Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Portal selected images

I nominated some images for the portal at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, but I don't think many people watch that page, so I thought I'd leave a message here. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-12 19:48

Fb team templates: Subcategories? Naming conventions?

Since we are nearing the 2,000 template mark for Fb team templates, would it make sense to sub-categorize them by country in order to create easier access? At the moment, it is pretty time-consuming if you are looking for templates that already have been created.

On another note, are there any kind of defined name conventions for said templates? I'm just wondering because I occasionally have difficulties how to name new templates if I need to create them for standings and/or results.

Discussion as always welcome. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to create some 12 new when I made the league table for Superettan, and I just thought, are they really necessary? Isn't it just easier to write in the names manually (Are they used on other places?). — chandler — 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe they can be used with a couple of other templates like Template:footballbox or anything Fb related as well. As for necessity, their original purpose was to avoid naming inconsistencies. I think they are a faciliation if said other templates would be used more in the future. The problem is that the whole fb template system is rather new, thus unknown and subsequently not included in many articles yet. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well on templates like footballbox you can still right the names yourselfs (which you can't in the league table template) — chandler — 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this behavior is owed to the fact that you don't want to create team templates for those teams that are belonging to minor leagues in a cup competition. A (top-tier) league is usually a rather closed circuit, thus write-in can be deemed expendable. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Though to jump back ontopic, sub categories, is a have to. I would suggest Category:Fb team templates only to list countries, such as Category:Fb team templates England, Category:Fb team templates Sweden, Category:Fb team templates Russia. Inside these you see all teams listed, but also sub categories for leagues such as Category:Fb team templates England Premier League, Category:Fb team templates England Championship, Category:Fb team templates League One — chandler — 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, if there exist such, where can one find documentation and explination abuot all templates in Category:Internally used Fb templates and Category:Fb templates? — chandler — 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentation is usually included on the respective template's page. For example, if you open Template:Fb cl team, an explanation for all parameters is given. Hockey-holic (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but for example that doc don't tell about when or where to us the template. Or what it's for — chandler — 14:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fb cl team is the template for a row in a Standings section. The "cl" stands for "competition league". But to be honest, I don't know the purpose of some of the templates either. It would be good to have a page where all documentation is collected and presented. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I may provide a short update about the topic. As the one or another of you has probably already noticed, the team templates page is currently under reconstruction. Completed are about 50 per cent, more specifically the letters A through E and all of Germany and the United Kingdom. The rest of the templates will be inserted into their new subcategory later this day (after some sleep). Hockey-holic (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished the subcategorising process. I would be glad if a few users would have a look at the specific subcategories, especially on those where a lot of templates may be found (e.g. Category:Fb team templates England), check them for possible double entries and put redirects on the template with the most common name for the dublettes. Hockey-holic (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(c) on squad templates

I've noticed a few squad templates have started to contain additional information, (c) after the captain's name. This is an affliction that seems to have spread no further than PL templates. It seems nothing other than superfluous as the tp is solely for navigation and the info already appears on the club article.

• Examples: Man Utd and Man City.

