Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 16

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

Huge number of WP:BIO failures at Danish clubs

After spotting a couple of new articles come up on the bot list, I have uncovered a huge number of articles on players failing WP:BIO at Danish superligen clubs, all created by User:Kalaha. I've been through AaB (6 prods), AGF (2), AC Horsens (1) and Esbjerg (2), but I'm off to bed now so if anyone else would care to go through and tag a bunch more. I've asked Kalaha to comment here before trying to contest the prods. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been through the rest of the clubs and prodded a bunch more. Let's see what happens next... пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does Danish top division is a fully professional league? Matthew_hk tc 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I would say yes based on attendances. Regardless, we do allow articles on players from the top division in countries like Ireland, where it is much less likely to be the case. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the reason why we need to change the notability criteria and get away from "fully professional". Shouldn't the question be, is the Danish top flight notable, instead of what are the nature of players' contracts in Danish football? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course top flight Danish players are notable, that's plain common sense. It's the highest level of football in the country, and Denmark is a nation with a decent footballing pedigree, its not like we're talking San Marino or Vanuatu. AaB recently beat Sampdoria in the UEFA Cup for example. The league receives extensive coverage in Jyllands-Posten, Politiken and the like, and its last TV rights deal was worth DKK 1bn (EUR 140m). Oldelpaso (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As a Swede I hate to admit it, but the Danish league is the best in Scandinavia and I would guess it's 100 percent professional (even the Swedish league is nowadays). The reason why the Danish league is the best in Scandinavia is mainly because of two things; first of all they don't have the same rule as we have in Sweden that says a non-profit athletic club have to control at least 51 percent of a football club wich, allow for the Danish clubs to be run as commercial enterprises (with FCK the leaders of the pack. Second of all, Denmark has a special "foreign expert" tax wich allow foreign footballers to pay only 30 percent tax instead of the 50 or 60 percent that high income earners pay in Denmark as well as in Sweden, wich give the Danish league the same advantage as AS Monaco have in the French league. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Title categories for clubs

For national football teams, we've got categories like Category:UEFA European Football Championship-winning countries, Category:AFC Asian Cup-winning countries and Category:FIFA World Cup-winning countries. Should we do the same for clubs (e.g. Category:Scottish Premier League-winning clubs), or would that be overcategorisation? AecisBrievenbus 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the first three are over-categorisation. Peanut4 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archive time (again)

Just further reduced this page's archive time further to 10 days as the page is getting silly long (nearly 200k!). If anyone objects feel free to revert. Qwghlm (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Woody (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking that. Let it be. Ref (chew)(do) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dutch teams in the UEFA Cup

The First Round section of the article UEFA Cup 2008-09 currently states that the third-placed, fourth-placed and fifth-placed teams from the Netherlands (i.e. from the Eredivisie) qualify for the UEFA Cup. Technically speaking, this is not correct, but how should it be reworded? The teams finishing 2nd to 5th qualify for playoffs. The winner of the playoffs qualifies for the Champions League third qualifying round, while the remaining three teams qualify for the UEFA Cup. Two years ago, Ajax finished fourth in the Eredivisie 2005-06 season, but won the playoffs and qualified for the UEFA Champions League 2006-07 third qualifying round. AecisBrievenbus 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change. See what you think. Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Club crest sections

Not really a football-specific question per se, but would you say it's necessary to include a reference against a plain statement like "the club's crest depicts a castle, a lion and a horse" if it's obvious just by looking at it.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say a reference would only be necessary in that case if it was ambiguous what one (or more) of the things on the crest was. I mean, if it really was blatantly obvious that it was a castle, a lion and a horse, then of course a reference wouldn't be necessary, but if some people thought the lion was a gryphon or the horse was a unicorn, then it would need a ref. – PeeJay 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Well I think in a many cases yes, as often it isn't obvious exactly what is on a crest (can you really tell from the image alone that this is a liverbird) . In theory we probably always should to avoid WP:OR in reality I don't think anyone is going to dispute most of them. John Hayestalk 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR does not forbid stating the obvious. Besides, describing a crest is good for visually-impaired users of Wikipedia. Also, while a plain description of a crest is going to be a bit dull, most crests have a connection to the local history and the club's heritage (Arsenal's cannon and Sheffield Wednesday's owl are two more obvious ones). Why are a castle, a lion and a horse in this crest? If you can add in why (suitably referenced) you turn a boring statement into a interesting historical nugget. Qwghlm (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The specific example I'm looking at is the crest of Dover Athletic, which is simply a representation of Dover Castle and the White Cliffs of Dover (don't ask me why I didn't just say so above :-S ). In that case there's not really much potential depth in discussing why they're on there...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well for Dover it would certainly be nice to have a source, but it seems unlikely that anyone will dispute what cliffs they are. John Hayestalk 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree with you, having a description of the crest is important, but ideally it should always be sourced. But as I said in in obvious cases (such as Sheffield Wednesday Arsenal) I don't think we need a source to back that one up. John Hayestalk 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Goal of the Month (England)‎

Last week, I added the note Talk:Goal of the Month (England)#Possible vandalism‎. It has not generated any response (even if the new entry is true, I would expect someone to have fixed the broken links), so I guess that nobody is watching the page. Please can someone from this project check the entry for April 2003. JonH (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Defining country of birth

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Maracana is changing literally hundreds of football articles to reflect people being born in countries that existed at the time, rather than countries that exist now. Examples would include Mart Poom, Estonia changed to Soviet Union, Gabriel Zakuani, DR Congo changed to Zaire, and Ivan Leko, Croatia changed to SFR Yugoslavia.
What I'm asking is, what are our policies about this? Is there any consensus for this either way? Should this user's changes be reverted? I see that a few already have been, and I even reverted one to Mart Poom, before realising he was doing this on a large scale. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to this message due to a posting by Dreaded Walrus at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)". In my view, the country of a person's birth should be indicated as it was at the time of birth, like this: "Tallinn, Estonia, Soviet Union". If it is not clear what country the village, town or city of birth is in now, then this should be added in parentheses, like this: "Prague, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)". There's less of an issue in the case of Mart Poom as Tallinn and Estonia both still exist, though Estonia is no longer part of the Soviet Union, but it would be inaccurate to say that Jan Kaplický was born in Prague, Czech Republic, when the political entity now known as the "Czech Republic" did not exist in 1937. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Poom was born in the Soviet Union, Zakuani born in Zaire and Leko in Yugoslavia. The current countries didn't exist at the time, or certainly not as recognised countries. I certainly remember Graeme Hick (cricketer I know!) was always quoted as being born in Rhodesia and that's what his wikipedia entry does say.
It's a tough one though. Peanut4 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd support the historical perspective, for consistency across the encyclopedia. If you think about historical figures, it'd be nonsense to say that Trajan was born in Spain, as the concept didn't exist yet. However, where there may be ambiguity (Poom's a good example, as the former Soviet Union covers such a huge land mass) so the situation could be clarified, perhaps with a footnote? --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the historical perspective. --necronudist (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the changes. This is how I have done it with Israeli politicians, and then in the text of the article itself written "born in Tallinn, Soviet Union (today in Estonia)". пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with the changes and suggest wording like Number57s. Woody (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. - fchd (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this is all good with me. I've reverted myself. I wasn't sure either way at first, hence why I stopped after the first revert, and brought it here for discussion. Is there a way that adding in the "new" countries can be done via AutoWikiBrowser or a bot, or such? Manually it would be quite a tedious task. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think manually is the only way. You could ask Maracana to do it when he edits from now on. Having a look at a few articles, most of them state in the prose that they were born in Soviet Union (now Estonia). As long as the contemporary name is listed somewhere in the prose, it should be alright. Woody (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am glad somebody has taken the initative to do this, because it's essential if we want to have any accuracy. He probably deserves a barnstar for it... Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(re-indent)I completely agree that this was neccessary. I also think that it would be helpful if we had a link to the current form of the country somewherer in the text as well. Woody (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any mention of this in policy anywhere? If not, perhaps it would be good be a good idea to start a discussion on the relevant talk page about including it, as it would be good to point people in its direction in case anyone starts making good-faith edits changing it back. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to go against the flow here, but I can't agree with the consensus. A country such as Latvia did not cease to exist for the period during which it became part of the Soviet Union; whilst it might be technically correct to say that someone born in Riga in the 1970s was born in the Soviet Union, it's also correct to say that they were born in Latvia. Indeed it's equally correct to say that they were born in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. As we are discussing articles about football & footballers, should we not leave the history to the historians. Most of the changes made by User:Maracana were to the country of birth in the player's infobox. To give the country of birth as "Riga, Soviet Union (today in Latvia" seems rather long-winded to me. To use a rather over-used expression, I think we are in danger of trying to be too politically correct. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is PC to go with the contemporary country to be honest. If someone was born in Rhodesia, they were born in Rhodesia as Zimbabwe did not exist. The Soviet Union issue is different. It is the equivalent of saying "Born in the UK", not England, Wales etc. I agree that it can get longwinded in the infobox, which is why I advocated the use of the contemporary status in the prose instead. It is not political correctness in the derogatory form, more a question of accuracy. Woody (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it should say "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" (for example) in these cases. Apart from that, I agree that the country as it was when they were born should be put there. Woody, I'm not sure I understand your UK example; Soviet Union is a former country, the UK still exists… - MTC (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It was in regards to calling it Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic Latvia instead of Soviet Union because it was still technically "latvia" as an entity. In terms of international discussions it was the Soviet Union, in much the same way that it is UK. (Though it is complicated for sports due to individual teams, so not really a good working example). Woody (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Picking up on some things that Daemonic Kangaroo mentioned, I have a few suggestions:
  • If there is an article on the specific political entity that was in existence at the time of the person's birth, perhaps that should be linked to like this: "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])".
  • If a shortened phraseology is required for infoboxes, it should be the original country rather than the new one, otherwise there is simply a factual inaccuracy. Thus I would suggest either "Riga, Latvia" (note the piped link to "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic"), or "Riga, Soviet Union". The present political status can be mentioned as indicated in the first point in the introductory paragraph.
I don't think we can simply "leave the history to the historians". This is an encyclopedia; facts should be stated accurately. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of longer infobox, 'cause a simple <br> tag can avoid this. See Aron Winter. --necronudist (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely the latter; whatever that person's passport would have said at the time is where they were born (i.e. USSR in the case of Riga). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, consensus should be reached and probably policies should be changed to reflect it, just to avoid countless and meaningless edit wars like this.  Jhony   15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The temporary Occupation of Baltic States (1940-1991) by Soviet Union was illegal and not generally recognised, these countries were free before and after that (some of the changes to "Soviet Union" have been made to people born before 1940 too). Overall, changing country of birth to Soviet Union is both confusing and political. What if a person in Estonia was born between 1941 and 1944, what would be the country of birth, Reichskommissariat Ostland? But OK, I did some reverts before I realised the scale of these edits. Feel free to re-revert, if consesus is of different spirit. Oth (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the general rule across Wikipedia as a whole should be that a person's country of birth should be reflected as it was at the time of birth. However, it sounds like particular issues arise over people from the former Soviet Union as there is the additional complication of whether the occupation of certain countries was legal or not. The issue may well arise in connection with other places as well (Taiwan, for instance, which is not recognized as an independent nation by many countries but as part of the People's Republic of China). This matter may need to be discussed at greater length and by more people in a forum that is not limited to football, possibly back at the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe something like this should be created? In reply to Oth, I'd say such controversial cases should be treated separately. Surely while changing country of birth to Soviet Union is both confusing and political for some, reverting it back to Estonia is both confusing and political for others.  Jhony   23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion resurfaces in various forms all the time, see for example Talk:Andriy_Shevchenko#Country_of_birth_edit_war. My view remains unchanged from that discussion - it is important to put useful and relevant information, not just stick to a legal definition. For someone born in an empire it is clearly important and relevant to include the constituent country/nation/republic rather than the empire. This is particularly the case if that person's legacy is associated with the constituent entity rather than with the empire. Dkua (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Soviet Union was a country, not an empire; its parliament was "elected" from the entire area. With an empire, the colonies do not elect members to the parliament of the ruling nation. Therefore, someone born in colonial Nigeria should have their place of birth as Nigeria, but someone born in Kiev in 1970 should have it as Soviet Union (now Ukraine). пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would favour: "... Riga, Latvia (then part of the Soviet Union)... ". But if someone was born in say Moscow, Russia, I don't think any reference to the Soviet Union is needed personally. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dkua, who decide on what information is useful and relevant?  Jhony   00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The editor(s). Dkua (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting definition of an empire you have come up with. Anyway, please don't try to draw me into a semantical discussion on what constitutes an empire (you can just read it here). That was not my point. The point was about providing useful and relevant information. For example, you may not care whether Sergey Korolyov was born in Ukraine or Uzbekistan - his legacy is that of a Soviet rocket engineer. The opposite is the case for Andriy Shevchenko and particularly someone like Oleksandr Hladky. That the latter was born in the Soviet Union is nothing more than an odd curiosity, but you absolutely want to know whether he was born in Ukraine. Dkua (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so. You "absolutely want to know" whether his nationalty is Ukrainian and maybe whether his city of birth is Dvirkivschyna. A possible resolution is to add citizenship to template (definitely Ukrainian in Sheva's case) and then to remove country of birth from Andriy Shevchenko article at all.  Jhony   00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not "absolutely" but relatively for sure (if you were to choose between knowing that he was born in USSR and that he was born in Ukraine). Nationality is good to know but also not "absolutely" - as you know it can be acquired (eg Serhiy Serebrennikov or Oleg Iachtchouk). Dkua (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that a reader can make one additional click to learn that Dvirkivschyna is in Ukraine.  Jhony   01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would hope so (apart from when someone prints an article to read it at a different time, which people do). The question is why you would want to make it more difficult for the reader by presenting the less useful information and leaving out the more useful one on the grounds that the reader can find the more useful one by making an additional click? Dkua (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're still using the let's help the reader by making it less accurate thing, I see. At least with this thread, and more so with proposed centralised discussion, we'll now have a reference point for future corrections to Shevchenko's article. - Dudesleeper Talk 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think we should be more accurate rather than less accurate. Using the name of the larger entity is less accurate than using the name of the constituent entity, particularly if the larger entity is meaningless to the legacy of the person in question. Dkua (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JHONY's suggestion of creating a centralized discussion on the matter is a good one. I'd support that. The issues could be more clearly defined so that participants in the discussion can express their views on each one. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. This is not really an issue that affects only footballers, even though the original edits in question were done only to footballers (a fact which I realised soon after posting, hence my crossposting to WT:MOSBIO). Getting a wider discussion going on this would probably be good, especially if it can end with something solid being stated in a policy, to help prevent edit wars in future like those mentioned on the Shevchenko page. Dreaded Walrus t c 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to go ahead and start a centralized discussion and define some of the issues? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm really the best person to summarise these issues, especially as a lot of the discussion above kinda flies straight over my head. If someone else was to volunteer themselves to start the discussion there, I would greatly appreciate it, but otherwise I will probably give it a go in a day or so. Not promising any aptitude when it comes to summarising it, though... Dreaded Walrus t c 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be great if you or someone else who isn't WP:COI-accuseable will start a discussion.  Jhony   10:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In regard to country of origin, we don't say that David Beckham was born in London, European Union; or London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we say London England. So in the case of footballers like Mark Poom, Tallinn Estonia is sufficient, Soviet Union is too big like the EU to make any sense and Estonian SSR is to formal like "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Martintg (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say false analogy, because England, Scotland etc are like independent nations in football, with separate national teams and separate leagues. On the contrary, best Estionian footballers played for Soviet Union national team and best Estonian teams competed in Soviet League System. It's more like say Catalonia or Basque case so it's better to take Xavi as example.  Jhony   20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
However we are talking about the place of birth, i.e. the geographical location, not the political entity that may have existed at that time. I think readers would get a clearer understanding of where a player was born if we refer to the location as it is currently known, particularly if a player is still active (as opposed to some historical figure), rather than to some defunct former political entity. Martintg (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not? In such case wording should be for example "Dvirkivschyna, present Ukraine", but not just "Dvirkivschyna, Ukraine".  Jhony   21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But as per the examples above Gabriel Zakuani was born in Kinshasa or born less specifically in Zaire. His country of birth was not Democratic Republic of the Congo, so his place of birth should be Kinshasa, Zaire. Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion...  Jhony   22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why this has to be subjected to a centralised discussion as it related to the context of Football. One size does not fit all and discussion here on WikiProject Football should be sufficient. Martintg (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not related just to the context of football. Just take a closer look on Maracana's contributions. And discussion here is too unformal for producing a policy change.  Jhony   01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This certainly isn't restricted to football, hence my Graeme Hick example right up front. Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well is some going to start this centralised discussion then? I think if we are going to list the location of someone's birth place as, for example, "Kiev, Soviet Union", then we must be consistant and list those born in say London as being born in the European Union. Martintg (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The Soviet Union was a recognised country, while the European Union, although it may be heading that way, is not. To list someone as being born in "London, European Union" is just stupid. – PeeJay 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was nominally a union of 15 sovereign socialist republics, spanning 11 time zones. Unlike the current EU treaty law, there actually was provision in the Soviet constitution for a republic to withdraw from the SU if it so desired. Listing someone as being born in "Kiev, Soviet Union" is just as uselessly stupid as listing someone as being born in "London, European Union". More useful would be to list said person as being born in "Kiev, Ukrainian Socialist Republic", and even better would be to simply state "Kiev, Ukraine". Sticking to the geographical without political aspect is more neutral in my view. Martintg (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about Spainish/Belgian/Swiss etc constitution, because otherwise we may end with something like "Geneva, Canton of Geneva" as place of birth of Philippe Senderos.  Jhony   02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course nobody is going to write "Canton of Geneva" (not instead of Switzerland for sure). However, if (hypothetically and imaginarily) Canton of Geneva were to secede from Switzerland and Philippe Senderos started playing for the national team of Canton of Geneva then mentioning such (then) country in his infobox would be a useful and sensible thing to do. Dkua (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"You are impossibly pedantic". Am I? Don't think so. Anyway, I'm going to wait for a centralized discussion.  Jhony   03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I will have to copy my argument from a different discussion here as it addresses the same point: the phrase "Dvirkivschyna, present Ukraine" is meaningless as Dvirkivschyna was part of Ukraine then, not only now. You can put it that way if a place was transferred from one country to another (e.g. Yozhef Sabo - born in Ungvar, Hungary (now Uzhhorod, Ukraine)) but Dvirkivschyna was always part of Ukraine in Shevchenko's lifetime, simply Ukraine was not always part of the USSR. Dkua (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dvirkivschyna then was part of Soviet Union or, less generally, Ukrainian SSR.  Jhony   02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. It was part of Ukrainian SSR; also known as Ukraine then, not only now. Dkua (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"England, Scotland etc are like independent nations in football..." I am glad that you have said this as it shows that for you the important thing is not necessarily putting the state of the player's birth in the infobox but to mention the country/nation of his birth associated with his activity/legacy. By the same token, there's no reason why the infobox of Poom/Shevchenkoi/etc can't include the names of the countries of their birth (in addition to or if appropriate instead of the states of their birth). Dkua (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact Template:Infobox Football biography specifically asks for countryofbirth (not stateofbirth). Dkua (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, England, Scotland etc are like independent nations in football, with separate national teams and separate leagues. On the contrary, best Ukrainian footballers played for Soviet Union national team and best Ukrainian teams competed in Soviet League System.  Jhony   02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Football biography does not ask for footballassociationoftheareaatbirth or leaguesystemoftheareaatbirth either. Dkua (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Soviet Union national team is a contadiction in terms. One didn't have Soviet Union "nationality". Sure, one may have held a passport of the Soviet Union, but if you are born in the European Union you would hold an EU passport. Martintg (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course there was such a thing as Soviet Union nationality (whether or not you like the term), and there is no such thing as an EU passport (there is such a term but it means "passport of a country which is a member of the EU). Dkua (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding WP:CENT... Would it be best to just link to this discussion in Template:Cent, just like many others there link to discussions already ongoing, or would it be best to create a new discussion as a subpage there, with a summary? Dreaded Walrus t c 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I personally would prefer a new discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth (or similar) with a summary.  Jhony   02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in this. Please be aware I am still working on a page (at the suggested location), it is just that I have had to deal with numerous phone calls over the past few hours that have warranted my full attention. It should be done soon-ish. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. I probably ended up the wrong side of the concise/comprehensive line, but noone else really seemed interested in doing it. Apologies if I've misrepresented anyone's opinion, or left something big out. And yet more apologies if I've done the whole thing "wrong". I'm not really familiar with the process. Dreaded Walrus t c 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth has been created. Thanks go to Dreaded Walrus! I also archieved previous discussion to avoid discussing the same issue in different places.  Jhony   19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Months in the history

