (FC) but I would guess is a feeder team of the professional club (PFC). So merge the two first articles but keep separate from the third. – Elisson • T • C • 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A note on the RSSSF page for Bulgaria 06/07 reads : "NB: Pirin 1922 (Blagoevgrad) changed name to Pirin Blagoevgrad (Blagoevgrad) before the start of the season; they are not to be confused with the "original" Pirin (Blagoevgrad), playing at 3rd level." - fchd (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas books

As the season of goodwill is upon us, I was wondering what users have put on their Christmas list. Rather belatedly, I've added "England Player by Player" by Bobby Robson and Graham Betts, although my other half says I'm too late. I guess I'll have to buy it myself when the credit card has some slack. Any other thoughts. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Being in Newcastle, any other answer than 'Alan Shearer's autobiography' would see me lynched...GiantSnowman (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm hopefully getting Bobby Charlton's autobiography from my nan, and I've also asked for Ryan Giggs' autobiography too. Any other football books would just be pointless trivia to me. – PeeJay 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Arsenal Opus looked interesting until I found out the cost was £3,000. D: Might get Arsenal: Extraordinary Images of an Amazing Club though. Qwghlm (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping to pick up West Ham: The Managers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fabio Capello

It has just been announced that Capello has been appointed the England manager, so we better watch his article for vandalism. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A minor edit war regarded his starting year, as he was appointed in December 2007 but set to start his tenure as England manager on January 2008. I am personally supportive of 2008 as starting year, what's your opinion on the matter? --Angelo (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
2008. A variety of things could happen between now and the start of his contract which could prevent him from being England manage. If they did then he would never be the England manager, so 2008. Peanut4 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
2007, formally announced, he will start his day-to-day activities in January 2008, however he is the England manager, http://www.thefa.com/England/SeniorTeam/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2007/12/Capello_quotes15Dec.htm Fronsdorf (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
From 2007. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So if he had been announced as new manager starting from 2016, we would say 2007? Sounds weird. By the way, this FA announcement [24] says clearly he "will begin work in the post on Monday 7 January". --Angelo (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 212.85.12.211 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note this is neither a vote nor a place for single-purpose accounts with no activity whatsoever other than here. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and a large majority of comments here just say "2007" without citing any reason. --Angelo (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
His position is similar to a player who has signed a pre-contract agreement under the Bosman type ruling. Numerous times I've seen them never gone through with, particularly the year Bradford City went into administration and two of the agreements had no legal backing.
For instance what happens if the FA suddenly decides they can't afford Capello and want to build their new academy instead. I know this is crystal ball. But I'd go with 2008 because that's when his contract starts. Peanut4 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 - As he is the England manager. http://www.thefa.com/England/SeniorTeam/Archive/default.htm?i=2702&pf=m&t=n&t=pf CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

2007. Pre-contract agreements are legally binding, and he could be sued if he attempted to back out for any reason. He has made a commitment, therefore he is already attached to the Football Association as manager incumbent. Ref (chew)(do) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Football manager templates

What is the consensus on the inclusion caretaker managers? Has one been developed? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer templates WITHOUT caretaker managers; put them in List of Wikipedia F.C. managers instead. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather them go in simply for completeness sake. Although I can see the argument for leaving them out particularly those who only manage for one or two games, but some caretakers can be longer-term and important parts of the club's history, e.g. When a club appoints someone to take charge from the following season. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So to your answer your question, no, there isn't really a consensus. Personally, I am in the non in templates, oui in lists. (no idea why I have gone french) Woody (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Caretaker managers deserve to be included, they are a reality in the timeline of a football club's guidance. What would you do if the club won a trophy under the regime of a caretaker manager? You would include him. And you can't include/exclude piecemeal. That isn't application of consensus. Ref (chew)(do) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rivals.net articles - links broken

Rivals.net seems to have re-branded, and all links to articles I have cited there are now broken. I have e-mailed them to see if the articles have been moved or archived, and am awaiting a response, but I just thought I'd warn anyone who has cited articles there that the links will probably now be broken. --Jameboy (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is rivals.net a reliable source? It is or certainly was a fans' site. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly never quote anything off a bulletin board or forum, but some of the articles (at least for West Bromwich Albion) were pretty good IMO. --Jameboy (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong the articles were good, but they were still written by fans from my experience with them. Peanut4 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Rivals is owned I am pretty sure by Rupert Murdochs Sky. The whole networkd was recently revamped. However it has caused quite a few problems and issues which has resulted in a number of clubs leaving the network for other fan sites. Being a Blackpool fan I have seen the Blackpool Rivals site (AVFTT) go from being a strong and vibrant site to a total mess in under two weeks. The editors of AVFTT and numerous other clubs sites have left for "fansonline.net" which was set up by fans and which itself has also had problems. Which could be one reason why links are now dead as each club had their own independent fan site on Rivals and of course a number of them have left the Rivals network. With regard to the articles on Rivals, the vast majority are written by fans and so are highly subjective.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In general, Rivals isn't/wasn't a reliable source, but you can't generalise. For instance, the Rivals Leyton Orient site had biographical details of all their past players, data supplied by club historian Neil Kaufman taken from his Complete Record-type book. That particular section was probably as reliable as it gets (without actually buying the book). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Tubbs