I'd like to see this practice abolished, but can we establish a consensus on this?  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. They are principally navigation templates so the info isn't necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both statements. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, the captain is a seperate role, it is useful information. Following the logic of this argument we should remove the numbers and the manager text and just have a list of names. Adding in things like number of goals scored would be superflous, adding in who is the captain is not. Also I don't understand this constant tendancy to try and delete or remove information that is neither incorrect or even under debate. Paul  Bradbury 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Paul - we mention that Ferguson is the Manager, and that each squad member has a particular number (and from those numbers we can infer who is the main goalkeeper, the defenders, etc.). The captaincy role is a role of huge importance - being the person who organises the team as they are playing. Showing which person is the current captain is useful information, showing who is considered the most experienced or responsible or loyal (or whatever) player. This does not take up much room in the template, and is of interest to those who wish to know more about the club. It is handy having it in the template, rather than having to trawl through the club article. We wouldn't make people do it for the manager, so why make them do it for the captain? I say it should stay. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to this captain indicator, so long as it's done as (c) and not the graphic that looks like a copyright symbol. The problem I do have is with the growing tendency for mass changes to be made without any prior discussion, as these were a few days ago, which is what provokes the perceived tendency to delete or remove. If someone wants to make a general change, is it that much of a nuisance to come on this talk page and say hey, lads, what about doing such-and-such? Then if people have objections they can be discussed before there are dozens/hundreds of articles to revert, and if nobody can be bothered to express a view it's probably reasonable to assume they don't object. (If the editor who added the (c)s is reading this, please don't take it personally, it just happens to be your edits that provoked the discussion.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the (c)'s at all, not all clubs even have a specified captain. — chandler — 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Having been linked here by User:Slumgum, who's been removing it from the Man Utd template, I'd personally prefer it to be kept, as per the reasons given by User:Pbradbury and User:El Pollo Diablo. If clubs don't have an established captain, then that's fine, they don't get the (c), but those that do should have it. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be kept. I feel it belongs. And Chandler, it doesn't matter if some clubs don't have an established captain. Caden S (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Captaincy is not always matter of fact. The case of Gary Neville is a prime example - someone who hasn't led his team out for a year but people still think he's captain. Bradbury's extreme logic of removing numbers could work, but we use them as an identifier - something which captaincy is not. Pollo Diablo's suggestion that numbers tell us something about players is sometimes correct, but often wrong. The numbers are there purely as a sort criteria, as early versions of the squad tp were sorted by name. Differentiating the manager is necessary, though whether I think he should be on the playing-squad box is another argument. In short, the (c) is something which does not need to be on there, so for purity, it shouldn't.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The status of a team captain does not necessarily have to do with the status of who's leading the team on the pitch, due to injuries etc. but I still believe that it is a valid additional piece of information. Madcynic (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - Gary Neville is the team captain, as it is an honour given to a player who deserves it. If he's injured, it's usually given to someone often thought of as a deputy for a specific game, but even when that's the case, Neville is still the team captain. It's a bit like times when managers are unable to be on the touchline for whatever reason (funerals, bans, whatever). The fact that the management has been handed over to someone temporarily doesn't mean that the manager is no longer the manager. The template isn't about "purity", it's about getting across a good amount of useful information about the squad in a very simple, concise way. The typical useful information desired about a team are the players, their numbers, who is the manager, and who is the captain. I don't think it's going to make readers' heads explode due to information overload to mention numbers, captaincy and management. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In association football the captaincy is much more fluid than either code of rugby where it would be appropriate to have (c) next to someones name. Football does not is my opinion require a (c) next to a players name, nor would it be appropriate. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that opinion stands in contrast to the fact that (apart from games where the nominated captain is unavailable) it is actually fairly static. To continue the Manchester United example with Gary Neville, he has been the captain since 2005 when Roy Keane retired. Last season he was mostly unavailable and so other players took on the mantle, but he was still the captain. Bryan Robson was captain for twelve years until he moved on. After him, Steve Bruce for two until he moved on. After him, Eric for one year until he retired. Keane was captain then for eight years until he moved on. Neville will be the captain until he either retires, transfers somewhere else or seriously pisses off the boss (which would usually mean a transfer or retirement). This is not a good demonstration of "fluidity". This arrangement is similarly applied for most teams in England. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Young Player of the Year

According to SFWA Young Player of the Year, which has no references, and its associated template, the 2004 winner was Craig Gordon. However, there's no mention of it in his article, and this and this say it was Stephen Pearson, who won the SPFA Young Player of the Year in the same year. Anybody got any definitive source to clarify this? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If we have two reliable sources saying it was Pearson, and no reliable sources saying it was Gordon, then per WP:V it should be changed to say Pearson. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian clubs