Do you think it would be wise to add months to the years in the history? Especially with players turned manager, I find it helpful to know when exactly a contract ended or the person was fired. I experimented with this on Norbert Meier and while the template does support dates in the form MM/YYYY, the box gets a bit wide. Ideas, opinions? --Madcynic (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this page is a traditional one to get a lot of replies, possibly try the WP:FOOTYtalk page. However I don't think it's a good idea at all. The infobox is only there as a guide to the article. I would add the months to the main article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied this here as per suggestion. --Madcynic (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Peanut, years only in the infobox. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

non-notable players?

{{Real Madrid C squad}} Can anyone see any reason why the players on this template should not be proded for non assertion of natability? Its not even Real reserves its Real Madrid C. King of the NorthEast 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • If no-one objects I'll prod them citing faliure to meet the new WP:FOOTY Criteria. King of the NorthEast 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see notability assertion there. -- Alexf42 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WikiProject Football/Players

Hi. I posted the following recently at WikiProject Football/Players talk page, but have received no response. Is it possible to get an answer from here?

Hi. I am currently in discussions with another editor over representation of player loan details in infoboxes. I am quite sure that, after a loan arrangement has been agreed, due to the contractual arrangements of a player, his displayed Current club should still be that which holds his registration. Case in point is Greg Halford, Sunderland A.F.C.→Charlton Athletic F.C., January 31, 2008. The editor has altered my edit to show Charlton as the dominant Current club (with the adjunct on loan from Sunderland placed below it), even though his Senior clubs record clearly shows the loan arrangement as being acknowledged. In a loan arrangement (not "transfer", as that is taken to mean full transfer of registration with the appropriate FA from one club to another), the player's contract still belongs to the parent club, and the player can be recalled at any time, without any legal regard to the loan club, who cannot protest or withhold the player from returning. It's therefore my belief that Wikipedia should follow the legal standpoint, and still show the contract holder as the Current club. I also believe that the squad template on the player's page should be that of his parent club, with the loan club's template below it. In the case illustrated above, the Sunderland template has been wiped. A quick reply would be appreciated, including any previous test cases where consensus was established either way. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early reply would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd make it explicit that it is only a loan arrangement but show the loan club - after all, that's where the player will be for the defined future. I always do what you've described above, showing (on loan from x) below and displaying the loan club's squad list template. You'll usually see the parent club's squad list showing 'Players out on loan' too. Wanaka | Talk 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Of course the current club field should contain the club a player is on loan with - because that's the club he's currently with. They hold his registration, they are the club he can play for at that moment in time (NB - not all loans can be recalled, and when they can, there's usually notice). Leaving it out is hugely misleading - it makes the loan lower down in the infobox look like it's elapsed. Think of what is useful - someone glancing a player's infobox wants to see the club a player is currently at. Too much of WP:FOOTY is let down by overly literal readings like this, with no thought for what's actually happening, or what's useful. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys have confused what User:Refsworldlee is asking. I was under the impression that he was asking whether we should put "Current club: Sunderland (on loan to Charlton Athletic)" or "Current club: Charlton Athletic (on loan from Sunderland)". Personally, I'd go for the latter. – PeeJay 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary 'case in point' suggests otherwise. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant just "Current club: Sunderland", with the only reference to the loan being in the Senior clubs record underneath. I have already noticed that my viewpoint is in the minority, so I will not be reverting any of the instances I have found, even if I don't agree with it. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My bad. I guess I should have read the question properly. However, I stand by my opinion that the loan club should be included in the Current club field, and in that order. – PeeJay 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ArtVandelay et al. It's impossible to take a legalistic view-point on this issue. Short term loans in the English leagues are one thing, but there are a lot of different contractual arrangements out there that sometimes are difficult, if not impossible, to determine. In Italy players can be co-own by two clubs, while out on loan to a third club, and in especially Brazil it's common that companies or agents own the rights to a player, wich led to all the problems with the transfers of Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tévez. If we would adhere to Refsworldlee's view-point, then Mascherano's current club would be MSI... Sebisthlm (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point :))  Jhony   19:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Youssef Darbaki

I'm not sure of the notability of this player and manager. According to google, he seems to have coached some American teams, but his player career seems to be a hoax, as I know he never played for Matra Racing (currently RCF Paris, at the time RC Paris 1,not Matra Racing) and I couldn't find any datas, which is surprising for a Moroccan international footballer. So, what can be done with this?--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a quick search for Google, and seems to bring up two people called Youssef Darbaki; one seems to be a restauarnt and bar owner, and the otehr does appear to be an ex semi-pro player who playesd for clubs such as FC Strikers, but whether these two are the same as the suppsed ex-Morroccon international, or even the same as each other, is unknown. The lack of internet sites for someone who apparently almost joined the Word Cup squad of Morrocco is suspicious...why not remove the items you know or suspect to to be untrue, and tag it as unreferened. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there seems to be a player of that name, although too much datas are unreferenced. But have a look at the creator talk page here User talk:Darbaki. As you can see, he created several "Darbakis article" who were deleted. This get more and more curious...--Latouffedisco (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost certainly a hoax, take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Paul_Twin_Stars&diff=181524488&oldid=178046533 Taking into account deleted Darbakis, I advise to prod this article.  Jhony   21:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, given the name of the article creator, it is almost certain that it is a hoax: Youssef Darbaki himself, or one of his relatives, seems to have created the article. I therefore agree with Jhony, prod it. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Done.  Jhony   08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good!Thanks!--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

...Oops! He exists! :) [1][2][3]  Jhony   20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

His profile with photo: [4].  Jhony   20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
More: [5][6]  Jhony   20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jermain Defoe

I have a question for his infobox, do you have him list Portsmouth twice, or once? Do you have the one match, one goal as a loan spell then run another stats under it for pompy or do you put it all together?? Govvy (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was on loan for Saturday's game, to be fully correct it should have one entry for Portsmouth (loan) 1 (1) and a second line Portsmouth x (x). Peanut4 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I think it should be as correct as we can get it. So I guess two lines is in order. Govvy (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Peanut, have it on two lines. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, until the move is made permanent, have it on one like. I've come across loads of players who have had loans made permanent and always put them on seperate lines. It looks like Defoe has played 2 scored 2. Jimbo[online] 09:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's just because some muppet changed the second line from 0 (0). I've changed it back. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question regarding the infobox. Now we have Pompy down twice, why do both need to be linked? Don't you save data-space for not linking it? I personally think it looks cleaner when only one is linked. What is the rule about that? Govvy (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if there's a rule, but I think it would look strange if just one line wasn't linked. At least it they're all links, it's all the same style. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the idea that a loan move made into a permanent move (without any gap in between) should have two separate rows. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In contrast, I think it's a good way of showing that the move was originally a loan. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's misleading, though - it looks like two separate spells, and gives appearance totals that are unrepresentative. You should use the article text to explain that a loan deal was made permanent; maybe people are relying on the infoboxes too much. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If it was a genuine loan spell that later became permanent - as has happened on several occasions - then fair enough. Crespo, Tevez and Mascherano are technically on loan deals too (as was Veron), but they are recognised as permanent moves. Wanaka | Talk 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding and Mascherano, that is because they have been loaned from the company which owns their rights, not a club. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish football club name query

According to allfootballers.com, Nigel Donn played for a Finnish club called "Karpalo". Another source I have spells it "Carploen". I can't find a WP article with a name that even remotely resembles either of these, so I guess it might be a very minor/defunct club - does anyone know what club this is......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be Käpylän Pallo; 'Pallo' means ball, and Finnish team names are often shortened. Carploen sounds like a dutch translation. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hello

I was wondering after reading about the current issues surrounding notablity of footballers if you have played for your country does this establish notablity on its own or would they still need to play for a professional club or whatever is going to be adopted in the debate at the moment. I understand this would be ok if you played for spain or england and other big footballing countries but what about andorran and san marino international players, what about there notablity especially when the majority would play for clubs that are not pro and some may even not be be involved with a football club at all. On the first issue I mentioned an example of this is the swiss player who scored against us on his debut yestoday would he be notable or not onn the fact he has played for his national side ( I do not know the club he plays for so may be notable due to this) but say he plays in the swiss league where it is semi pro or a different league where it is not pro what would the situation be in terms of the notablity of this player.

If possible could someone involved in the notablity debate give me an answer on the above. Thanks. p.s. If this issue has already been resolved I am sorry for the inconvenience 02blythed (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All full international players are deemed notable under the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Swiss player who scored on his debut yesterday can be found here, he plays in a fully pro league for a fully pro club. I understand what you are asking though, as I have also wondered.
For example Montserrat are hardly a recognised footballing nation, the vast majority of their players play in semi-pro leagues or the English non-league, having not played for a pro club their entire career. Does this mean they are notable having played for a tinpot national side a handful of times? Jimbo[online] 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
TBH, that's often an issue with any person from very small countries; Montserratian MPs are in a similar boat - they are technically notable under WP:BIO/Politicians. In the interests of equality, all international footballers should be deemed notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC

Does it not bother anyone that these are the only two WikiProjects solely devoted to individual football clubs? Personally, I find it quite divisive that we have two projects that fit perfectly well under the WP:FOOTY banner working towards their own ends. What happens if there is a conflict on a Sheffield United or Sheffield Wednesday page? Do we default to standards set by their own projects or he ones set here on WikiProject Football? – PeeJay 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait and see if any conflict actually occurs? And can WikiProjects annex each other anyway? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If there are any conflicts then the WikiProject Council can help resolve them. As to annexation, a proposal to push projects towards taskforces and banner sharing has been kicking around for a while at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. There still has to be a consensus from both the main project and the sub-project (or the wider community if necessary) that annexation would be a good idea. There was also a rejected proposal to turn WikiProject Sheffield United into a WP:FOOTY taskforce earlier this year (see here), which is a pity as it'd help structure the Project better as per the rationale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects. As to standards, we have our own tried and tested methods and style that are applied to a very wide range of articles and know that sticking to these (with their occasional tweaks etc) help us in the attainment of producing high quality content, whether any other non WPF:MOS/precedent/styles/standards will stand up during PR or FAC is something we'll have to see in the future. Foxhill (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what value they add. I mean, Gillingham F.C. achieved Featured Topic status without having its own taskforce or project. If you have a project or task force for every club, the parameters for the main footy project's talk page template would become unmanageable. Also I have left messages on the SWFC project talk page before and not received a response. --Jameboy (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. A WikiProject is supposed to bring Wikipedians together to work on a wide range of related articles, such as articles on Star Wars or Harry Potter. I fail to see how WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC, with their combined total of 20 non-unique members, fit in with those criteria. Even Football in England by only a taskforce, so why are these two clubs worthy of an entire WikiProject? To be honest, I'd be happier promoting the English football taskforce to sub-project status, and demoting WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC to taskforce status. – PeeJay 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned when someone suggested demoting WP: Sheffield United on the discussion page - I for one am not interested in contributing to a 'wide range of articles' on Football - only those directly relating to SUFC. Therefore I would not join WP: Football or any England Taskforce. If a project is the way the members of those two existing projects wish to organise themselves surely that is up to them and not for people outside that area to demand changes? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because you're a member of a particular WikiProject doesn't mean you have to contribute to articles across the entire range of the project's scope. Hell, I'm a member here at WP:FOOTY, but I mostly contribute to articles about my own club, Man Utd. Basically, I don't have a problem with WP:SUFC or WP:SWFC, per sé. I just think that, just like you can have over-categorisation, it's also possible to have over-projectification, and these two seem to fall into that bracket. – PeeJay 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have a problem with them why start a discussion asking if their existance "bothers anyone" and suggesting they're devisive? As I said I would not join WP football as I'm not interested in 'Football' and have no views on the merits of articles about Leeds United seasons, football chants or FC Limburg - so therefore I would never look at the discussions on these pages and as such not input into any discussions relevant to my area of interest requiring consensus. - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. What I am interested in is working on articles about Sheffield United FC and (like others in the project) feel that having a project page is a useful way to keep abreast of the area of my interest. I see no difference between a WP Sheffield United and WP Star Wars as someone mentioned - surely by the logic espoused here WP Star Wars should be annexed by WP: Film? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You are twisting my words. When I said I don't have a problem with either project, I meant that I think the work done by each sub-project is good. However, I do think that their status as sub-projects is undeserved, and somewhat divisive, as I feel that there could be double- or even triple-standards issues creeping in, due to the individual style guidelines set down by WP:FOOTY, WP:SHEFF and the sub-projects themselves. Like I said, you don't have to be active in other areas of WP:FOOTY to make a significant contribution in one particular area. Anyway, I realise you may feel threatened that a project you are strongly involved in could face some drastic changes. However, it is my personal belief that both WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC should be demoted to become taskforces of both WP:SHEFF and WP:FOOTY. Whether other people agree with me or not remains to be seen, but this is my opinion and I stand by it. – PeeJay 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you belive then that WP Star Wars should be annexed by WP film? I repeat my asertation that Sheffield United exists as a notable entity in it's own right and not merely a footnote in football and as such editors with a particular desire to work on articles pertaining to it should be allowed to organise themselves and do so in the manner they see fit. What editors who work on other clubs choose to do is up to them.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that WP:STARWARS should be "annexed" by WP:FILM as it has a very broad scope, covering an entire in-universe. The number of articles pertaining specifically to Sheffield United F.C. pales in comparison to the number of articles that are uniquely related to Star Wars. – PeeJay 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's six films. OK - they're popular ones and have generated a lot of spin off merchandise but it's still just six films. Compared to the sum total of filmic output in history it's miniscule. So surely by your own argument it should be subsumed by WP Film. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, both sub-projects seem to regard themselves more as daughter projects of WP:SHEFF than WP:FOOTY, hence their reluctance to become taskforces of WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Excactly - they were set up as sub-projects of Sheffield so if anything fall within it's bounds. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
On the matter of Sheffield Wednesday, does anyone think the Sheffield Wednesday F.C. page is worthy of FA anymore? The lead doesn't seem long enough, the history section quite short, perhaps lacking in references and not up to the current style. I reckon it could do with a bit of work on it. Peanut4 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The lead must have been hacked at some point as the paragraph on the stadium went missing so i've reinstated it. I'm not sure what you mean by history section being too short. It had to be cut down to get the article up to FA status. josh (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the view of PeeJay in this debate - they would be more likely to fall under the remit of the city project rather than the footy project, IMO. Ref (chew)(do) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I have no preference for whether the projects fall under WP:SHEFF or WP:FOOTY. I was merely bringing an element of the discussion at WP:SUFC that I had noticed to this discussion. – PeeJay 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a member of the SUFC wikiproject. I see that Category:WikiProject Football contains 3 club wikiprojects - SUFC, SWFC and Real Madrid. This seems entirely appropriate. Seriously, though, I see no problem with the present set-up. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to post my 2p here - there is nothing wrong with a project having more than one parent or a taskforce being part of two related projects, this has been used by us for the FC Bayern Munich taskforce which is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich and football (soccer) in Australia which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian sports. This type of Inter-WikiProject co-ordination can help bring more editors and interested parties to assist in collaborations.
As to the subsumation of active projects, I believe that without consensus from the proposed subsumee that this not be a welcome move - this was why when I suggested that WP:SU (which I believed to be inactive at the time) become a taskforce that I stated "I will not do this if there are any disagreements" and eventually didn't. As per the guideline at WP:COUNCIL - "Talk to the potential child WikiProjects about co-ordination, and see what sort of response you get. Be careful not to try to dictate to them; they could be sensitive about you appearing out of nowhere and wanting to assimilate them.", the guideline also allows Parent projects to adopt/usurp inactive projects and turn them into taskforces.
The main reasoning behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects was as follows (quoted from the page which I'm sure you've all read)
As the majority of spin-off's and other collaborations relating to association football will be using the same stub templates, talk page banners and manual of style - a separate project is not needed. In fact, a separate project that uses so much of WP:FOOTY's infrastructure would be a task force in all but name.
By creating task forces and integrating them into the projects talk page banner, {{football}}, the amount of clutter on talk pages is also minimised.
Another good reason for the preference of task forces over projects is that of communication. Projects on Wikipedia frequently fail to let others know what they are doing, what proposals are being made, what consensus has changed. Sometimes this can cause a lot of conflict, especially over notability or manual of style changes. By bringing everyone together and providing them with a centralised discussion point we hope to avoid this and help to keep everyone informed and aware of what's happening in our field of interest. We wish to avoid the 'them and us' feeling that can exist between large projects and their children.
There is a large amount of background discussion that led to this statement, including the appearance and quick stagnation of a number of projects, disagreements over the amount of banner templates placed on talk pages (Imagine if all sub-projects had their own individual banners and a female player from Ireland who went on to appear for Sunderland, an American team and finished her playing career in Australia before coming back to England to manage a non-league team - that's seven different possible football related tags on a talk page), some projects using WP:1.0 assessments and others not.
The recommendation that all new focus groups take on the taskforce role relates to the past stagnation and, in some cases, eventual deletion of projects that had a ill-considered scope or lack of interest. It also took into account the longterm proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform to eventually restructure all projects into superproject/subproject/taskforce format.
Ideally, all football related projects would be located under one umbrella, this way we could provide statistics for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects to assist them in Wikipedia CD and DVD releases (of which there were 18 football related articles in the last release and selection for the next is currently underway).
We don't want to force others to write on "all association football topics", you join a project because it's goals are the ones you want to help achieve. We have however identified that other projects come under our scope and work towards a subset of our subject, it would make sense to link them together in some way so that when an article is removed from your scope - WP:FOOTBALL will continue to work on it. Also, if someone has a problem or issue with an article they'll usually come here first as this is main collaboration point for all football/soccer topics.
I don't suggest or mean to imply that you become a taskforce just so it looks nice on WikiProject Footballs stats-sheet, if you don't want to, don't. Whatever happens you will still be marked as a football related sub-project purely due to the reasoning above.
Please do continue to use our Manual of Style and other tools/templates/resources, please do use our featured content as guides when improving articles and most importantly - please do keep this page watchlisted, doing this will help to keep you informed of other discussions (including deletions and notability issues) that may affect you.
Hopefully, all that explains my take on all of this (probably badly and very wordily). Nanonic (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Projects on Wikipedia frequently fail to let others know what they are doing, what proposals are being made, what consensus has changed. - like having a discussion on a completely different project page that the users of another project probably never visit and then turn up wanting to make unilateral decisions you mean? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It may be a long 'rant' but it's pretty much spot on. The most concern for me about a separate project is they adopt different styles, etc, some of which would cause conflict with the main project. Peanut4 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of a Sheffield football taskforce replacing the two projects. Communication is already good between editors of each club making the projects redundent at times. With a combined taskforce efforts can be combined on articles such as Steel City derby and Bramall Lane that hold an interest to both sets of editors. Some of the more minor articles on Sheffield football would also benefit from the combined taskforce. josh (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These "more minor articles" are doing very well without a combined Steel City Football taskforce. Take a look at Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. - FA without even the sniff of a footy project. Or maybe template:Football in Sheffield, created off your own back without the need discuss in a project. I set up WP:SUFC as a sub-project primarily of WP:Sheff, and used this and WP:SWFC as the template. I do not particularly want to be absorbed into WP:FOOTY as I think the current set-up works well. I created a seasons page based on the Wednesday page. I'm working on a list of players based on what we saw at Aston Villa, so there is already standardisation and intercollaboration, I just think that placing WP:SUFC as a WP:FOOTY taskforce could divorce it somewhat from WP:Sheff. Just as a mark of how little I care about WP:FOOTY (and no offence intended to what you guys are trying to do here) is that I was only made aware of this discussion here by a user on my talk page - if there's a threat to discussion of whether to annex WP:SUFC, shouldn't a comment be left on WPT:SUFC? Or did PeeJay2K3 want to try to sneak it through against the wishes of the sub-project in spite of Nanonic asking and getting an answer in the negative? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point - as far as I'm aware there have been no conflicts of interest or style because of the existance of either WP Blades or Owls so it seems to me that people are trying to create a problem that doesn't exist. And as I will keep saying until I'm blue in the face the point of projects is to bring together users with a shared interest and enthusiasm for a particular subject and as far as I'm concerned Sheffield United is a subject in it's own right and not merely an aside of football. I'm pretty sure that most people who edit football related articles never visit WP football or look at the discussions and therefore are never going to pay attention to your style guides etc - but I'm sure a lot more would engage with projects based around their own club and therefore be more likely to work within an overarching 'brand'. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair regarding Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C., I contributed to the PR and FAC only because I'm a member of WP:FOOTY and they were listed on the project page. They would have probably passed anyway, but without the project, my input would likely have been absent. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of WP:SWFC I feel that I should add my opinion to the discussion. Firstly, some people have mentioned that they have posted comments on the project's talk page and not receoved responses. I believe that the main reason for this is that the project has become neglected due to unconstructive edits made by Wikipedians who for some unknown reason had a problem with a project (as an example, someone went and removed Template:WPSWFC from the talk pages of all the related articles, and at the time I did not have the time or inclination to go around restoring them all again).

Secondly, I am with Josh, and believe that forming a Sheffield Football taskforce or wikiproject to replace the existing ones would be a good idea, however I would only agree to this if there was a concensus between all members of the two existing projects, and at present this looks unlikely. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an important point - it sounds like the WP Owls was seriously damaged by the interference of people from outside of it who wanted to steam roller their own views of the world. The list of sub projects on the WP Football pages reads like a hit list - with the word deleted proudly displayed against many of them. All these projects will have been instigated by people who had an enthusiasm for a subject and wanted to work together to improve that content. I wonder how many of them still retain the enthusiasm for writing on that subject for Wikipedia now they've been told their interest is unimportant and worthy of deletion? It sounds like the actions taken against WP owls have actually adversely affected the quality of content on that club - which sort of goes against your stated intentions doesn't it? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's my point exactly Bladeboy. I was so angered and demoralised by the attack on WP:SWFC that I stopped editing Wikipedia altogether for several months and have only recently started contributing again; now the witch hunt seems to have started again (I notice that a link to this discussion has not been added to the talk page on either of the Wikiprojects - one could be forgiven for thinking that there was an intention to exclude members of the two projects from this discussion!).
I think that the arguments that have been made against these two projects are very weak indeed and as you say, both projects have been created in good faith with the aim of improving related articles. I am personally very proud of the work that has been done on Sheffield Wednesday related articles (such as the main article gaining FA status) and believe that the Wikiproject has played an important role in these improvements. Who is to say that they should not exist because no other English clubs have one (nobody is stopping Man Utd creating a Wikiproject if they so wish) or because there are only a handful of members? The point is that these projects and their members have done some important work for Wikipedia that probably wouldn’t otherwise have been done.
Finally, it is worth noting that the scope of both projects is HUGE - including current and former players and managers there are literally thousands of related articles - and there is still loads of work to be done. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why both cannot and should not remain. Yes, some articles will be in multiple projects - Derek Geary as an example could be in WP Blades, WP Owls, WP Footy, WP Ireland, WP Sheffield, WP Yorkshire and WP Biographies, but there have been no style debates. By the logic of many of the arguers here, WP Footy should be disbanded, as the players articles go to WP Bio, the clubs to individual cities, the stadia to WP geography/WP Buildings&Structures etc. Nobody is proposing that now there is a WP Yorkshire, we should remove WP Sheffield, WP Leeds and WP Bradford! Why SUFC/SWFC? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with them existing, but I think they should be taskforces, as we have done at WP:LFC. We have just as many articles (well we would if they were all tagged, but that's another issue) but a task force is fine for the purpose. John Hayestalk 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Premier League

I'm not sure if here of the Premier League talk page is the best place to discuss this, but how do other WP:FOOTY members think is the best way to incorporate the possible games overseas in the Premier League into the article? Only one edit has been made so far, which is in the lead, so obviously incorrect, as least by itself. I can't think the best place to put it. My options would be

  • at History#Establishment
  • new section History#Future plans (if that even makes any sense)
  • Competition format#Competition.

Any other ideas/thoughts? Peanut4 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, we have no more than responses to leaks about remote possibilities. Perhaps a sentence in the section on worldwide coverage, saying that interest is such that this has been proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Of the three options you put forward, Peanut, I would say that it would go best in the Competition format section, but Kevin McE's suggestion goes well too. – PeeJay 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave it out, as KevinMcE has done. But I'm sure other users may change this, and I guess the article needs watching on this and possible use of where to put it. Peanut4 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would go with Kevin McE's suggestion of a sentence in the section on worldwide coverage, especially as we're talking about little more than rumours at this stage. Robotforaday (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

UK flags

I understand wanting to use local flags rather than the countries flag when players are competing competitions that have England/Scotland/Wales with different teams. It doesn't seem like it should apply in all situations though. Soccer players competing in Major League Soccer (a US soccer league) should just use the UK flag. I have always thought this, but decided to bring this up after checking out the article of my local soccer team (Rochester Raging Rhinos). TJ Spyke 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Players should not be subject to different rules just because they play in a different country. If a player is eligible to play for (or has already played for) England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland or, if they are eligible for more than one, they have a strong affinity to one of those countries, then that is the flag that should be used. No exceptions. – PeeJay 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
They are all part of one country: United Kingdom (I am aware of the BS that they each claim to be a country, but that's not true). This is like having someone use the New York or California flag rather than the US flag. TJ Spyke 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of the flag in the squad list is there more to show which country they are eligible to play for than where they were born, for instance David Beckham's entry in the Los Angeles Galaxy article shows a St George's Cross as he is an England player. The same is also true of Owen Hargreaves who was born in Canada and eligible to play for England, Scotland, Wales, Canada and Germany but since deciding on (and playing for) England he's shown with the St George's Cross in Manchester United F.C.. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I say they should use the UK flag. On another similar issue, what about Puerto Rico? They are just a commonwealth of the United States, so they should use their national flag (which is the US flag), right? TJ Spyke 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has it's own national flag, as shown on the Puerto Rico article and it's own Puerto Rico national football team, you'll note that Puerto Rican players are shown in articles (such as Chivas USA) with their national flag. This is also analogous to Canada being a commonwealth of the UK but having it's own flag etc. Nanonic (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That analgy is completly wrong. Canada is an independant country, Puerto Rico is not. It would be like saying Bermuda is a country or Iceland is a country. TJ Spyke 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I want to confuse the issue further, but Iceland is a country in the sense you're talking about... Robotforaday (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Using the UK flag is utter nonsense and shows a complete disregard for football tradition and history. Having separate flags and separate teams for the home nations is something that is rooted very deeply in the world of football, just like Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland have always had a joint national rugby team (which doesn't even sport either country's flags but has a flag of its own) or like the West Indies cricket team that represents several sovereign Caribbean nations. And does it really need mentioning how much separate national teams are important for the Scots or the Welsh? I'm sorry if I sound like I'm overreacting, being a newbie and all, but putting UK flags on British players just sounds plain barbaric to me. Perhaps some day an American might suggest that we just put up flags of the European Union on all European players since, you know, that's all Europe anyway :-) Timbouctou (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So it's silly to want to put the flag of a persons country? England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all part of 1 country: the United Kingdom. I am aware of UK tradition, but how is displaying the UK flag (which is technically your national flag) barbaric? TJ Spyke 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is obviously going to end up in a lenghty and pretty useless discussion about the difference of nationality and ethnicity, as well as regional patriotism that is very much alive in almost all corners of europe. I do hope one day you might get to see a game at Camp Nou and pose the same question to Barcelona supporters who are rather adamant about displaying banners with something along the lines of "Catalonia isn't Spain" every other weekend, or perhaps to the Basque supporters of Athletic Bilbao. But anyway, the bottom line is that political entities are one thing and UEFA-recognized national teams are something else entirely. The only place where you might see an UK national team is in the Olympics - and even that is something that hasn't been around for more than 30 years because the home nations' FA's can't agree on having one. Simply put - in the world of football United Kingdom simply doesn't exist so I don't see why wikipedia contributors should invent it.Timbouctou (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
One other point to make is that, as we use the flags to show eligibility for national teams so much, the use of the Union Jack may confuse readers into thinking those players are eligible for the United Kingdom national football team when that may not be true. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. It's all well and good that they are citizens of the UK, but in footballing terms, that's utterly meaningless and affiliation with the particular home nation is what matters. matt91486 (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto; the UK flag has no meaning with regards to football whatsoever and in footballing terms, it is clearly not "BS that they each claim to be a country" (perhaps you should check with FIFA?). A similar situation is with the Ireland national rugby union team - no use of tricolours or Ulster banners in sight. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to add my personal views on which flags should be used, I think the central issue is what they represent. Is it the nationality of the player (in which case it should be British), or is it the country they represent (in which case it should be England, Wales, Scotland etc.) John Hayestalk 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But in footballing terms nationality is at the England-N Ireland-Scotland-Wales level. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In a football list or infobox, a player's actual citizenship is useless information, we have to show their footballing nationality, which has to follow FIFA's rules of what defines nationality, and what are nations. Absolutely all other media, literature and websites do it that way, because that's the useful information. This issue seems to be coming up a lot - people need to think of what is useful information, instead of being absolutely literal to the point where it becomes misleading and irrelevant. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
First things first: I think the use of flags is ugly and dumbs down the article, and I would happily get rid of all of them. But that aside, I think you are conflating two things here. In football, we define "nation" as referring to the national football associations. So when we talk about nationality in football, we are talking about eligability to play for a particular country, where country is defined as "territory with a national football association". The USA is a territory with a national football association, as is Puerto Rico, as is Scotland, as is Italy. The issue of whether players from UK are "British" in terms of what it says on their passport is, to a certain extent, irrelevant. So, to summarise, we're talking about national football associations, not nation-states. Robotforaday (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief respite in all this policy talk