The page related to Matthew Tubbs gets redirected to Salisbury City F.C., as far as I know Tubbs doesn't meet the requirements for an article. Should this article get redirected to Salisbury City or just deleted, as it's misleading?...Jimbo[online] 09:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be simply deleted. --Angelo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Football league season

I've created the above template, based on Template:Infobox Football club season and implemented it at Scottish Premier League 2003-04. Is the template a good idea, and if so, what improvements could be made? Soccerbot seems to be a good source for a lot of the information. Fedgin | Talk 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, most of the facts presented in the infobox should be in the article itself (as prose or a combination of list and prose in a statistics section) rather than in the infobox. – Elisson • T • C • 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact I would go further - a lot of other infoboxes contain information that would be better added to the prose, and should be removed. - fchd (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Should be a good addition to league season articles. – PeeJay 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the urge on this project to avoid putting things in infoboxen. I've tidied this to make it look like the new club infobox layout. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: Prose >> Infobox. – Elisson • T • C • 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not for quick reference. While I agree that deeper statistics are best saved for the article body, having at-a-glance information at the top of an article in a consistent form is wonderfully helpful, which is why most every WikiProject has adopted them. I'd argue against trivial attributes being added to infoboxen, but rarely to the actual existence of a new variant. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem in accepting infoboxes in articles from a common content category (e.g., football clubs, football players and so on). Template:Infobox Football club season was originally created by me as part of a MOS draft for club season articles I released some time ago, and I'd rather of it as being used only on articles which actually implement that draft. The current version of Template:Infobox Football league season, which is declaradly "inspired" by that one, features some information pieces which are actually superfluous in an infobox, such as "longest winning run", "average attendance", "total goals", "highest scoring", and I think winning and relegated teams, as well as the league name and the season year, are the only fields which might potentially deserve to be featured in such an infobox. --Angelo (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think it's useful to have an 'at-a-glance' summary of the key outputs of the season. I appreciate these might not include some of the points above. What would be considered useful, then? I'd suggest: winners, promotion/relegation, continental qualifiers and top scorer. Perhaps the others can be binned? Fedgin | Talk 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Dispute about lack of reference to hooliganism in the Liverpool F.C. article

The article on Liverpool F.C. is currently a featured article candidate, however there is currently a dispute on the nomination page about the fact that its failure to mention incidents involving "hooliganism" more than it already has means that it is imbalanced. I would value it if some people from here could take a look and see what they think. Given that somebody has opposed the nomination saying "I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism", I think this has implications for many articles beyond Liverpool F.C. Robotforaday (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article gives due coverage to Heysel (as it should do), and this is sufficient as far as I am concerned. Individual incidents such as smashing up trains, while regrettable, are not noteworthy when considering all aspects of a 125+ year old football club within an encyclopaedia article. It's not a case of brushing hooliganism under the carpet, just that it is only one small aspect to consider. Also, when events take place away from the ground, it could be argued that they have more to do with topics such as crime or law and order than with individual football clubs. --Jameboy (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonny Evans

The Man United player Jonny Evans is in the news for all the wrong reasons. Per WP:BLP can other editors keep an eye on the article for vandalism or possible libel? Qwghlm (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is being watched, (and we knew you meant BLP, ;) Woody (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Now semi'd because of the sheer rate and WP:BLP concerns now that schools are out. Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this spam?