Is there a reason why their names stand out? Sporting Club is usually abbreviated as SC, Royal Club - RC and so on. We have "Everton FC" and not "Everton Football Club", "RCD Mallorca" instead of "Royal Club Deportivo Mallorca", "R Charleroi SC" instead of "Royal Charleroi Sporting Club" etc. And yet there is Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, even despite the fact that they use the SC abbreviation on their club crest (S.C. Corinthians Paulista[1]]). Same with Vasco da Gama, who have the CR abbreviation on their crest. Additionally "CR Vasco da Gama" generates more google hits than "Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama". My proposal would be to move some of the pages in order to try and maintain at least some sort of standard for club names and make them less confusing for readers unfamiliar with football and/or Portuguese language. BanRay 13:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some of those pages should be moved. – PeeJay 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose moving the pages. First: both Corinthians and Vasco official web pages use the club's full name instead of an abbreviated name. Second: if we start naming the articles based on their club crests, Vasco's article would have to be moved to "CRVG", Manchester United F.C. of England would have to be moved to just Manchester United, Manchester City F.C. would have to be moved to "M.C.F.C.", Newcastle United F.C. would have to be moved to Newcastle United, and Club Social de Deportes Rangers of Chile would have to be moved to just "R". Third: moving some pages will make the Brazilian football club pages more confusing, as some clubs will have abbreviated names while others will maintain their full names. Also, the Brazilian club names are already standardized, so there is no need to fix what is not broken. Fourth: The names of the Brazilian football clubs articles have been stable for a very long time, thus, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names, "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail", changing the name of the articles merely to include acronyms or abbreviations is not a good reason to move. Fifth: moving the articles to use those acronyms or abbreviations will create an unnecessary work, as several templates and categories will need to be fixed by someone. Sixth: Google hits are not relevant, as several pages listed by Google are not reliable, and several other sources (like books and magazines) are obviously not listed by Google. Seventh: we already have SC Corinthians Paulista redirecting to Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, and CR Vasco da Gama redirecting to Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama, so I can't see how moving the clubs' pages will make them less confusing for readers unfamiliar with football and/or Portuguese language. --Carioca (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a consensus is always a good reason to move a page, so let's just wait and see if we can get one here, because I'm happy to go with whatever the community decision is, but I just don't think that "Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama" is a good name for an article, as it's both too long and does not go in line with generally accepted "guidelines". I'm not suggesting abbreviating club names. Manchester United is known to the world as Manchester United and whereas FC is, formally, part of the name, it is not part of the "club's" name (:S if you know what I mean and I think you do). The official website may refer to the club as Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, because it's the correct name of the club, but so is SC Corinthians Paulista and the abbreviation on the crest suggests that the name is neither uncommon nor incorrect. Google search may have little importance when it comes to reliability, but the reliability aspect is of secondary importance here, since I was merely trying to show that the suggested name is at least as common or, in fact, even more common, as it turns out, than the current name. Standardization is one of the reasons we have WikiProjects and while I don't mind long names as such, I think it's better to maintain some sort of standard. If this means moving R Charleroi SC to Royal Charleroi Sporting Club or RCD Mallorca to Real Club Deportivo Mallorca then so be it, but since vast majority of club articles use abbreviations, it is easier to move the Brazilian articles. BanRay 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Carioca. The move seems pointless, as they stated they have been like that for a long time and have appropriate redirects for other common names. The name is neither incorrect or inappropriate so the status quo should stand as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. Paul  Bradbury 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was called to join this discussion in order to write my thought about this issue, so here I am. I see someone cited WP:NC#Controversial names here, however I think that guideline (naming conventions are all guidelines, as you probably know) is controversial itself. For how long an article name should be stable in order to define it uncontroversial, for instance? So, I think we should just forget it and use WP:NC#Sports teams instead; we have a guideline written exactly for sports teams, so I don't really understand the aim of this discussion. In short, I think we should just apply WP:NC#Sports teams and forget about all the rest. --Angelo (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, do you mean that you should keep the club's full names, right? As per "In cases where there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used." (Sport Club Corinthians Paulista and Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama are the clubs' official names) Correct me if I am wrong. --Carioca (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but we first have to apply tests for ambiguity. – PeeJay 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay, you obviously meant about the "no ambiguity" test to be applied first, didn't you :) ?!? For Vasco, the club website has an English-language section, which uses both "CR Vasco da Gama" and "Clube de Regatas Vasco da Gama" denominations, the former much more frequently than the latter.[2] But I would consider also an alternate denomination such as "Vasco da Gama (football club)", per WP:COMMON (the club is internationally known as Vasco da Gama, with no CR or Clube de Regatas indications around). Corinthians has apparently no English-language section, so the ambiguity test (Google News) should be used instead: the full denomination has no Google News hit around [3], whereas the shorter "SC Corinthians Paulista" has one single Google News hit [4]. Again, in this case the club is internationally known just as "Corinthians", so "Corinthians (football club)" might be an option as well. I have no opinion, sincerely, I am just providing you with facts, so feel free to decide yourself about the issue. --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vasco da Gama (football club)" and "Corinthians (football club)" are very bad names, as both clubs are not just football clubs, they are multi-sport clubs, while naming the article "SC Corinthians Paulista" just because of a single good hit seems to be a very weak reason. Thus it seems more logical to just keep the current article names (Sport Club Corinthians Paulista and Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama), as it has been named in this way for a long time without any problems. Besides that, moving the articles will bring a lot of unnecessary effort to fix several categories, subcategories and templates. The time will better be using improving other Wikipedia articles. Besides that, User:BanRay canvassed eight editors to this discussion: User:Number57, User:Chandler, User:Grant.Alpaugh, User:Struway2, User:Peanut4, User:Angelo.romano, User::Matt91486 and User:Falastur2. --Carioca (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassed? How is that canvassing? Informing other editors of a certain discussion is totally acceptable, unless you are trying to influence the outcome. I think you've just pretty much crossed the line with this accusation. BanRay 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No apology coming my way? BanRay 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize, even if I disagree with sending messages to other users when the discussion is already available in this Wikiproject. Sorry. --Carioca (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I was only trying to boost an important discussion that had only received two responses in over six hours. Now back on topic, I'm not sure about Corinthians, maybe Corinthians Paulista may be an option. As for Vasco, the club seems to prefer the "CR" name on their website, so that's probably the name we should use, according to WP:NC#Sports teams. BanRay 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first suggestion, I disagree with Corinthians Paulista, as the club is usually just called Corinthians, and as explained above, "Corinthians (football club)" is not an acceptable name. Regarding the second suggestion, I am not sure that Vasco prefer to use the "CR" name on their website, as in the page posted by Angelo, in the top it is still written "Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama" even in the English pages, and also in the PDF page you can see that the first thing you will read is "Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama", so it is better to just leave Vasco's article' s name as "Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama". --Carioca (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All (or at least all except these?) football clubs seem to use the abbreviation instead of writing out any national variant of "Football club" or "Sport club" or anything alike. I don't buy the argument that "because they write their full name on their homepage..." Many clubs do this: Man City Liverpool Sevilla Juve, the list could probably go on. — chandler — 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, most clubs use their full names on banners, same with Vasco, who prefer to use the CR Vasco da Gama name in plain text. BanRay 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, to clarify, Carioca, I was invited here by BanRay to give an opinion, whatever it was, not to support his. I know that point has been resolved, and I'm not trying to reopen the argument, but I felt like I should clarify for the sake of good will. Anyway, moving on.