Hello everyone. I just wanted to draw the project's attention to my efforts to push Ipswich Town F.C. to featured topic status, in the footsteps of User:ChrisTheDude with Gillingham F.C.. The ITFC statistics article is heading slowly but surely towards WP:FL which leaves just History of Ipswich Town F.C. which currently is sitting at PR waiting for a right telling off. I'm hoping that by the end of Feb WP:FOOTBALL will be well on the road to having two featured topics, which isn't bad considering the whole of English Wikipedia currently has 30 featured topics. Naturally I don't want any kind of nepotism to be involved, I just want to make the project proud of our joint achievements. I see Aston Villa F.C. isn't far behind as well - all hands to the pumps! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. isn't far away from being a featured topic either ;-) – PeeJay 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And York City F.C., don't forget! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Just testing! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Club current squad templates

What determines the criteria for a club's current squad template - the notability of the club itself or the notability of the players? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the level of notability required for a current squad box, it's the disgracefully out of date and ridiculously inaccurate unmaintained boxes, and boxes without a single blue link that need to be culled. See Cat:Uruguayan football squad templates for some prime examples, especially {{C.A. Bella Vista squad}}. These are worthless, and make our South American football coverage look stupid. We should set a time limit, if it is not properly maintained for 6 months then it gets binned. King of the NorthEast 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
An the same should go for current squad subsections in club articles. King of the NorthEast 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A few editors have been working on the Uruguayan league club and player articles, but it's difficult for editors that don't read Spanish (like myself). Please have some patience and we can improve them. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd kit in infobox

With the increasing number of teams who produce a third kit, what are people's thoughts on allowing the infobox to show such a kit? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion adding a third kit to the infobox would make it look untidy or cluttered (or both). Since they are rarely used anyway I don't think there's any need for them to go in. A bit of prose under the colours heading should be enough. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Adding a picture of the third kit like the one in the entry on Arsenal seems just fine. Timbouctou (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Swindon League

Looks like a hoax or something to me, and even if it's not, I'm sure it's not notable. Any opinions? – PeeJay 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seem like a hoax to me. Also see Blunsdon United. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Blunsdon United redirects to Blunsdon United F.C., which is obviously a red link...GiantSnowman (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a real league, but a Sunday (local) local league with some of those even being school teams (Eldene and Liden F.C. for one). Blunsdon actually play in the Wiltshire Football League Division 1 as of 2007-08 season which is level 12 so I wouldn't say they were notable. Foxhill (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the club is not notable, but if the league is real, then according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Notability of leagues it's notable by default. I'll prod the club in a minute, if it's not already been done. – PeeJay 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
However, since it's a Sunday league, probably made up of pub sides and school sides, then it may deserve a prod. – PeeJay 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see why a league would not be notable just because they play on Sundays rather than Saturdays. Looking at the FA Full time site for the Swindon Sunday League, it has 8 divisions, there seems to be no logical reasons why this is less notable than, say, the Bristol Suburban League. Most of the players in the upper echelon of Sunday League football play on Saturdays to a quite high level (e.g. Southern League etc.), and the FA Sunday Cup is a well established competition. I'd be reluctant to delete a Saturday league under these circumstances, so I'd have to relate the same thoughts to Sunday leagues. - fchd (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not the day of the week (after all, plenty of Premiership matches are played on a Sunday), but the status of the league. "Sunday" leagues are not part of the pyramid, are often made up of informal and transient teams, and beyond lists of results in local papers, have minimal coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Ben (MLS fan club) and Philadelphia Major League Soccer team

It's a funny old wikipedia. Following recent afd results, we're now left with the strange anomaly of our having an article about a fan club (which is deemed notable, or at least not deleted) for a club that doesn't exist and whose article has been deleted! Not sure what I want anybody to do about it, I just felt the situation was rather silly, and wanted to share my amusement. Robotforaday (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Since the announcement of a Philly MLS club is imminent (I give it 60-90 days), it's hardly worth updating the MLS page. When the club is formally announced, a team page will be recreated and all will be well in the wikipedia world. I agree that the creation of the Sons of Ben page was premature in the first place, but by now it has been in existence for 8% of the history of MLS and deserves to stay.Delmlsfan (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So if a mistake has been in Wikipedia long enough, it's ok to leave it in? пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? Delete the article now so that someone else can create it? Hardly seems efficient. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not if you WP:SALT it! Not deleting an article because someone else might recreate is also very poor reasoning for keeping it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have always wondered about the notability of fan groups myself, actually (and I speak as someone who spent a little while rewriting one fan group article). What is it that makes a fan club notable independent of the team itself? Robotforaday (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Robotforaday. They have little or no independent notability. I think each fans group really ought to deserve in a supporters section on the main club's page. If it becomes too big or has individual notability then perhaps create a separate page. Peanut4 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
AFD it. Again...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you be the fan of something which, at least in Wikiworld, doesn't exist? Either recreate the Philly article or delete Son of Ben. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on the Wikipedia article and a few websites I've seen on the Sons of Ben, the fan group was created before MLS was even thinking about having a team in Philadelphia. Call it a grassroots campaign to get a MLS team to in Philadelphia rather than a fan group for a non-existent MLS team. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aiolikos F.C.

Is this club fully professional? I ask because someone has created articles for all the club's squad (see Template:Aiolikos Squad). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so, the description of their league says "the lowest professional football league in Greece". GiantSnowman (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I just wonder how these clubs survive as professional outfits when crowds are so low (the average in the Second division is just over 1,000, with most clubs below that mark)... пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I think they survive because wages will be much lower than compared to the rest of Europe, and being professional will no doubt receive sponsorship and TV money. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert move: Paul Smith (footballer born 1976) > Ian Paul Smith

The page for Paul Smith (footballer born 1976) has been moved to Ian Paul Smith - what are people's thoughts? I for one would like to move it back...GiantSnowman (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, there appears to be another footballer born in 1976, Paul Antony Smith. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland U18'S

Worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia?...if so I think it should be renamed Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy or something. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably just about notable, but only if combined with information on the club's reserve team and renamed Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy, as you suggested. – PeeJay 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree, I can't see how ANY reserve sides have notability outside of their parent club. Include as a note/paragraph in the main club article. - fchd (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree; reserve/youth teams don't deserve an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the reserve and youth setups of clubs should have a seperate article, as they compete seperate competitions (FA Youth Cup, County cups, etc.), and I see no reason that this participation, and their successes in this participation, shouldn't be documented, when the non-league clubs that compete alongside them in county cups, etc., do. Also, I would argue that the academies are certainly more notable than some of the schools that seem to manage to get articles on here. I would go for the Reserves and Academy option. Robotforaday (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely this should be a section - if at all - in the main club article? This would be of little interest to anybody other than Sunderland fans, who could probably find more comprehensive information on the club website. Aside from that, it should have a small 's' and no apostrophe :-) Wanaka | Talk 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I can't see how this would pass notability. Surely even a "big" club like Sunbderland doesn't have a fully professional youth academy setup! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Player names (again)

OK, this is a question that has been posted before (a million times). How do we name player articles? The problem is players with nicknames (mostly Brazilian, Portuguese and Spanish players) and players from countries where players are often listed with all their first names (e.g. Argentina) or all their family names (e.g. Spain). The question has recently come up in RM:→Branco (footballer). My oppinion is that according to wp:common name players should be named after their nicknames (Sylvinho), or their used first and family names; Gabriel Batistuta or Carles Puyol instead of e.g. Antonio Augusto Ferreira Pinto Júnior, Aníbal Samuel Matellán or César González Navas. Just look at Category:Brazilian_footballers! It's impossible to find a player there if you don't know their full (and i mean full) names. What's everybody's oppinion? And don't forget to contribute to RM:→Branco (footballer)!. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that a player's page should match whatever they are known as in the sport. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As above, they should be named to whatever they are most commonly known as, but if both are used then redirect one to the other. John Hayestalk 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
GiantSnowman is correct. The player's common name should be used, and the full name should be a redirect. Example: Obina should be used instead of Manoel de Brito Filho. --Carioca (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"use a reasonable "long" name is for disambiguation, for the artist name is totally different from real name, and the artist name is very notable, it should use redirect.(e.g. Baltazar (footballer) For artist name that took from the given name, i prefer drop the un-necessary middle names, but leave their long, usually two word surname. (e.g. Adriano Leite Ribeiro but not Adriano Ribeiro) Some Portuguese footballer have been moved to Given name + last word of the surname, but now created lots of disambiguation issue.
"Or, the rareness of the surname should considered, likes Silva, Santos, compare to Bondi.
"Although drop one of the surname may misleading to reader about the player surname from father (e.g. Eduardo Alves da Silva) Matthew_hk tc 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Leicester City

can you all re add this to your watchlists and can an admin semi-protect it as ip 86.14.17.165 keeps changing the capacity of the ground and i'm almost up to my 3rs rule limit. Skitzo (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing it would probably save a lot of trouble. While I'm finding nothing for 32,678, I'm not sure the capacity is 32,500, exact figures like that have usually been rounded up. For instance, the Football League has 32,312. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that's with segregation taken into account.Skitzo (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd one - the official site repeatedly states that it is a 32,500 capacity stadium, yet if you total the capicties of the stands further down in the article it only comes to 28,500!? I would say that the Football League figure is more reliable under the circumstances. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's listed as 32,500 in the Sky Sports Football Yearbook. - fchd (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's listed as 32,500 everywhere, it even has capacity crowds of very close to it (only being less because of the segregation).Skitzo (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Santos FC of the Future

Could somebody take a look at Santos FC of the Future? It looks hoaxish to me. Corvus cornixtalk 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not hoaxish, it's simply a test page; so I speedily deleted it. --Angelo (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It got recreated ... Corvus cornixtalk 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

I have a couple of proposals regarding names. I personally think the the title of the project should be moved form football to assciation football. This would remove unintentional stumbling accross this project while searhing for a project on another football code. I also suggest that article titles be standardised to move away form just football and should instead be association football. examples would be defender (football) to defender (association football), this would be inline with the recent moving of football (soccer) to Asociation football and Kit (football) to (kit association football). This is just a suggestion to try and enhance the naming of the articles and try and gain a wider view of what people on the related project think. This if passed would also prevent requesting a move on each individual page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nanonic (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think it is broken as football is an ambiguous term refering to multiple codes. Moving away from ambiguity is fixing, as accesability is increased and confusion by lay people is reduced.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the issue with "stumbling accross this project while searhing for a project on another football code"? Are you suggesting that WP:FOOTBALL would become a disambiguation page which would still result in having to find the right code? Not broken, no need to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] In fairness, who is going to stumble across this while searching for rugby? - no-one calls rugby 'rugby football', just as no-one calls football 'association football' - that page move was a mistake in my opinion. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know exactly who has stumbled on this page accidentally, and whether this is an actual existing problem (i.e. something that has happened for someone and caused them real inconvenience) or a made-up hypothetical problem. Robotforaday (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This has obviously been talked about to death (see Talk:Association_football/Archive_15#Requested_move) but personally, I find 'association football' a bit of a cumbersome, antiquated naming which is rarely used. If anything, I prefered soccer, though that's bad enough. Suggest no further additions of 'association football', as piped links in the appropriate articles can clarify which football code the article refers to. This Wikiproject clarifies that it is for real football ;-) in the first line of its home page. Paulbrock (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject is adequately named, although I do see Lucy-marie's point if she is referring to someone trying to find WikiProject American football. However, I think, if it were me, I would try searching for the Project by including the word "American" in the first place anyway. No change. Ref (chew)(do) 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New articles needing help

Other Tournaments‎ and General Statistics on Football at the Summer Olympics are two new articles needing cleanup help (or deletion). I think User:Stanza13 could use some coaching from some members of this project if anybody is willing. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM on Football in the Republic of Ireland

Vote is taking place on Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland regarding a move from Football in the Republic of Ireland to Association football in the Republic of Ireland (following a failed attempted move to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland). Broad participation would be helpful. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is moved it should be Association football in the Republic of Ireland not Association Football .... Peanut4 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. That is the proposal ... just corrected my text. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody, anywhere, ever heard the phrase "Association Football" in ordinary conversation?

There seems to have recently been a drive to impose the phrase "Association football" in as many articles as possible. I assume there was a discussion, but (unless it happened when I was wiki-dozing), such debate was not refered to this page. This seems to me contrary to WP:NAME, which summarises itself : Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Although "Association football" is easily recognised, I would vehemently dispute that it is second nature to any native English speaker to use that phrase. It may have been enshrined in official documents in Victorian times, and it may have given rise to the word "soccer", but its use has been entirely superceded, and it is now archaic. Whenever "football" is ambiguous, or would be assumed to refer to another sporting code, "soccer" is the term used: this would be easily verified by reference to US, Australian or Irish media practice. Can we try some reversion debate? Kevin McE (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The re-naming and re-directing of football (soccer) to association football came and went some time ago. That's automatically imposed it in just about every football-related page on Wikipedia. You must have been snoozing. :) Ref (chew)(do) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Where and when? I'd love to review that discussion, because its result seems totally counterintuitive. Kevin McE (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I not so sure that the "automatic imposition" was handled properly. I saw some editors moving any article with "football" in the name to "Association football", when I would have assumed that only articles with "football (soccer)" should have been renamed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have used the term in conversation, but then I am a prig. Robotforaday (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I have, but "Association football" probably occurs more often in conversation than "football (soccer)". King of the NorthEast 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to imposition through linking - hit any link in any football article which shows "football (soccer)" and you get redirected to "association football" automatically. How renaming was handled is another matter. Ref (chew)(do) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The only discussion on this recently (apart from those currently on this page) were those revolving around the change of the football (soccer) article name to association football, this began in November 2007 (Talk:Association football/Archive 12), continued with sides offering more statistics on populations and perceived media usage (Archive 13), put to the vote once but rejected under "voting is evil" (Archive 14, project notified in November here), put to the vote once again and accepted (Archive 15, project notified in December here), moved and instantly caused problems for those whose countries use one term officially and another in the media (Archive 16, project notified here, first heated discussion on WP:FOOTY here) and continues to draw comment (current talk page).
What has been happening since the move (which incidentally has quietened down a lot of the revert wars and move wars on the main article) is that some are using this name change as a precedent to move all related articles to use the same form. In some cases this has been unopposed, but in others (such as the Football in Ireland RM above) it's breaking discussions out in other areas.
Oh and for a quick "Did you know?" the naming/move of "football (soccer)" to "association football" was first suggested by User:Bagpuss on 20 February 2003 (Archive 1), happy reading! Nanonic (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Serial Editing of Current squad Heading