Jonathan Winsky (talk · contribs) has been adding external links to football stadium articles which link to the multimap map of the stadium, with an edit summary of Added local transport information. In the case of St Andrews, if you follow the link (which I've now removed) the only "local transport information" is the name and distance of nearest train station (at which trains rarely stop) and nearest airport. This strikes me as spam, or even assuming good faith, inappropriate external links, would others agree? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and I have said as much on his talkpage. I reverted the addition to Villa Park. I think the user is acting in good faith though with the addition of coordinates. Just doesn't understand our policies yet. Woody (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Donoghue

Can somebody please rate Gavin Donoghue because i have improved it and i don't think that it is a stub, if you rate it i would like if you could also create a to-do list so i can improve it. Thanks.  Sunderland06  21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I rated it a B due to the fact that the English is quite poor in several places and there is a section which is tagged "neutrality disputed".... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Football renaming

For those of you that don't check the Nominations for deletion/RMs on the main board, I will list it here. There has been a requested move for the page Football (soccer), with the intention of moving to Association football. All constructive comments are welcome on the talk page. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor club naming issue - F.C. or FC

I noticed some pages use "F.C." (with periods) and some use "FC" (without). WP:MOS suggests that the latter form is preferred; I suggest that project standardize on one or the other and use it consistently. Pimlottc (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of existing articles use F.C. so I'd say that should be the standard form, just because it would minimise the work involved..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Although most articles currently use "F.C.", it would reduce issues with punctuation if we used "FC" instead. Articles don't have to be changed all at once straight away as it can be done gradually, but I definitely prefer it without the full stops. – PeeJay 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's an issue, and I definitely prefer it with the full stops. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In England at least, as said above, F.C. is the accepted usage, both on Wikipedia and in the wider footballing world. Of course, some teams use A.F.C. - fchd (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - some clubs use FC (e.g. [25]) and others use F.C. The use of full stops is peculiar to football clubs and is not used for articles such as NASA or XML and I believe Wikipedia's manual of style should be adhered to. Qwghlm (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And some clubs just change it on a whim. I'm wearing an old Swindon Town shirt from 1992 that says both "Swindon Town F.C." and "S.T.F.C." but since the latest rebranding the club officially calls itself "Swindon Town FC" (incidentally it seems they're accepting players from anywhere now looking at that page). Foxhill (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before, but due to the vast amount of articles involved, hasn't been "corrected". Regarding what is the accepted usage outside Wikipedia, FC seems to be more common. – Elisson • T • C • 12:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time this came up, I checked through 200 or so club programmes, from Premier League to local level, and I came up with at least 50% using the full stops. - fchd (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, who here is like me, an admin and would be willing to spend a few hours on this, deleting any redirects that cannot be simply moved over? I for one am willing to help out with the legwork involved. Qwghlm (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are we talking about just moving articles so that they use FC and AFC or are we talking about moving and replacing all instances of F.C./A.F.C. in the text too? I only ask as the first task is a hell of a lot easier than the second. Nanonic (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't say must be without periods. Just that it generally is. I'm not sure if English team names prefer them or not but I just wonder whether it's worth the amount of work to move them all. We're not just talking about club page names, but all their associated pages. For two or else three dots, when the rules don't say must, but generally, is this really a worthwhile task? Peanut4 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Any consistency changes are worthwhile. Most of them can be automated. We just need to pick a form. Easier said than done, on a wikiproject which still feuds about what to call its primary article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As the consistency seems to be for F.C. at the moment, perhaps it would just make life easier to change to that all round. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as a wikiproject which has got its primary article to FA ;) Oldelpaso (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are all to be standardised, I'd prefer F.C.. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been debated a hundred times. F.C. (A.C., etc...) is for countries where dots are commonly used (England, Italy...), FC is for countries where dots aren't used (Spain...) --necronudist (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[citation needed] Qwghlm (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this is when you have tournaments and champions leagues with teams from many different countries. It looks rather messy having some teams listed as F.C. and others as FC within the same page. For example, AFC Champions League 2008. Pimlottc (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The F.C. or FC usually gets hidden behind a piped display name anyway. - fchd (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Well, whatever the verdict, I hope that anyone charged with renaming the articles and going through articles with the hundreds of thousands of instances of "F.C." has stamina, because I tried disambiguating articles when the new Wembley was built (Wembley Stadium pre-2000 needed to be changed to Wembley Stadium (1923)), and gave up in the end. That was an instance of someone changing the name of an article and not following through the consequences in every article with every instance of a required amendment. There are still thousands left with the wrong Wembley referenced. I can see that happening if you start tinkering with F.C. I actually prefer "FC", but I'm blowed if I'm going to be pedantic about it. Life's too short.
P.S. (or PS if you like) I too always hide "Something United F.C." behind "Something United" for display purposes. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there seems to be cultural differences. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the current approach, all English ones, as far as I know, follow the F.C. style. That is the one that I use, and I think it looks better and is more grammatically accurate. In terms of changing them, It wouldn't take much, only the double redirects have to be fixed. You wouldn't have to dab them as per Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Woody (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be different views on this, so I'm going to set up a poll on this so we can reach a consensus.

F.C.
  1. Davnel03 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. If it aint broke don't fix it.  Sunderland06  17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
FC
Comments