Here's my take: If we look back to December of last year, a discussion came to the consensus decision that official names should be used as article names, so I don't think we should think about naming, say, Sport Club Corinthians Paulista as simply "Corinthians" as their main article page. Sure, have a Corinthians page link to the club article (though it already has a hefty disambiguation page), but don't have it as the main page. Apart from anything, this saves us from having such problems as, for instance there being an English team Corinthians F.C.. Giving the abbreviation "Corinthians (football club)" to Corinthians Paulista based purely on them being the best-known is unfair, and likely to cause several other problems where an abbreviation clashes with an unrelated team sharing that name. Since we're pursuing the official names, then where possible it's my opinion that the full name of the club, including some sort of "Football Club" pre- or suffix, should be added to complete a team's official name. To this end, I personally think we should dismiss talk of using "(football club)" in this way - generally, the official name of a team makes the football status clear, and so to use "(football club)" would indicate that we aren't using official names. So to my mind the real debate is whether to allow abbreviations of these words - i.e. Football Club to F.C. (I think personally that the dots between the letters are important where they are commonly used - I don't know the case in Brazil so this may not apply here, but to me "Everton FC" as seen above should be "Everton F.C."). But anyway, that might be partly personal preference, and I start to stray from my point. Anyway, as for whether to abbreviate the terms, i.e. here "Club de Regatas" to CR...I'm undecided. Personally I lean towards the abbreviations as they are more natural terms, in a way - they are how a club's name would be spoken in most cases. Opinions? Falastur2 (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Falastur2. To anyone who may be curious, in Brazil, Placar magazine, in their 2008 Campeonato Brasileiro guide, place the club short name (for example Vasco) on the side of the page, while below the club's logo, they place the club's full name (for example Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama). Also, if you check the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, you will see that they are also using the clubs' full names in most (if not all) the Brazilian clubs. Anyway, you raised an interesting point, if the articles ended up being moved to use abbreviations, we will need to decide if we will add dots between the letters or not. --Carioca (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my opinion briefly - use the common short name of the club and then abbreviate any other parts of the name. So, for Vasco de Gama (short common form) I'd go for C.R. Vasco da Gama. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On dots, there are a number (that I've just seen in passing) of European clubs not using dots, all(?) spanish teams Template:Fb team, Template:Fb team, Template:Fb team too just name the first 3 alphabetical of Primera Division. We have all(?) French teams Auxerre, Bordeaux, Caen etc. We have all Swedish teams AIK, Djurgårdens IF, IF Elfsborg etc, here I can actually give the input that, Swedish clubs are never referred to with dots. I don't know if this is the case in France and Spain. And as I can think how weird I would feel if Swedish clubs were moved, AIK → A.I.K. or Djurgårdens IF → Djurgårdens I.F. It might be good to go by that common use. — chandler — 10:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I was invited here to express my opinion, which is... If these articles were being created today, I would name them according to what came of the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Naming convention for sports teams discussion mentioned above, which is WP:NC#Sports teams, the sports teams section of WP:Naming conventions. (WP:NC says it's a policy, not a guideline, by the way.) Using the example of Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama, its website has an English section which refers to the club using the full name spelt out only once, at the very start of the introduction, and CR Vasco da Gama (without the dots) elsewhere. Though at the bottom of each page, in the copyright notice, it uses C. R. Vasco da Gama (with dots). So if this article were created today, I would call it CR Vasco da Gama, and ask Brazilian editors whether it was conventional in Brazil for dots to be included or not. In England and Italy it is, in Spain it isn't, for example. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dots-issue is an old issue. It was decided not to use them, also if they are commonly used in that nation. --necronudist (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the Vasco da Gama page to CR Vasco da Gama, without dots (per User:Necronudist). Additionally I'm proposing the following moves:

• Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras → SE Palmeiras

Per WP:NC#Sports teams. The club has no English-language section, but uses "Palmeiras" everywhere on the Portuguese-language website. "Palmeiras" is also the name widely adopted by the English-language media (602 google news hits, whereas the current name has 0).