I have been monitoring and reverting serial changes that have been made recently by User talk:Retepretep which is contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. The effect of this change is to require editors of these pages is to spend valuable time reverting which some have been doing. An additional problem that can arise is where the change break wklinks with supplimentary pages which associate with this legend and require a further maintenance task. I only came across this change yesterday when they started making changes on English Premier League and some Championship sides' pages which I have reverted but it appears to have been going on since last year relating to other Associations team's pages across Europe. These remain unchanged except where editors have already noticed this and stepped in to revert. I have advised this Editor to desist and suggest if they believe this is an improvement to bring the discussion here. Although this resulted in a temporary cessation of activity this has started again today. Unfortunately it is clear from their user page they have a history of disruptive and out of policy editing. Hence why I am raising here as I think it needs some community consensus. If the consensus is that this change would be an improvement then I would suggest it s made via the template not in this ad hoc and unilateral way. In any case I hope User talk:Retepretep will stop pending a view being reached. Comments please ? Tmol42 (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After reverting his edit to Leicester City F.C. three times myself and having seen at least two other editors doing the same, including at Norwich City, Ipswich Town and Crystal Palace, I gave him a last warning. He then continued to make the same edits several more times so I've blocked him. Turns out he had a block back in 2007 for creating articles without references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another WP:FOOTBALL success to feature on main page

Hello all... following some relentless nagging of User:Raul654, Bobby Robson is now scheduled to appear on the Main Page on 18 February 2008. Just thought I'd (a) share the good news and (b) prepare the project for the usual deluge of vandalism the page will experience. Cheers y'all! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

I checked this out when looking into the above section about danish players. I was disapointed to find that there was no criterea at all, so I made an attempt. As usual I ran out of steam and ended up with half an article. I've left the draft here so feel free to expand/hack/translate the the page so that we can put something decent on the page. josh (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that you want former players to have played 100 games. One game and you're in, regardless of if it was in 1984 or 2008. matt91486 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Scanning over this, I believe that statement is referring to the inclusion of players in club articles under "Notable former players". If this is so, then the 100 game criteria is the most oft used one for both this section and in "List of X F.C. players". As Josh said, it's a half-article/draft so feel free to amend it. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My thinking was that any player that is currently playing professional football can be considered notetable with AFD considered after his career. However, a player who managed one appearence for X F.C. in the third divison 50 years ago should be excluded. The actual number is up for debate. The important thing to remember is that none of the ideas are absolute. There will always be debate over notability but player/clubs/staff meeting the criterea can be generally considered notable. josh (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To put it a bit more clearer I don't think that the guidelines should ever be used to say X is not notable because he doesn't meet Y. The arguement should be X is not considered notable because of Y now prove why (s)he/it is. josh (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think putting people up for AfD once they retire is a clear violation of notability is not temporary; once they've played a professional game, they are thereafter notable. This is pretty standard across other sports WikiProjects as far as I can tell. I know sourcing for footballers articles can be troublesome, especially compared with baseball ones, where you have easy, complete databases so articles about players from the 1920s can be created and verified in about five minutes of work, but if the general consensus is that playing a professional game makes them notable, then it shouldn't matter at all when that happened. Notability is not temporary. matt91486 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that strongly about it then change it. Its only a first draft. josh (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, notability remains, historically, in football articles, and player notability is gained when the criteria is met through playing just one game to that exact criteria. Why is a change being discussed here, when it should be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability? And inclusion into sections called "Notable former players" is not judged by numbers of games - it is judged (as the title suggests) by notability, measured by how much the player is mentioned in reliable sources connected with or referenced to the club he is being judged as notable for, and through sourceable major achievements with that club. Not a bunch of figures or statistics. Could this thread be transferred to the correct discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability? Ref (chew)(do) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. The criteria should be the same for current or former players. Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an equally valid location for the discussion at hand. This is sufficiently important and wide-ranging to talk about it here at the main project talk page (which a lot of people may have on watch lists) rather than on a subpage. - fchd (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah; the discussion will probably be easier to have here where everyone can see it and then it could be moved to the notability sub page afterward. I'll go modify the draft now, if it hasn't been done already. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I Agree that the discussion should be held here where people will see it on their watchlist, but Novembers discussion about the subject took place on this page and just fizzled out without any apparent consensus. King of the NorthEast 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As per my comment above I am going to attempt to revive discussion on creating a set of formal criteria (probably futile, but I'm still going to try). I have added 1 more suggestion about youth football as the subject needs discussion. Perhaps we can state whether we support each suggested criteria on an individual basis, so as to formalise the ones that everyone supports ASAP and further discuss the more controversial proposals.

Suggested Criteria

1) Has played for a fully professional club at a national level (FPNL club) of the league structure.

2) has played for a "FPNL club" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

3) Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

4) Has played at the highest level of continental youth football (U-21 international Europe, U-20 elsewhere, or at the U-20 World Cup)

5) 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.

6) 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.

Reasoning

1) Playing for a professional club at the national level allows articles on players for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams, and helps to avoid the difficult task of establishing whether every team in the Peruvian, Guatemalan, Albanian, Taiwanese.... top flight is professional. It also removes the dependence on the status of other teams in the league when considering whether at player is notable and reduces the (admittedly unlikely) scenario of a semi-pro team gaining promotion to league 2 in England, necessitating the deletion of every player never to have played higher than that level.

2) To allow articles on players who make their debut for a notable enough club, in a competitive game other than the league itself.

3) Already accepted criteria

4) As per several cases like Daniel Parslow who survived AfD on the basis of having played for Wales U-21.

5) As per several cases where the closing admin kept non-playing players despite going against the prior notability standard of actually having played. These articles would provide info on top level squad players who have yet to make their competitive debut and avoid redlinks in Champions League navboxes.

6) To allow articles for international players in important international tournaments who have yet to play for their country and may play for a semi-pro team or at a regional level of club football.

Discussion

  • 1)Agree, 2)Agree, 3)Agree, 4)Unsure, would we only allow players who have played at the U-20 World Cup, and continental tournaments, or allow any player to have represented their country at the highest agegroup of youth football 5)Oppose- I strongly believe that footballers must have played at least 1 game before they become notable. 6)Unsure King of the NorthEast 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1,2,3) Agree 4,5,6) I don't think these can be set in stone, I think that many of these players are notable, and many aren't. Remember a footballer can be notable before playing a pro game (see Freddy Adu) I think in these cases it needs to be seen if their notability can be established by other means, if it can keep them, if it can't delete them. John Hayestalk 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3) Agree; 4) Oppose I don't think Faroese/Andorran U-21 internationals are notable; 5, 6) Oppose I'll stick with actually playing a game before notability is conferred.
I would also like to add a (1a) qualifier: Has played in the top division of a country that has played at the World Cup. This would allow players who have played in the top division in Ireland and Northern Ireland to have articles, which under the current criteria, they are currently denied (technically, but not in reality) as the leagues are not fully professional. This also gets around the fact that it is very difficult to tell which clubs are professional or not (as we have seen past Conference debates). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I see it, under the suggested criteria players at any professional clubs in the Irish leagues would be allowed without the caveat, being professional clubs that play at the national level. King of the NorthEast 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Point 4 needs clarification, does it include qualification or not? For example, I'd say every player in the 2007 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship is notable, but not every player in the qualifiers. Points 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are fine. - MTC (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally I would say tournament only, if at all, but the issue needs resolving since articles like Daniel Parslow are currently being used as precedents. King of the NorthEast 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Daniel Parslow was nothing but mistakenly kept. Just nominate the article alone and it'll be deleted.  Jhony   15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*1–6 Agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • 1) Agree; 2) Weak agree (I'd rather to make clear the competitive game must feature two fully professional clubs). 4) Oppose per Number 57; 5 and 6) Strong oppose (notability is not inherited by a simple squad number, there must be at least a competitive game with that team). --Angelo (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
    • 1) Now Agree Oppose:
      • It's much harder to tell whether or not particular club is professional in comparison with whether or not there are only professional clubs in the league.
      • I don't think that Irish/Northern Irish/English Conference/etc players are generally notable
      • If you really want to allow articles on players for teams such as Anderlecht, try "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" or something similar
    • 2) Now Agree Oppose as per 1), would Agree with "has played for a team that competed in a fully professional league in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition"
    • 3) Agree
    • 4) Oppose, would Agree with "Has played in the final stage of the highest level of continental youth football (U-21 international Europe, U-20 elsewhere, or at the U-20 World Cup)", and I also think that players of continental U-17 winning teams are notable
    • 5) Agree, I think that say Liverpool or Arsenal youngsters became notable before their professional debut. However, I would also Agree with "Has been included in a squad (squad number) during the play-off stage of the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores)" or something similar as a compromise
    • 6) Agree, same as 5), would also Agree with "Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in the final stages of World Cup/Continental Cup" or something similar as a compromise  Jhony   15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"# If you really want to allow articles on players for teams such as Anderlecht, try "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" or something similar" - Why on earth wouldn't Anderlecht players warrant an article? matt91486 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I've never said that they wouldn't. I just said that for me 1) is not a good criteria for "legalizing" players from major teams who play in a not fully professional league, so I proposed another criteria that I think will fulfil this "legalizing".  Jhony   17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The you phrased it made it sound like you were included in the you, so I just assumed. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" There are a few problems with this proposal, 1 being that it would allow player articles on fallen giants now residing in regional leagues such as 1. FC Magdeburg. It also creates the situation where a players notability may rely on the achievements of his team before he was even born, rather than the clubs current league status. Another is that it does not resolve the problem of trying to establish whether a team plays in a league with no semi-professional teams when a player comes up for AfD from a club with no Copa Libertadores, UEFA Champions League experience. King of the NorthEast 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not resolve that problem, right, but as I pointed out above, to determine whether or not particular club is professional is even more complicated problem in general. To solve the Magdeburg problem, wording should be changed to "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League) in the same season" or "... in the same, previous or next season" or even "Has played for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams" (with a "use common sense" note) :)  Jhony   19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see there are going to be disparities regarding fully professional leagues, etc. Would this not end up easier defining country by country which leagues will be counted to avoid any arguments? Or would that become a very unwieldy list? Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would support country by country definition.  Jhony   20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In principle I could support country by country definition, its the system we should have evolved already under the current setup, but the problem is that in the case of a Templetonian premier league footballer up for AfD, it seems that the burden of AfD defenders is to prove that all 20 templetonian premier league teams are professional, rather than that the players team is professional and that the league is highly notable by playing at the national level. If we are serious about collecting and maintaining information on the professional status of all clubs in a vast number of leagues, then it can be done, but even with my passable Spanish I wouldn't know where to find all of the information on the professional status 10 CONMEBOL countries leagues (top flight and possibly 2nd division) and the 13? Spanish speaking members of CONCACAF, never mind the Taiwanese or Kuwaiti leagues. King of the NorthEast 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree on 1-3 & 6, disagree, verging to strongly disagree on 4-5. The current criteria are surely wide enough that several thousands of current players are notable, let alone all those from the past. I do not support the idea that youth internationals or players merely granted a club squad number gain sufficient notability. - fchd (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with 1-4. Not yet convinced about 5 and 6. Notability is not temporary - are we suggesting that a player will always be notable if they pass 5 and 6, but end up never playing a professional game? Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This 5&6 issue can be seen from both points of view, notability must not be seen as transitory as it conflicts with general wikipedia policy, but non-inclusion in some cases detracts from wikipedia as a source of information as people would be made to look elsewhere for information on potential champions league opponents in the case of youngsters in the squad or even on the bench. For non-players the options seem to be a) not at all, b) keeping them for ever even if they don't make it or c) the compromise option of allowing a temporary "stay of execution". I not sure of how option c could fit in with general wiki policy, but I do know that many non-players have received unofficial stays of execution for many months because they were not spotted, or perhaps spotted but not sent to AfD. King of the NorthEast 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with 1-4, unsure about 5 & 6. However, re:point 4, Number57's argument that Andorran Under-21 players are not notable is very valid; perhaps we should limit the notability of Under-21 players to the top 50/75/100 nation's players. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The other option is to limit them by appearance in the World Youth Cup or the most senior continental championship (not qualifiers). This would mean that the criteria relied less on the transitory top 50/100 rankings and that junior players from the weaker nations would be excluded.by non-appearance. King of the NorthEast 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Good points, both of you, very good points. I would change it to appearances in U-21 championship finals (or U-20 where appropriate) - again as my points above, it may be listing to be specific, e.g. Euro U-21 Championships, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Another good point. But what about players from 'big' nations which never qualify for regional competitions but have proven themselves at Under-21 level? GiantSnowman (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • OK making a list of the specific tournaments shouldn't be too hard, there arn't many: World U-20, Asia U-20, Africa U-20, S. America U-20, N&C America U-20, Euro U-21. The only problem being Oceania, their highest seems to be World Youth Qualifiers (correct me if I'm wrong). As for big nations never to qualify, I'm not sure what you (GS) mean by proving themselves at youth level, perhaps you could give us some examples and how they proved themselves outside of the major youth tournaments? King of the NorthEast 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Teams who played in continental U-20 competitions include Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda and Bangladesh. Personally I don't think U-20 players from countries like these are notable, since they are likely to fail the general notability guide. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Similarly, Israel qualified for last year's Euro U-21 tournament, and even though I went to Holland to follow them, I wouldn't say some of the team members are notable. Senior international caps only please! пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Perhaps we could say that only appearances in the World Youth Cup are the only youth appearances that count towards notability, being the very highest level of youth football. Either that or the total exclusion of youth footballers King of the NorthEast 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So as a general idea, we're looking for some way to phrase that we'd like players who play in fully professional divisions as well as the first division of notable footballing countries to be notable? That's at least how I'm reading it, and it seems like a logical definition. Then we're not creating articles for all of the players in the Andorran league, but it does not exclude countries like Ireland. Of course, my way doesn't work for phrasing because notable footballing countries lacks a definitive parameter (countries who have appeared in their sponsored tournament, Euro, African Cup of Nations, etc? that would rule out the minnows). matt91486 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So far I know one NPOV way to determine notable European football league - UEFA club ranking. Similarly for notable football national team - FIFA ranking.  Jhony   01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Where the league is not fully professional, I say stick to players from the top division of nations which have qualified for the world cup - rankings change dramatically over the years (Northern Ireland recently) and "qualified for the world cup" remains constant and is very easily defined. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree using rankings is too POV, and rankings will always change. Another yardstick is required and Number57's is potentially the best one. Peanut4 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks like "qualified for the world cup" have been drawn up to allow Irish, Northern Irish and Welsh leagues. Because it makes no sense to draw a conclusion about current strength of the league on the basis of all-time achievements of the national team. I have nothing against Irish, Northern Irish and Welsh leagues, but in such case be honest and allow say Slovak, Bosnian and Makedonian leagues as these are stronger. For the record, Indonesian, Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian leagues all will pass "qualified for the world cup" criteria.  Jhony   13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I also agree that rankings are unsuitable due to their transitory nature, what happens with teams/leagues that drop out of the top 50/100? what happens when they re-enter? I'm also not convinced by the world cup qualification criteria, I can't see what this has to do with club football. How can the notability of a club player rely on the achievements of national team players rather than the quality of their own club or the league they play in. Take Wales for example, they played in the 1958 World Cup, how can the achievements of John Charles, Ivor Allchurch & co have more relevance to the notability of a current TNS player than the club's professional status, position in the national league structure and appearances in Champions League Qualifiers? The same goes for Indonesia and Cuba (World Cup 1938). Another problem is that in the case of Senegal in the World Cup in 2002, 21 of the 22 man squad played outside the Senegalese league structure, telling us more about the quality of Ligue 2 in France than the Senegal Premier League. I still think were better off with something simple and unambiguous like the proposed criteria 1) "professional team at national level of the league structure" or sticking with the current definition of fully professional league, but actually creating and maintaining a database of the hundreds(?) of leagues that qualify as fully professional.King of the NorthEast 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd endorse "professional team at national level of the league structure" as long as in the case of disputes it can be backed up by something more concrete than "I know that Footown F.C. are professional because I read it somewhere......" ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
              • So, in case we know it for sure, the team won't be considered professional, right?  Jhony   14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, maybe a reference from a reliable source showing the teams professional status on the team article could be the requirement. King of the NorthEast 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's what I was about to say (before I was edit conflicted!). As an aside, I was not defining the criteria to deliberately include Irish/N Irish league players in the notable section (I don't believe Northern Irish or Welsh league players are notable), but merely suggesting it as an alternative to the whole professional club thing. As I said before, if we have a well-defined way of saying which clubs are professional or not, that would be my preferred approach. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • Right, in such case I endorse it too. It would be good to collect such references in one place.  Jhony   14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • I still find limiting it solely to professional clubs in all circumstances is perhaps too restrictive and that there needs be some provision for national top divisions. matt91486 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to King of the NorthEast (23:49, 4 February 2008) - by saying "players from 'big' nations which never qualify for regional competitions but have proven themselves at Under-21 level", I meant players who are a constant prescence in the Under-21 side, with multiple caps, but who have never appeared in a major youth tournament. In response to Number57 (10:11, 5 February 2008) - what about an Argentine youth player who has 20 Under-20 caps and 20 Under-20 goals but never plays in a fully-professional league and who never makes the transition to senior international football? GiantSnowman (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • TBH, it is highly likely that a prolific U-20 player would also have played in a professional league at club level. However, if they hadn't then no, I wouldn't give them an article. It might be harsh, but we have to make the cut off point very clear, or we will get all kinds of wikilawyering about whether someone deserves an article. Aside from this, I take it that we are assuming non-playing players from the MLS draft as not notable (as they are not specifically mentioned in the criteria)? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough my example was a very extreme one, but it's interesting to hear you say that you wouldn't give such a player an article. And as for MLS, I think that non-players are not notable, as in any other professional league, unless like Adu or someone they've had significant press coverage. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Therein lies the problem. There are one or two players who really are notable before ever playing like Adu or Sonny Pike. However, various editors will see the existence of their articles and claim that their particular player is a similar situation... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Is there a problem? WP:BIO has a basic criteria: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources should be shown, otherwise an article will be deleted. Irrespective of claims.  Jhony   14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, there is a problem. For instance, if a non-professional non-league team reaches the third round, and then a player scores against, say, Liverpool, he would command significant coverage in reliable sources. However, he would fail WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. I would still say delete such an article, but editors could claim otherwise based on coverage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Please take a closer look at WP:BIO. This player would not fail WP:BIO. Any person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable (basic criteria). Besides if the person is a footballer, he is notable if he has competed in a fully professional league (additional criteria).  Jhony   15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yeah, that's what the debate on the MLS draftees notability was about. They met WP:BIO but failed the WikiProject's standards. matt91486 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • This is what's so tedious in the debate on notability when defending the professional league football requirement (and is the reason why I brought up the issue below). The arguments made always boils down to the following circular argument: 1) There is no reason to ammend the criteria to include youth players who haven't actually played a league game yet since they aren't notable. 2) The reason why they aren't notable is because they haven't debuted yet i.e. don't fulfill the current criteria. By this way of reasoning there will never be a reason to change the current criteria since expanding it will only add players wich per definition don't meet the current criteria thus being not notable and with no reason to be included. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Eaxctly my point. This projects rules should enhance not overrule WP:BIO. If a player is notable by WP:BIO then these rules aren't needed anyway. John Hayestalk 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Professionality?

I'm sorry, but I have to question the requirement that the league has to be professional. Why is notability dependent on the form of contract of it's players and not it's actual notability in the general sense of the word? The PL is notable because of it's press coverage, being the 1st tier league in an important footballing country and so on, not because the players have a lot of spare time when the´re not playing football... I assume this requirement came to place to separate the professional English league system from the amateur leagues, but it's not very well suited for the rest of the footballing world. For some examples; Is really 4th tier English football (League 2) more notable than Spanish third division (Segunda B) just because L2 is fully professional?, was Swedish Allsvenskan not notable in 2007 because IF Brommapojkarna wasn't a fully professional club? Was the Brazilian league not notable before the full introduction of professionalism in the 30'ies (a majority of the Brazilian squad for the '34 WC came from Botafogo, still an amateur club at the time)?

The professionality requirement is a seemingly objective way of asserting notability, without having to determine the actual "subjective" general notability of the league, but I don't think it's easier to determine if a league is fully professional than if it's (generally) notable, and as I've shown above it can lead to odd conclusions. I'm sorry to say, but we can't get around the fact that we have to find another way of determining notability of a league. I think that user:ArtVandelay13 has a good idea in separate "notability thresholds" (the nice table in the middle of the last discussion.

I also think we have to differentiate the number of league appearences required for different leagues. Why is one league 2 game notable, but not 300 conference games? Sure, both of my suggestions would take some (if not a lot) of work to agree upon, but I think it's unavoidable if we don't want to have this discussion every other month all over again. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the criteria we have decided upon ("Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure") does not depend on the league being professional at all. It is completely dependent on the clubs' status. Plus the Brazilian players you talk about would be notable under point 3 of the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true, and the current suggestion is a step forward, but I don't think you're addressing my point on the Botafogo players. Botafogo was a major club in Brazil, even in the '30ies, so I would suggest that also their players who didn't made it into the WC squad were notable, regardless of if their club was professional or not. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point, in Argentina professionalisation of the game occurred in 1931, I believe that a Racing Club player who was part of the 1913-1919 championship winning teams, but never played for Argentina warrants an article. I'm fairly sure that he could be considered to have played club football at the highest level therefore meeting WP:BIO "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Since there was no professional club football to supercede itKing of the NorthEast 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concluding arguments concerning the requirement of professional league football

To conclude my position; I think the requirement of professional league football is crude, and might lead to some problems since professionality doesn't exactly correlate perfectly with notability. The thing is, no matter wich notability criteria we decide upon it's always going to be subjective, arbitrary and crude, since we will always have to draw the line somewhere. This will inevitably lead to problems around the boundary between notable - not notable. If we keep the professionality requirement, there will always be editors who (rightly so) don't understand why incredibly-promising-and-much-hyped youth player X or 500-games-conference-veteran Y are not notable, when one-League-2-game has-been player Z is. One could ask oneself why certain youth internationals always pops up before they have debuted. It might even be because they're actually notable in the general sense of the word.

I often see editors almost bragging about how tough they are on youth internationals and how they want to get rid of non-players, sounding like they were republican presidential candidates discussing the war on terror. I, for one, don't think there is a real concern that WP will be over-flowed with articles on Maltese or American Samoan U-20 players, and even if was, it would only be a nice balance to all the articles on talentless single-digit league 2-game players that no one will ever have heard of in five years. Sticking with the professional league football requirement will always favor English league system players over players with other nationalities since England is the country with most professional clubs (down to 5th or even lower tiers), while a league system like the Spanish, of arguably the same standard as the English, in reality only have two professional tiers. So, the way I see it, the professional League game requirement is not being tough on non-notable footballers, it's picking English League 2 players (or even lower) over actually notable "non-players".

The concerns I've raised should have pointed out that it is a clear danger that a requirement of professional football could contradict the general WP:N guidelines. Having said that, I acknowledge that coming up with an alternative that everyone could agree on would be difficult, and since we're coming so close on agreeing on a requisite, wich in my mind is a vast improvement over the old, I'm not going to stand in the way over the issue of professionality. I still maintain, however, that league appearences should not always be mandatory for notability, and would also like to point out that WP:N superceedes our general criteria anyway. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree 2 and 3; Oppose 1 (as written), 4, 5 and 6. As written 1 would allow Conference national players in which is too low a level. Opposing 4, 5 and 6 because someone should have played for a club at sufficiently high level or for an international team. The argument against squad members is that if they get a career wrecking injury before they have played we are left forever with an article on a nn person. TerriersFan (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment On criterion 1, how exactly do we know which clubs are professional? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would assume a reliable source to be either the club's official website or BBC Sports. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As an example this BBC article states that Grays Athletic are fully pro (or at least they were in 2006)....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's another query I have. We know that Grays were pro in 2006, but does that necessarily mean they are now? Or can they have just been stated as being pro at any time and it confers notabiliy to their players still? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I dunno, it's a tricky one. We don't want to get into the situation where someone argues that because, for example, Altrincham are FPNL in 2008 that an article could then be created for someone who played for them in the Alliance Premier League in 1979..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • And is there some sort of collection of sources for FPNL clubs? This would be pretty important for a player to be back in an AfD, so it could be verified that their club is infact professional... Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I think this discussion somewhat proves my point above, the professionality requirement is supposed to be the easy verifiable and objective requirement. Let me add this question to the discussion; what's objective about deeming Grays notable and not a semi-pro club in, say, the Belgian top division? Sebisthlm (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Formalisation

Right, a quick count shows that all 9 editors to !vote so far, support 1-3 in this type of form.

1) Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club). (supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional)

2a) has played for a "FPNL club" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

or

2b) has played in a fixture between two "FPNL clubs" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

3) Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

Perhaps we could move towards officially formalising them, not sure how this is done, but consensus now definitely seems to be in favour.

Another suggestion is, that once formalised, AfD closures which ignore/bypass these criteria cannot be used as precedents and that any future changes to the criteria must be proposed and debated at WP:FOOTY.

We can then move on to discuss the more controversial proposals 4-6 and see if there is any possible consensus. King of the NorthEast 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support No complaints with 1-3. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment looking back over the discussion in November I have found 4 more supports for similar proposals to 1-3 from editors yet to !vote here. I just hope that we can get them "set in stone" this time around, King of the NorthEast 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (2b) concerns me, since it's not so uncommon to see teams from San Marino or Andorra playing in a qualifying round for a continental competition (or even the Intertoto Cup), however I think they are non-notable as well and they would fail the general notability guide. --Angelo (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Those clubs surely aren't "FPNL" though, so that criterion couldn't be used to support players from such teams...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I offered 2b as an option in response to your comment "I'd rather to make clear the competitive game must feature two fully professional clubs". I'm not sure what you mean with Andorran teams, do they even have any FPNL clubs that could qualify under this criteria. King of the NorthEast 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • By the way 2b is stricter than 2a.  Jhony   15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I personally favour the stricter 2b) criteria. King of theNorthEast 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So do I.  Jhony   16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The following remain unclear for me:
    • 2), a) and b) - does it include Champions League and UEFA Cup qualifying games? Intertoto Cup?
      • also FA Cup Qualifying, I would say yes, if both the clubs are FPNL teams King of the NorthEast 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • 3) - does it mean "A international" matches recognized by FIFA?  Jhony   15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not sure, it seems pretty unlikely that a player would make their England A debut before their club debut, but if the match is FIFA recognised I cant see the harmKing of the NorthEast 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure you understood me. Take a look at Brazil_national_football_team#Results under coach Dunga. I asked - does 3) include all international matches (i.e. match against Al Kuwait Kaifan counts), or just A international matches recognized by FIFA (i.e. match against Al Kuwait Kaifan doesn't count)?  Jhony   16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I would say limit it to 'A' internationals only. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps the use of "3) Has played FIFA recognised international football or football at the Olympic games" would sefficiently address this concern? King of the NorthEast 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps when we are ready one of our respected admins could be bold and move the first three criteria and the no-precedents caveat onto this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability as an act of formal acceptance? King of the NorthEast 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/additional suggestions. I think there are some cases where a player is notable, even if he hasn't played in a professional (notable) league (I also question the term professional league above). Adu and Sonny pike has been brought up earlier in this discussion, but I think there can be less famous youth players that are as notable (if not much more) than a player with a single League 2 game (I also point out the need to differentiate the required number of games for different leagues above). I posted a suggestion on youth players in the previous discussion, but a bit late so I never got any response, so i'll try again...

Non-players can still be notable if they are contracted to a notable team (in a major league?) and

  • has played for any of the "big" 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 when posting on the last discussion so they probably need some tweaking...) Sebisthlm (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The criteria you've listed ("big" country - Sudan is a big country, "substantial publicity/sum" how much is substantial?) are completely dependent upon WP:OR. Sticking to actually playing a game is by far the simplest and most definite notability criterion we can have. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my suggestion lost some clarity when broken out of the context of the previous discussion. By 'big' country I was referring to a prior discussion on setting up a different standard for the 'big' leagues (if you missed the prior discussion you can find it here. I'm actually a bit surprised that you thought by 'big' country I meant big to the surface or population (like Greenland opr Sudan). If I didn't know better, I would think you're deliberatly trying to miss-interpret my point. I agree that sticking with one game for any professional team is easier to determine, but that that (because of the above said) also is the reason why the same discussion pops up all the time. Most people just don't think that notability is based on one appearence for any professional club regardless of the notability of the club, but rather the amount of press coverage, etc, of the player. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I was being deliberately facetious to illustrate my point that we can't define "big" countries. TBH, I think the only reason why this discussion pops up from time to time is that the notability criteria page was always blank. пﮟოьεԻ 57
No hard feelings, i assure you. I also understand your concern of WP:OR, but I think differentiating leagues by notability could be done in some objective way (using a ranking as a base for example). The point is that using professionalism as an "objective" translation of the "subjective" notability is perhaps easier, but it just don't mean the same thing - there might be leagues that are notable but not professional and vice versa. After all, the notability criteria is always going to be "subjective" or OR; it's not god-given that professional club football, of all possible requirements, is the only "objective" one. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But as noted elsewhere, the rankings change constantly. The only definite is "qualified for a world cup". TBH I am quite happy to be harsh and not give articles unless they play for the first/full team. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What's harsh about keeping a player who made one appearence in League 2 ten years ago? Sebisthlm (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Caveats - I have no problem with #1 as long as we add further caveats to it. For example, if a semi-professional club gets to the first division of, say, the Belgian League or the Swiss League, I think that the players on that club during that season should gain notability regardless of their clubs' professional standing. Also, Copa Libertedores matches need to be included along with Intertoto, etc.; we can't have bias towards European leagues only. matt91486 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This might sound like a frivolous concern...but in my mind any of the leagues in FIFA 2008/whatever the current versions will be down the line are obvious concerns for this. Players actually in the game are going to be natural candidates to be looked up; so if a team from the Irish first division and Belgian first division happens to not be professional, but is given the notoriety of inclusion in a fairly widespread video game, it's going to be reaching a level of conflict between the two. Obviously, leagues this applies for shouldn't solely be based on something like FIFA, but it's a real concern. Being in the first division and receiving first division coverage in a case like this should confer notability on the players. matt91486 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical aspects

I have been following this discussion with interest, but have not commented up to now partly because of my workload and partly out of inertia. I personally prefer to create articles about players from the early days of football, rather than the present era. To me, a player from 1908 is just as worthy as one from 2008. My problem with the criteria as proposed is the requirement for the player to have "played for a fully professional club at a national level". In the early days of football, clubs were not professional and most footballers were amateur. If you look at the article on the 1876 FA Cup Final, this was between two amateur clubs. Most of the players in that match for whom articles have been created also played for England and are therefore notable on those grounds. But what about John Hawley-Edwards or Thomas Hughes; although they both scored in the FA Cup Final they have not played for a "fully professional club" and do not therefore meet the required criteria. If I were to create articles about these players would they fail an AfD?

There is an article about Jarvis Kenrick - he also fails the proposed criteria, although scoring the first ever FA Cup goal and winning the Cup three times would probably prevent him being deleted on an AfD.

Moving forward half a century - Max Woosnam was an amateur player throughout his career, but he played for England in 1922 and captained Manchester City. This means that at that time City was not a "fully professional club", neither was the Football League fully professional. Does this mean that there should be no articles about club players from that era, unless they played at international level?