• São Paulo Futebol Clube → São Paulo FC

Football club is always abbreviated as FC. Additionally the club uses Sao Paolo FC on their website, even on the top banner. Google news : 5 hits (FC), 0 hits (fulls name)

• Santos Futebol Clube → Santos FC

Same as above, Futebol Clube-->FC, Santos FC is used on the club's English-language section. Google news: 14:1.

• Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense → Grêmio FBPA

Again, google news and the official website. BanRay 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support two of them, but Palmeiras and Grêmio should be SE Palmeiras and Grêmio FBPA (as it says on its badge) respectively. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer "SE Palmeiras" and "Grêmio FBPA" too, I only went for "Palmeiras" and "Grêmio" because those are the most commonly used denominations. BanRay 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of going to the abbreviated, commonly used names with redirects from the complete ones. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Trials/triallists

Do we have an article explaining what it means for a player to go 'on-trial' with a club? I've found Trial (sport) but it mentions not football.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If my experience with Football Manager is anything to go by, football trials may last anywhere from one week to four weeks. During the time that the player is on trial, the trialling club does not pay him a wage, and the club may not play him in any competitive matches. – PeeJay 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's as formal as one to four weeks. Basically any player who doesn't have a club and decides to train with a team is on trial. It could be as short as one day, as long as the club needs to say no. I also think trialists are allowed up to two reserve games in England. Peanut4 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, players can go on trial while they are already with a club. Americans like Freddy Adu and Brad Guzan have had trials with Manchester United and Celtic, respectively. The MLS season runs during the summer so guys that are looking to move abroad during the winter transfer window are allowed by their MLS teams to go on trial with European teams. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham have two players on trial currently, one already with a Belgian club, the other with a French one, and had to get international clearance before they could play them in friendlies.[5] The lad from the Belgian club also trained with Birmingham during last season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as the duration of trials go, sources would appear to indicate that Andy Hessenthaler spent an entire season on trial with Charlton........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is to some extent a 'behind the scenes' occurrence, and since it deals with contracts, I'd expect few verifiable sources to be available to construct an article. I think P4 is right to say that they may, in real life, play in matches as I can vaguely remember a couple of examples. Doesn't everyone know someone who's 'had trials' with some club? And according to his autobiography, Tony Adams arrived uninvited at Highbury one day asking for a trial. I think there is enough anecdotal evidence, but little more.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a definitive answer, so don't quote me on this, but from what I have picked up, a trial is an invitation to train with a club for test purposes, to see if the manager thinks they are a worthwhile purchase. They can extend for as long as the manager (presuming the manager is the one who makes the trial offer) wants it to, but rarely last over a month because if after a month the trialist hasn't been offered a contract, it's probably because the manager has decided not to hire them. During this period they can take part in any match which isn't an official FA game - so basically friendlies - because in order to play in a competitive match they would need to be a registered player to be submitted to the local FA on the teamsheet. Otherwise they can do as much or as little as the manager wants, but it's basically a license to turn up to training sessions. Falastur2 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Trialists can play in Scottish league games, but their names do not go down in the official records, they are simply recorded as 'A Trialist'. If more than one trialist plays in a game then the others are 'B Trialist', 'C Trialist', etc. See Elgin's lineup here as an example. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Trials are usually subject of players writing to clubs or their agents sending their CVs to clubs asking for a trial. It is unusual for a club to initiate contact. I know someone who used to handle a club's e-mails and said he was always getting players CVs sent through. Some triallists play in league games buy sign short term contracts, or on non-contract terms - which is basically a weekly rolling contract where neither the player or club is tied down - but they have to be registered with the club. They usually last anything up to 4 weeks and are only allowed to play in friendlies and reserve leagues, such as the Football Combination, which allow players not registered to the club to play. --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pontin's Holidays League Cup

Given that we don't generally use sponsored names for competitions, does anyone know what the official unsponsored name of this cup is? I'm guessing Central League Cup.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd probably say so, and merge the content of the separate article in to the Central League (football) article. There does not appear to be enough information to need two articles. - fchd (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio's mass edits

Was there ever a conclusion to whether the clubname parameter in the football club infobox should have F.C. or not? I only ask because Sarumio's at it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MASS removal of FC - show me where this happened? Sarumio (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Will that boy ever learn? However, AFAIK, no conclusion was reached. – PeeJay 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that Arsenal (which is a Featured Article) has Arsenal F.C. at the head of the infobox, as do Manchester United and Liverpool, then for the sake of consistency so should all other clubs. I have therefore reverted his change to Southampton, plus a few more. I will leave the rest to others. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lying is such a nasty quality - I havent changed Southampton's infobox - you appear to have imagined this one and added FC in a fit of rage! Sarumio (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate a bit here, that's not a hugely compelling argument, because Gillingham, Margate, Leek Town, Dover Athletic and Stocksbridge Park Steels are all Featured Articles and don't have the F.C. at the top of the infobox...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres a reason for this - its called Dudesleeper - he added FC to all Premiership clubs a while ago - they previously didnt have the FC included - but in an attempt to show who's boss and to back up his argument for the FC's inclusion, he added it to all 20 and he and the Rambling Man guard over them like zoo keepers. Sarumio (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I hear my name mentioned? Actually, Sarumio, I'm studiously ignoring your edits. I have much bigger fish to fry than give a toss over whether you think FC should be in the infobox or not. It's a pity you don't listen the community once in a while, but there you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've restored the Birmingham City F.C. infobox to its state before any mass editing/reverting of the clubname started, which happens to be without the F.C. If and when any standard is set, I will change it to meet that standard if indeed change is needed. And I headed this section 'Sarumio's mass edits', because I was wondering about any conclusion to the discussion provoked by those edits and the reversions thereof some months ago. And Sarumio is correct in that he didn't change Southampton's infobox yesterday. Wish I hadn't mentioned it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that anyone familiar with this tedious debate who adds/removes an FC to/from the infobox without prior discussion and consensus on the article talkpage be treated as a common vandal, with escalating vandalism warnings and blocks if necessary. EP 19:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He/She's at it again - this time removing F.C. from text within articles. I reverted one before realising this is probably another crusade. - fchd (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Navbox question