I have only looked at this from an English perspective; many leagues elsewhere in the world only became fully professional quite late on. Where does this leave them? I must go now to as I'm watching the England u-21s this evening. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. Perhaps we could have different criteria for pre-League days (i.e. playing in the FA Cup final). The Woosnam comment may still be relevant today (I seem to recall reading that one of Dag & Red's players is still only semi-pro as he still works as a teacher). However, I would guess that the club would probably still be described as fully-professional in reliable sources despite the presence of one or two amateurs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point (one of them anyway)! Even if the English league system was very early with professionalism, large and important parts of the world (like Brazil) were actually working fiercely against professionalism for as long as they could. As late as in the '50ies Swedish players turned pro was banned from the National team for example. To me the obsession with professional football is the result of a exclusively English view-point. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How about changing it to include the caveat "played for a club that was in a top division which is today fully-professional" or something similar? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have answered this point above but I'll repeat myself here; I'm fairly sure that a , since there were no professional club football tournaments to supercede them, King of the NorthEast 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point, but wouldn't that allow articles on footballers currently playing in top divisions which are not fully pro? пﮟოьεԻ 5<;font color="blue">7 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say no because the vast majority of successful footballers now play the professional game, travelling abroad to do it if their national league is mainly amateur or semi-pro. The highest level of Andorran/American Samoan football isn't the pinacle of the club game with global transfers a regular feature of the modern world game. In the 1920-1940s many South American amateur footballers joined professional clubs in Italy & Spain, but relatively few compared to the vast majority of South American footballers who competed at the top level of Brazilian & Argentine football as amateurs. I hope you see what I'm getting atKing of the NorthEast 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If notability is not temporary, shouldn't most of the same leagues that are notable now be notable before they turned pro? I don't understand what made Serie B notable over night when it turned pro? Sebisthlm (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The new criteria make no mention of fully professional leagues, they concern professional clubs at national level. As for change in notability with the change in professional status I would say that notability cannot be applied retrospectively a Wimbledon Old Centrals F.C. amateur player from the 1890s doesn't become notable because Wimbledon F.C. eventually reached the professional level of the game in the late 1970s. Only players who represented the club at professional level should qualify. (Sorry for the example from English football). King of the NorthEast 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. I know both of us should probably throw around a lot of Argentinian examples, but I'm inclined to make a lot of Swedish examples... OK, so Botafogo would be notable in the '30ies because they played in a top division, but what about a player playing for a second division team wich one day is amateur, and the next day turns professional. What exactly is it that makes the player notable day two and not day one? My point is that notability means fame, wich has more to do with the level of football and amount of press coverage, than with the nature of the contract. Sebisthlm (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I believe the proposed criteria 1) is a much more simple and unambiguous test of notability, I know we can come up with potential problems, such as South American 2nd division footballers in the 1920s or current clubs that may or may not be professional, but these are issues that were not dealt with by the previously accepted norm either. King of the NorthEast 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, God forbid we'd get problems with all the bio's of '20ies Argentinian second division players we're both about to start on, eh? Sebisthlm (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

These are criteria 4-6 and the issue of pre-professional players

I propose that we include:

7) Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played top level league or cup football are considered to meet WP:BIO "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports".

the other previusly discussed criteria leave us with options.

4a)Youth players to have represented their country at the World U-20, or the highest level of continental youth football (Asia U-20, Africa U-20, S. America U-20, N&C America U-20, Euro U-21).

4b) Youth players to have represented their country at the World U-20

c) Experience of International youth football does not confer notability.

5 & 6) Personally I am opposed to the inclusion of non-playing footballers, perhaps it would be better if someone who supports their inclusion could draft some compromise proposals covering criteria 5 & 6.

-King of the NorthEast 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

7) Agree but only if the subject does not fail WP:N; 4a&b) Oppose per my previous comments (I just noticed even Qatar played in the World U-20, and I doubt Qatar U-20 players are notable to deserve an article here); 4c) Agree; about 5 and 6, non-playing footballers are notable if and only if the subject clearly and undoubtedly fits the general notability guideline described in WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
7) I would go as far as for the pre-professional days, to assume the leagues as they are now. Just because our (warning WP:POV soming up) current over-paid nancies are professional doesn't mean they any more worthy of an entry than good old honest pros from yesteryear. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, how does this read? "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered to meet WP:BIO "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of the North East (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal view now is agree with 1-3, as well as 4b and amended version of 7 as per last KOTN suggestion. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree 1, 2, 3, 4a and 7: I think we need to establish whether WP:BIO#ATHLETES would hereby be considered redundant for footballers, and to assert that, apart from the circumstances in 7, no level of amateur football of itself (including US college soccer) confers notability. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIO supersedes any WikiProject's definition of notability. If anyone, regardless of not meeting a projects definition meets the primary definitions of WP:BIO, then they meet notability regardless. matt91486 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I was suggesting that this comprise a WP:BIO#Footballers, which would render wp:bio#athletes as inappropriate for footballers only. There is no challenge here to "primary definitions" of WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • General Comment - I think it's gotten passed over as the debate has progressed, but I was wondering if some people could look at my comments at the end of the formalisation section before this gets too far along into setting the opinion in stone. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right. I'd overlooked it because a lot of discussion had gone on since I last logged in. I see and partly agree with your problem. To me, some top divisions, though not fully professional, are almost certainly notable for all players in them. How best to define these are exceptions is going to be difficult to sum up. Peanut4 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • To me, I feel like we need to make some sort of exception in these first division cases. The problem is determining which countries would qualify. We can probably all in large part agree on which ones should, it's just a matter of are we willing to make a list of the countries who qualify for this exemption or is it better to try to figure out some more general way of stating it. At this point, I'd be in favor of a list, but it sounded like earlier in the debate that was not preferable for some people. matt91486 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • My problem with a list is it's totally POV. Though I'm sure we could agree on just a few to immediately add to it. I'd add half of the European leagues, but am I saying that because I'm European and follow said leagues (even if just through the CL), or because they really are worthy of addition? Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • That's completely true. Perhaps we could come up with a caveat based on percentage of a first division that is professional? If a certain threshold of professional teams in a first division is reached, then the entire division would be considered notable? matt91486 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Too difficult surely to go round working out percentages for each league in the world. Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Another option could be conferring it on players on any teams participating in any leagues with automatic bids for Champions League, Copa Libertadores, etc. matt91486 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure. What gives player from F.C. Verbroedering Dender E.H., last season's winners of the Belgian second league, notability just because the Belgian league has a higher coefficient rating than Serbia. Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Valid points, both. I don't know what parameter should be used. I know before the FIFA world rankings were ruled out in discussion as well. We can always go back to countries that have qualified for the World Cup, but then people have pointed out this opens the door to Indonesian and Haitian leagues. Perhaps teams that have qualified for the World Cup and are in the Top 100 FIFA rankings? A combination of the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Let me get this right, what you're aiming at is a further amendment to the criteria which would allow players for semi-pro teams from the Belgian or Swiss top flight, but not semi-pro players for the Welsh or Jamaican top flight. I'm not sure that allowing any semi-pro players is desirable, and the methodology of picking particular clubs we would like to see included/excluded and then stretching the criteria to fit probably isn't conducive to creating clear, simple and unambiguous guidelines. King of the NorthEast 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Belgian and Swiss just happened to be the examples I picked. It's not aimed specifically at those cases by any means. I just feel generally speaking, there should be a provision for national top flights for relatively important leagues. I realize there's no particularly good way to phrase that, otherwise I'd be able to come up with some option. I'm not sure if there is a situation about to happen or if it's not likely to happen at all, but it just seems like by being in the top flight of a relatively significant league, notability would be conferred on those players regardless of their professional status. matt91486 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • I can see your point, I don't think that setting the cut-off point at professional status for now will prejudice against the inclusion of a well worded caveat in the future, its just that it's extremely difficult to come up with anything that includes semi-pro's from the large nations and excludes semi-pro teams from the minnows without going back to the transient world ranking figures or some irrational link to the country's international team achievements, the achievements of professional teams in the league in reaching the latter stages of Continental tournaments or some other WP:OR criteria. Recourse to any of these type of criteria would take us back to a similar position to the "fully professional league" definition, where a players notability is determined by factors outside of his own club's level of play.King of the NorthEast 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Yeah, I agree that there's no good way to do it. I guess if such a situation comes up, we can all just logically look the other way to the criteria and not AfD it; that's the best solution, probably, to avoid discussing it in the parameters altogether. matt91486 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also go along with 4c regarding youth. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are U-20 World Cup Golden Ball winners notable?  Jhony   09:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Are Panamanian, Syrian and Uzbek U-20 internationals notable? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, they aren't. You misunderstood me, I just tried to reach a consensus. So would you agree with imaginary 4d) U-20 World Cup Golden Ball winners?  Jhony   20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • All of the U-20 World Cup Golden Ball winners have had a professional career, so there's no need at all for an explicit criterion covering this. --Angelo (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • If it makes you feel any better, I created one of the missing articles on a U-20 Golden Ball winner, haha. Yes, I know this is outside the realm, just wanted to lighten the mood. matt91486 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah thanks Matt91486! To Angelo: what about other players from award section, such as Golden Shoe and Golden Ball 3rd places?  Jhony   09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, I'd support 4a for youth football, but would find 4b preferable to 4c. matt91486 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My view is youth football should not confer notability, although playing at the World Youth Cup could be a decent compromise, being the highest possible level of play for youth footballers. King of the NorthEast 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • My view is U-20 players from North Korea, Syria, Jordan and Gambia (all being teams who participated at the World U-20s) are absolutely non-notable (unless they have reached some notability with a professional team). So I support 4c. --Angelo (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd compromise at the World Youth Cup level if that's where we could find a consensus. matt91486 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Whilst I support 4c, I would also be willing to compromise at U-20 World Cup level if it means we can actually get some criteria! пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support 4 b). I have explained my sentiments regarding the requirement of professional league football above (under Professionality?). I think that playing for the Uzbeki U-20 is perhaps not that notable, even if they would play in a U-20 world cup. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere and with the requirements of the current criteria a player with one League 2 game is deemed notable. Now, either you actually think that one League 2 game (or a Ryman league app for a professional club) is more notable than a U-20 WC game (wich I find quite ridiculous) or you think that both are non-notable but you are more concerned that WP is going to be over-flowed with articles on n-n Uzbeki U-20 players than of n-n League 2 players (wich I find equally ridiculous). Category:Uzbekistani footballers contains 43 articles so I would question if the concern of suddenly wading around in thousands of articles on non-notable Uzbeki U-20 players is a legitimate one. In any case I'm willing to take that risk. Sebisthlm (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Note Ryman League players are not eligible for articles under the new Footy notability criteria since the league is regional, not national level. I see your point though, and would not oppose the inclusion of World Youth Cup players, although it seems others would on the "Uzbeki U-20" issue, despite the appalling lack of coverage on full international players from such countries as compared to League 2 reserve team players, who all seem to have articles. The anglo-centrism of this site is illustrated by this random example: Cat:Morecambe F.C. players 77-61 Cat:Bolivian footballers. If people don't create articles on full internationals for such non-small countries, then they are unlikely to create articles on their youth team players either. King of the NorthEast 09:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just have realised that fully professional Russian Second Division (level 3) is not a national level too since it is divided into 5 geographical zones.  Jhony   11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We should think about league which are managed by a regional committee (all Italian amateur leagues), rather than leagues whose teams are divided on a regional basis (such as Serie C1, the third-highest Italian division). --Angelo (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Russian Second Division is still a a league which still covers the whole country, though, even if the teams are grouped regionally - it's kinda like the old Division Three North and South in England or the NFL in American Football. In contrast, the Ryman League only covers the South East of England, therefore it's a regional league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation!  Jhony   12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lower league players

In a radical departure for the above I would suggest that there is a threshold put in for players who participate in division below the English Championship and/or the Scottish premiership and/or European equivalents. What I suggest is that they must have say 10 or 20 games under their belt prior to gaining notability. The reason I propose this is because I find it ridiculous that some guy who has played ten minutes as a substitute against Macclesfield (no disrespect to Macc Town) gains automatic notability. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to require some sort of rule being put into place specifying which leagues this would apply to for every country in the world - how do you envisage this being constructed.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just the ideas guy! No seriously I understand that it could be hard to work but a simple approach could be the only the players top league in each country gets automatic notabilty after one appearence but players in leagues below that would need to a certain amount be the 10, 20, 30 games. If additional leagues from some countries were to be allowed drop into the "one game" rule then this would be specifically outlined - but I would envisage that that would probably be limited to Spain, England, Italy and Germany. Thoughts?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that changing the criteria for the notablity of players would be a bad idea. At the moment the criteria is pretty simple in that if you have played for a pro club you are notable after one game. This is simple for people to understand. If you add things like if at certain tier of a certain country's league system they would have to play a certain amount of games it would make it more difficult

Potential probelms of system if I have thought of. There may be more added later.

1. Mass deletion of articles that do not fulfill the criteria. This would be a large amount of articles.

2. Due to point 1 people may not be very happy that a number of articles they have created have been deleted even though at the time they were notable. This may mean that we lose a number of good editors.

3. I really like the idea that we may in the future (distant) have artciles for everyone that has played for certain clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, chelsea and also for teams like gillingham and lincoln city who maybe do not have the success of the previous ( no disrespect intended on previous clubs mentioned). No other internet site offers this and it would good that wikipedia would be the first to do this or at least try. It would give the category of players from certain clubs some kinds of completeness as they would be able to find all the players that have ever played for their club and they do not have BUT on the top of the category.

4. If a number of articles were deleted and then the community decided to reinstate the previous criteria a good number of articles would be lost and may never be created again

5. if it is not broke then do not fix it. There is nothing wrong with the current system. I understand that the criteria is changing but the fact that one game criteria has not been put forward for change could help show that people are happy with the system.

6. What would happen if for example gillingham got promoted from league one to the premiership. What would happen if someone played 1 game for gillingham while in the premiership then was injured and could never play football again. It would lead to really bad results due to the fact that when people look in the category of gillingham players that someone who has played one game for gillingham is allowed but someone else who played 10 - 15 is not all be it in league one. It does not seem fair and may lead to people unfamiliar to the criteria to become confused on why certain people are on wikipedia and why some people are not.

If possible could people please comment on what I have said above. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with what you have said, but points 1&2 could be used as defence for keeping non-playing footballers like Paul Rodgers and Gavin Hoyte who both somehow survived AfD. I don't think that possible deletion of articles and editors going off in a huff over it can be used as a reason for not allowing any change in notability criteria. I still think that actually having featured in one professional or international game is the simplest workable criteria, and setting different parameters for different leagues would leave us with an unneccessarily complicated system. King of the NorthEast 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking from criteria on the football notablity page am I right in saying that conference players are now deemed notable as long as you can prove that the club is pro. 02blythed (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary

My reading of the situation after several days of debate, is that everyone broadly supports 1-3, & 7, and 4b seems to be a popular compromise for youth footballers. Perhaps we could formally adopt these criteria here in order to move on to formally define notability criteria for other football related topics such as managers, clubs, leagues etc. King of the NorthEast 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about (4b). We were clearly debating about it, as it would allows U-20 players from countries like Uzbekistan to stay here, and I don't really agree with it. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with you (I would also like to see 4c), it seems that some editors are at the other end of the scale, so 4b looks like a likely compromise. TBH the problem has never been Uzbek U-21 internationals, but mostly articles on U-16 and U-18 England internationals which people claim are notable. We need to nail something down so we can mark such articles as clear delete (I'm still sulking about all those non-notable Americans being kept as no consensus...). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think the approval of a new notability guideline is gonna be a magic medicine. You can easily note the "keep" voters in the cases you mentioned are not WikiProject Football members, so they can always say this guideline is not what they really feel as being right. I am adapting my own notability opinions as well (personally, I would be much more restrictive than WP:BIO for footballers, but I know this is a minority opinion among the members of this WikiProject). I just want to make you note notability is not cumulative, you can see it instead as a boolean thing (that is, either Yes or No), and it's widely clear a very large majority of players who took part at the World Cup U-20s are actually fully professional, and often playing in a top flight division, so they would be all recognized as notable in any case. However, a slight minority of these players (especially ones from minor football nations, such as Uzbekistan and North Korea) are not professional and will never be, and they obviously fail the general notability guideline due to absolute lack of sources covering the subject in detail. Keep this in mind. --Angelo (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if we skip 4 for now, as most of the players to have played in the latter stages of the World Youth Cup level football have gone on to play professional football and gain notability with their club teams see Spain 2007 squad and my main area of activity Argentina 2007 squad. Is there any opposition to adopting 1-3 &7. In order to move on to other areas of concern. King of the NorthEast 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we skip 4 at the moment, does it actually change the existing policy at all? That looked to be the biggest change to what we have going now. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came to the same conclusion. This seems to be an all or nothing deal. Passing only 1-3 and 7 don't really change the criteria. Moreover, if these parts are passed and no concensus is reached over 4-6, point 1 could be used against any arguments supporting 4-6 or all the precedents that supports them. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the point of the excersise was to change the criteria per se, it was to get something written on this page which remained completely blank between January 2006 & February 2007. Enforcing notability by pointing to a blank piece of paper has just allowed people to create notability criteria by precedent, (well Gavin Hoyte survived AfD, so all non-players should have their own articles, Daniel Parslow survived on his under 21 caps for Wales so all youth footballers are notable and all those MLS draftees survived having never played a professional game between them, so all american trainees are notable) if we allow notability by precedent then we'll end up with an extremely anglo-centric set of criteria aimed allowing the inclusion of all kinds of non-notable players. I can see people's frustration at other editors seeming intransigence, I would personally say a few games in the WYC infront of a global TV audience probably trumps 1 5 minutes substitute appearance for my local club Darlington F.C. but we can't force people to change their minds so we should move on and formulate official criteria for other areas and try to come back to the WYC before the next edition in 2009. King of the NorthEast 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we share the same concerns, but from different view-points. Off course you're right that the goal of this discussion isn't necessarily to change the criteria. What I meant was that, at least to me, one goal of settling this subject is to transform the rejection of the old criteria that AfD:Paul Rodgers meant, into a workable objective principle. I'm now taking a Wikibreak until sunday evening (CET) and hope for some progress in the meantime. Have a good weekend guys and gals. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we still debating? I thought I was speaking to deaf ears. Angelo, if you're still debating, how come you haven't answered any of my arguments? I've written smaller essays above that neither you or no57 have even addressed. To me, the only one actually debating "us on the other side of the table" is King of the NE. And I don't understand your point of notability as a "boolian thing" at all. Of course notability is cumulative! Do you really think that Cristiano Ronaldo is equally notable as Robert Grant (that they both are)? And I would have thought a person interested in boolian algebra would be interested in answering concerns that he is using circular arguments. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As WP:N says, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this is true, then the topic passes the notability test, otherwise it does not. This is the boolean thing I mentioned. Don't mistake notability with importance: Cristiano Ronaldo has surely a higher grade than Robert Grant in the importance scale, but both of them pass the notability test the same way. --Angelo (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
i actually have a couple of credits in philosophical logic, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the discussion. I think everyone would agree that a player by necessity have to be either notable or not notable, and never neither or both. The problem is that we haven't agreed on a definition of notability. Yes, a player is either notable or not, but since we don't know what notability means we can't say if he is or isn't. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, like November the discussion is in danger of fizzling out without conclusion once again. So can we agree that points 1-3 & 7 are suitable, point 4 will be discussed again before the commencement of the next U-20 world cup in 2009. Common-sense tells us that in certain cases WP:N and WP:BIO can overrule these criteria, but in doing so don't create precedents to be cited in AfD debates, and finally any changes to these criteria must be discussed at WP:FOOTY. King of the NorthEast 12:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - GiantSnowman (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. I would also support point 4b). – PeeJay 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Haven't contributed but have kept in touch with the above. Gets my support. Bigmike (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. I suggest either we badger other WP:FOOTY members to vote on this, or pass 1-3 and 7 and start a new section to discuss 4-6 fully. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to move on to start a discussion on the notability of clubs, which seems pertinent becuase of the wording of this AfD. Perhaps if we focus on adopting some less controversial guidelines (rather than precedents) we could come back to discuss 4-6. I am also going to propose this downstairs. King of the NorthEast 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support. I support 1-3 & 7. However, since no consensus is reached on 4-6, the passing of this criteria should not, and does not:
  • Preclude a widening of the criteria in line with points 4-6, or
  • Overrule precedents in line with 4-6 (AfD:Paul Rodgers and others)
I'm making these conditions so that editors opposed to any inclusions of points 4-6 not deliberately refuse to discuss these points in order to get a more narrow criteria, wich can be used to attack the precedents that points 4-6 are based on. I think we have to come to some sort of agreement concerning these points, and I think those who oppose points 4-6 and are refusing to compromise on (or even discuss) the issue have a responsibility to move this forward. Until a consensus is reached on 4-6, this criteria (if passed) don't concern notability of youth internationals, continental club competition squad members or semi-professional internationals. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point over point 4, and that we shouldn't formally disbar youth internationals until consensus is reached, but the majority seem to strongly oppose 5-6, the opposition to 6 is not opposition to Semi-Pro international footballers, we have agreed that all FIFA recognised international footballers are notable in point 3, it is opposition to conferring notability for simply being in a squad. I drafted the compromise proposals for 4, but as I am personally opposed to the inclusion of non-playing players I requested that someone who supports it drafts some alternatives for discussion. It would have been impossible for me, or anyone else who opposes 5&6 to do it in good faith. No-one did it so the subject got less discussion than point 4. Perhaps if someone who supports the inclusion of non-players could draft some alternatives, one of them may achieve more support than they do in their current form. I can't see how oposers of 5&6 can be expected to compromise without someone offering us something to compromise on, rather than say accepting criteria we disagree with, or allowing notability by precedent, which as we have seen many times can be affected by meatpuppetry, pile ons !votes and closures by admins with little idea about footy notability criteria (no suprise - since the notability page reamined blank for over a year) King of the NorthEast 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My criticism of lack of discussion was concerning point 4. Conversely, You're quite right that the responsibility to come up with a compromise on 5 and 6 lies on those advocating these points. I'm not sure of the origin of point 6, or what it's aiming at, but point 5 seem to be some sort of translation of AfD:Paul Rodgers, wich after a quite thorough and lengthy debate (more thorough than over point 5 above) voted to keep (11-6) the player despite the lack of first team appearances. I'm willing to examine AfD:Paul Rodgers and try to summarize the discussion into a suggestion of a point 5. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we ought to try to move this to a conclusion, but we must be clear about the status we intend for this set of criteria. Are we looking to make a WP:BIO#FOOTBALLERS, or a sub-section of WP:BIO#Athletes, or are we simply establishing the arguments that members of this forum will use in prodded articles? Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good question, I can't see whats wrong with making it an actual part of WP:BIO. The exercise was simply intended to formalise some clear guidelines on footballers. Once this discussion is concluded I was hoping to clarify and formalise the guidelines on other (much less controversial) stuff such as teams, stadiums, referees etc.King of the NorthEast 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to summarise that no-one objects to the adoption of 1-3 & 7 with a commitment to further discuss 4 at a later date other than Sebisthlm who wishes to defend the inclusion of non-players? At some point we are going to have to conclude this discussion, in order to determine guidelines for clubs, leagues, managers, referees, individual games etc. Since the majority seem to support I am going to move 7 over to the notability page. King of the NorthEast 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability are in function and currently stand? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Support - sorry, I spaced out on the discussion for a few days. I still have concerns about national first division eligibility, but I realize that's not going to get formalized and will hopefully get decided logically should a situation arise. I'm also wary of the MLS Draft Pick conflict, especially if you plan on trying to fully incorporate it into WP:BIO. As long as we keep these situations in mind and come back and discuss point 4 later and don't completely blow it off, I'm in favor of the formalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, the hypothetical in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Giggs: if he had appeared in a European match for Bangor City, why shouldn't that confer notability despite the side not being professional? Things like this are still not completely resolved by these parameters. I know I seem to be in the minority for worrying about it, but it's a genuine concern of mine, I'm not just trying to be difficult. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I guess as I read point 2 again, it does seem to confer notability. But the discussion in that AfD implied that Giggs would be non-notable even if he had because of his clubs professional status. So which is actually the case? matt91486 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of clubs

After adopting some formal criteria for notability of football players I was hoping that we could move on to start a discussion on the notability of clubs, which seems pertinent becuase of the wording of this AfD. Perhaps we focus on adopting some official guidelines (rather than precedents). I was wondering if it would be preferable to discuss the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability, with occasional updates on this page to save clogging the main footy page with so much policy talk? King of the NorthEast 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see it as clogging... To be honest, I like to be able to see what's going on in one place, but that's just my opinion. Robotforaday (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a general notability criteria should be that the club plays in a nationwide league. However, we also need specific country-by-country criteria, as notability varies by level (for instance, level 5 in Israel is not notable compared to level 5 in England) or cup entry (FA Cup entry may be suitable for England, but not for France, where 6,000 clubs enter!).

For English clubs, I would say:

Club plays or has played in
(a) existing leagues which are currently level 10 or above
(b) historical leagues which would be placed at level 10 or above in the modern pyramid, and/or
(c) in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase
Reasoning: Need to use the word "currently" to avoid people claiming that the current level 11 leagues were actually level 10 before the Conference North/South were introduced. For the FA Vase criteria, this allows articles on the clubs which play below level 10, but entered the Vase, and therefore (in my eyes at least) are effectively as notable as level 10 clubs (and especially in the case of the Cornish clubs, many of which are only playing below level 10 due to geographical constraints). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is pretty well established that level 10 is the cut-off point in England, the real issue is non-British clubs. I would say that a fairly simple test of notability would be whether they have ever played above amateur level. I don't think requiring "nationwide" level football for non-English clubs would be fair, since the regional leagues start at step 3 in Argentina, Italy & Spain to name a few & it would look extremely Anglocentric to allow step 10 clubs from England but ban step 3 clubs from elsewhere. King of the NorthEast 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting that the "nationwide" rule applied to everywhere except England, but that it would be a base starting point before country-specific criteria were developed (and for many countries that might not happen). I'm sure that Serie C2 clubs are notable, but not enough of an expert on Italian football to say exactly where the cut-off point should be (though for Israel I can say that the 3rd level should be). Also, although we have plenty of precedent, I think we do need to define the English criteria (as I plan to do a mass AfD on all non-notable level 11 clubs once we adopt them!). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
How about using eligibility for the country's primary cup competition then? I don't know how many teams are eligible for the Copa del Rey or Coppa Italia, but it must surely be enough to include the first five steps of the pyramid. – PeeJay 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently only Serie A and B teams enter the Coppa Italia now (see here). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What about clubs that are eligible for any cup competition that operates on a nationwide basis. IIRC, that would include Serie C and Serie D clubs too. However, it may also include clubs eligible for the Coppa Italia Dilettanti, though I don't know how that competition is structured. – PeeJay 13:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It could work if specified for each country, but if done as a general rule, we could end up with articles on all the pub teams that enter the FA Sunday Cup :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Argh! – PeeJay 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion Perhaps we could say that In general the club must have played at least semi-professional level, supported by a Reliable source and work on a list of specific criteria for the individual countries such as; England step 10, Scotland Step 7(?) etc. English peasant 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately some clubs at level 11 are semi-pro, so that might open a can of worms. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"There's only one Gary Roberts"

Actually, there's two - and they're both at Crewe Alex. Anyways, I was interested to know how to disambig them both in Crewe's squad template and on their current squad section? Jimbo[online] 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have no middle names, then Gary Roberts I and Gary Roberts II (in squad number order). It will be interesting to see how the club handle it, we should ultimately follow their lead. This isn't the first time they've done this, they had two Billy Joneses for a brief time in the summer ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Soccerbase have taken a novel approach. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with the Soccerbase approach, i.e. Gary Roberts (loanee). Gary Roberts I and Gary Roberts II makes them look like kings or American golfers! пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
According to allfootballers.com the Ipswich one's full name is Gareth Michael Roberts and the other one is Gary Steven Roberts, so I'd suggest "Gary M Roberts" and "Gary S Roberts"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Date of birth - 1984 and 1987? GiantSnowman (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that they do have middle names I think that's the best approach and the one that most mainstream media would apply. Interesting note that both players' infoboxes had their 'full name' as Gary Roberts - should be left blank where middle names are unknown. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the template and articles accordingly. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with ArtVandelay13 here, since they've got middle names we should use those to dab the articles. I think it's preferable to the current solution of using date of birth to seperate them. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:ESPNsoccernet

Just to let everyone know, I have created a template for use when citing ESPNsoccernet for playing statistics. It works in exactly the same way as the Soccerbase one. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 06:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve McManaman image

Does anyone have a Steve McManaman image which I can use on his article? John Hayestalk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a reasonable one on Flickr here. It's copyrighted, but you could ask the author if he would consider releasing the photo under a free license... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone with a flikr account mind asking him? I don't really want to set up an account just for that. If not I will do though. Thanks. John Hayestalk 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've sent a request for you asking if he'll consider changing it to CC-BY-SA so it can be uploaded to commons. Fingers crossed! Foxhill (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. John Hayestalk 07:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Failing that I'll ask my wife's friend who claims to have copped off with him whilst at uni in Liverpool if she managed to snag any photos....... ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely thats the wrong type of "head" shot! any news on his ball control skills? Foxhill (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

England Schoolboys

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I right in thinking there's no current article on the England Schools/Schoolboys team.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on the England national under-16 football team, don't know whether that's the same thing though. Nanonic (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we? That's got to be worthy of an Afd surely? - fchd (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's the same thing. England U-16s is presumably for English boys under 16 only, whereas any boy who attends a school in England can play for England Schools, which is how Ryan Giggs came to play for the team. To be honest, I didn't even know there was an England U-16 team till I saw it on the Football in England template...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Bit eager with the AfD there I would think. There's plenty of scope for introducing information for the team, past managers, achievements etc and what exactly qualifies as an "England Schoolboy" (i.e. playing for an English school, and not necessarily being English - a la Ryan Giggs). The FA provides plenty of statistical info. Better to see what improvements can be made before citing it for deletion. Admittedly it's not likely to reach Ghana national under-17 football team levels, but more info would be a good start. Can't remember but I'm sure there was a TV Show on ITV about 10 years back featuring the England U16's with the likes of Francis Jeffers, Arsenals two young keepers in Stack and Taylor, Kevin Nicholson and a good group of other young lads who achieved sweet F.A.Koncorde (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
During a trip to the library today, I looked it up in the British Encyclopedia of football and the FA stole the U15 Schoolboy national team off of the English Schools FA in 1999 and turned it into the U16 England team. There is still an U18 school international team though. Nanonic (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhodri Giggs

Is this guy considered notable? He's never played for a professional club (0 appearances for Torquay and Livingston, all other clubs in his history are semi-pro) and while he seems to have gained some column inches it's only been on the basis of being Ryan's brother. Thoughts anyone........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability as a football player is probably nill to negligble, but he's achieved a national notoriety comparable to Delaglio.--Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've prodded it. Notability is not conferred by famous relations. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Prod contested. It doesn't say he didn't plaay for Livingston, his appearance data is unknown (and pre-dates soccerbase). He has also played top-flight football in Wales, and has been involved in a couple of scandals that made the national press. This, along with his famous brother, just about adds up to notability. Each on their own might not be enough, but they all add up. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This source doesn't show him as ever having played for Livi. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The WP:FOOTY/Notability criteria makes it clear that playing in the Welsh top division (unless it was for Barry or TNS) does not bring notability, and the Romeo Beckham AfD sets a precedent for notability not being conferred by famous relations. This just leaves him being accused of supplying cocaine, which I don't believe makes him notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the drugs reference is worth mentioning in Ryan Giggs' article instead? Wanaka | Talk 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why besmirch his brothers wiki on the basis that he was once arrested for intent to supply? I would also find it odd we attempt to remove a fully (kinda) cited topic. There are better places to waste AfD on.--Koncorde (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
First, why would mentioning Rhodri's arrest besmirch Ryan's article? Second, it's not like we have a limited "supply" of AfDs. You could AfD every single article here, and there'd still be room for more. – PeeJay 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Guilt by association. A similar trick to "this man isn't a rapist, but his brother was" that you get in court cases - where by bringing up the topic, you actually connect the two artificially. When bringing up criminal cases where one person is essentially innocent of all wrongdoing, had no part in it and was not at all associated with it you're basically creating an artifical link (a form of obvious 'suggestion'). In this case one built on the fact they happen to be brothers. If Ryan had also been arrested, or previously been convicted or prosecuted then no harm could be done (theoretically). Similar issue to the one regarding Mel Gibsons dad Hutton Gibson. Hutton is a notorious holocaust denier, so any mention of Hutton in Mels bio colours it for him. Even when Mel then went off on his tirade, associating that tirade with his father instantly changes the interpretation of the event. Going from "drunken outburst" to "closet holocaust denier, jew hating bigot raised by a prolific bigot".
As for AfD's - Just because they're limitless doesn't mean you should use them so eagerly.Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way of finding out if he played in any European matches with Bangor City? That would give him notability under point 2. matt91486 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't, because Bangor were not professional. Both clubs have to be professional for it to count. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, and as I'm trying to say in the summary section above (but no one's really looking at it much anymore), we need to think of contingencies in these cases. If semi-pro players happen to get into UEFA Cup matches, that should be conferring a degree of notability regardless of being a slave to semi-pro statuses. matt91486 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation is nothing like Romeo Beckham!! For starters Rhodri has accomplished actually playing some football!! Even if it is non-league. Besides, I feel the article is very well referenced to provide enough notability. Govvy (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)