Hello. Should {{Ararat Yerevan 1973 squad}} stay or be deleted? according to our quite fresh consensus about navboxes and other football templates. - Darwinek (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definite delete. I can see where the creator is coming from creating a template for a championship winning squad, but it really isn't needed and would set a dangerous precedent. Can you imagine what the bottom of the Rangers page would look like............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Feel free to nominate for deletion at WP:TFD. - Darwinek (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it at WP:TFD together with another similar one, feel free to comment and vote. - Darwinek (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on the TfD page, I feel this is misguided. The navbox was not intended for all chamionship sides, it was intended to highlight the preeminent club side in 100 years of Azerbaijani football. There is no dangerous precedent at all. If for example, someone did a navbox for Champions League winning sides for placement on the players' pages, I don't see that as a problem, especially since they can be minimized/nested as needed. This is no different that the navboxes that exist for most World Cup sides (for example, see Brazil's 1966 WC template). Further, as I said at the TfD, the concern for the cluttering of a club's page is misplaced, as these templates do not appear on the club at all, only on players' pages.--Friejose (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like all Armenian and Azerbaijani users decided to vote for keep. - Darwinek (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A shocking decision IMO and one that could open the floodgates. What about a Navbox for Ipswich's only championship winning side, or perhaps Forest's, or maybe Barnsley's one season in the top flight... Oh dear. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm off right now to create {{Gillingham F.C. 1963–64 squad}}. Hell, it's the only trophy we've ever won, that sounds like a "golden squad" to me..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference for the Blues and the Gills is the lack of additional notability involved with them. I mean, I know you're being a bit tongue in cheek, and I get your "slippery slope" concern. The main difference, however, between non-Premier League squads and the clubs involved in the navboxes proposed for deletion is pretty huge. With Neftchi and Ararat, you have sides that were not just little brothers to big Russian clubs like Spartak and Dynamo, but distant cousins from the sticks, who achieved amazing results against all odds, in a way that was recognized at the time and now as nothing short of astonishing. It'd be as if a Conference side won the FA Cup, somehow qualified for Europe, and then won a double. Putting aside the qualification problems with that scenario, wouldn't that qualify for a navbox? Isn't that a quantum difference from a League 2 title? And that is what we're are talking about here. (By the way, Darwinek found a way to get Azerbaijanis and Armenians to agree on something, and for that he deserves a medal!)--Friejose (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're really displaying a lack of knowledge here. "Distant cousins from the sticks, who achieved amazing results against all odds" is an exact description of the Ipswich team which won the title in 1962. Ipswich is a county town in a rural area and were havign their first season in the top division. To claim that their championship winning team is less notable than Ararat or Neftchi is rubbish. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Ipswich's first season in the top Division in England and they won the league. That's truly astonishing. It somewhat trumps Ararat Yerevan's notable season, but I would never suggest an navbox for it. Gah. The Rambling Man (talk) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am showing my ignorance about Ipswich, and for that, I apologize. But I believe the WP:FOOTY paladins here are showing ignorance of Soviet football, and I have not seen a similar recognition of that lack of knowledge. I have been working in the weeds trying to improve Soviet football player and club articles, which are woefully inadequate currently. The Neftchi '66 navbox was part of that process, and as you see from the response of the Azerbaijanis and Armenians, they believe that such a navbox is notable, useful, and not duplicative. Thus, by the definition contained in Wikipedia:Templates For Deletion itself, both templates meet the "keep" criteria. These persistent claims that a "terrible precedent" would be set is hogwash, IMO. The same editors that have been commenting here and on the TfD have been watching with vigilant eagle-eyes and surely would fight any non-notable explosion of templates for specific squads. A bright line rule of "no individual squad navboxes" that fails to take account notability and usability concerns undermines the core principle of what should be included on Wikipedia. Such a rule is also oddly hypocritical considering the vast number of manager navboxes that currently exist, have limited notability and usability, and which clutter articles like Dick Advocaat, to use one example I used on the TfD. Why is that presently existing clutter acceptable, but the potential, unproven, purely conjectural clutter of notable individual squad navboxes is not? No one is arguing the notability or utility of the navboxes at issue here, which is telling, but rather people are parroting a previous consensus that many of us didn't participate in or are gnashing their teeth about what a dangerous precedent this would set. I deny that there is consensus and I deny that any problematic precedent whatsoever will be set. --Friejose (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally I hate navboxes, they're pointless. Nav boxes which are used for anything of note (e.g. UEFA Cup winning managers for example) should just be a category. So, to that extent, I would generally advocate their complete removal. The problematic precedent is that everyone will suddenly declare their own opinion on notability (just as you have), create a navbox and we'll have to head over to TfD every five minutes. Ipswich's achivements, in your definition of notability, should warrant a navbox. But that's the last thing the community wants to add. Anyway, the consensus is likely to be achieved over at the TfD right now, and hopefully once this navbox is deleted, you'll understand the community's opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that you are suggesting that somehow I am not a part of the "community." Am I not here as a registered editor? I may only have a tenth of your edits, but that doesn't make me less a member of the community, I would hope. My opinion on notability is based in fact, which you can clearly see from the well-cited references of both squads at issue here. I am also concerned that you consider what is happening at the TfD as any sort of "consensus." It's about 55-45 for delete right now, which is hardly a consensus; it is more like a barely majority, which isn't how Wikipedia works, as far as I understand it. A editor's vote should carry the same weight whether that editor is a member of WP:FOOTY or not, whether that editor as 20,000 edits or 2. I hope that someone not involved in the TfD, and someone who hasn't prejudged the issue, makes the final determination of whether a consensus has been reached. --Friejose (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey, stay calm man! I never suggested (nor meant to suggest) that you weren't part of the community! All I'm saying is until you can substantiate an consensus-backed notability for that one squad, the navbox should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How many football leagues does it exist in the world? Well they've all had a winning team since they were founded, ontop of that, confederation cups (UEFA Cup etc), domestic cups. Just for the English first divisions it will be, what? 120? Many countries have had leagues from if not the early 20th century, the middle or the late. I'm just guessing there have been in Europe alone more than 2000 winning teams for domestic leagues. — chandler — 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea; I'd prefer that the scripts be generated at a separate subpage, but that's all I've got. matt91486 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of African football players in Europe

Notable or not? Personally, I would say not. – PeeJay 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a list of current players? Players through all time? They don't even show the club(s) the player play(ed) in. I think a complete list of all African players in European clubs through out history would be interesting though. — chandler — 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Better to have it by country than by continent, I reckon. Dancarney (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I nominate this article for deletion then? Only one editor really seems to think it's worth keeping, having made over a thousand edits to it in the space of a few days (5-9 July 2007, 26 June 2008 and 8–10 July 2008). – PeeJay 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical staff, club officials, etc

Are there any guidelines as to which members of a club's staff should be included on a club page? Obviously, the first team players, first team manager, director, etc should be on there, but how far down should it go? Some pages include goalkeeping coach, physio (debatable, I reckon) and others go as far as programme editor and community development officer. I couldn't see anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Dancarney (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what, the list of Manchester United's non-playing staff is pretty long (see Manchester United F.C.#Club officials). However, when you consider that a great number of positions have been commented out of that list, it doesn't seem like that many at all. – PeeJay 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My preference is that someone should only be included if having that role alone would make them notable enough for an article (assuming a club at a reasonably high level). I can't abide the exhaustive lists going down to the under-9s coach or similar, and routinely advise against them at peer review. An article is not a telephone directory. The Manchester United example is to me well in excess of what should be there, leaning too far towards that advised against at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On a slight tangent, the club template is essentially the same as when it was created, which was based upon the structure of IFK Göteborg from when it became the first featured football article in 2005. That it has changed so little is testament to the job Johan Elisson did in creating it, but certain things have changed since then, and from threads on this page it is evident that it could perhaps be overhauled in certain areas. Hell, I've got the second most edits to it even though I've barely touched it. Anyone interested in going over it so it can reflect the structure of our best club articles? Oldelpaso (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that Man Utd list almost deserves its own article. I think the administrative side could be trimmed down a fair bit.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kits in club infobox

I've recently gone over to using Firefox 3.0, and notice that in the kit section of the football club infobox, between each set of socks and the wording underneath, is a graphic of some sort, which I've never noticed before. It's not there in IE6, and I don't remember it in FF2 (but I'm not very observant). Is it a mistake, or is it supposed to be like that, in which case why? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.1 and I don't see any graphic there. Can you get a screenshot of the problem you're having? – PeeJay 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i took so long, real life gets in the way soemtimes. See Image:Struway screenshot.jpg, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I recognise the character from somewhere else (no idea what it represents though), but I can't think why it would be showing up there. I guess your computer (or even your browser, for some reason) is rendering the paragraph break incorrectly. – PeeJay 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I get some sort of little artifact (a small, empty box) in that location on occasional as well, using Opera. Some, but not all infoboxes display it. Dunno why ... Wiggy! (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Firefox's way of telling you that it wasn't able to find a character matching that glyph in the font being used. Lord knows why it's appearing: god a selection of sample articles? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The screenshot is from Birmingham City F.C. infobox. I've had alook at various football clubs and national teams (all from {{Conference National teamlist}} and {{OFC teams}}, for instance) to see if I can find one where the graphic doesn't appear, and I can't. It also appears on London Wasps rugby union and Hull F.C. rugby league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What does 　 look like to you? {{football kit}} includes it for no immediately obvious reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the shape in the screenshot, a small square with what looks like a backwards E and three 0's inside it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I had this problem. I could see symbols like that whenever I should have been seeing Japanese text. Since I've rectified that problem, I no longer see those symbols in the club IBs. Seems you need (assuming you use WinXP) to enable East Asian languages in Control Panel, Regional and Language options, Languages, and check Install files for East Asian languages. You'd need the windows CD and 203MB disc space. Then I needed to clear the cache in FF3.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone should also remove the 　 from the {{football kit}} template. – PeeJay 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...which appears to be this Unicode space/separator characters here. Clever me didn't realise that what I described as a backwards E and 3 0s was actually the hex characters 3000 :) Presumably I'm seeing it how I do because I don't have the requisite character sets enabled on my nice new laptop, but does this character do anything in the template that an ordinary space wouldn't? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That whole row doesn't have any effect that I can see. I've raised an editprotected to get it removed, it's been there since the template was first authored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for taking the trouble, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's probably there to give a space between the "First Kit" and the socks. Maybe switch it to nbsp;, if that extra row is needed. — chandler — 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's between the socks and the home/away label. Anyway, yeah, better ways of doing padding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said... Be between "First/Home/Away/Second/Third/Whatever Kit" and the socks. — chandler — 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Anyway, it's fixed now. If anyone thinks it's weird that the label now occupies the space where our ghost boots used to be then we can adjust the padding via CSS, but I think it's fine as-is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scottish expatriate footballers

Category:Scottish expatriate footballers lists that it should include only Scottish footballers to have played outside Britain, rather than simply Scotland. However, on closer inspection such a change was made without any explanation or any note on the talk page. I'm unsure whether such a change is correct or not though. Anyone with any thoughts on whether it should be outside Scotland or outside Britain? Peanut4 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that change. There must be thousands of Scottish players who have played in England. Almost as many truly notable players (eg internationals) will have played in England as have played in Scotland. Scottish players playing outside of the UK is notable almost in itself (eg Garry O'Connor). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also agree. A further issue are players of Scottish descent who were born and lived all or most of their lives outside Scotland and played for the national team being called expatriates. One example is Neil Sullivan. I am not persuaded you can categorised such players in this way either.Tmol42 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also a significant number of Scottish players who sign for English clubs as youths and never play in the Scottish League; see Darren Fletcher, Paul Dickov or Jim McCalliog. They haven't "expatriated" really, at least not until later in the careers in the case of McCalliog. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change, and have removed players from the equivalent English category on the same basis. Scotland -> England is a change of federation, but not expatriation in any useful sense: I think the categories are useful as a list of players who have properly played abroad, and this would be lost if it was swamped with the thousands of players that have crossed the borders. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally convinced by the arguments particularly looking at the current players in Category:English expatriate footballers. I've tidied up the criteria and added similar explanations at other Category:British expatriate footballers categories. Peanut4 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreigners in a national team - worth mentioning???

I would appreciate if somebody could look at the 'Foreigners' subsection in this page - Croatia national football team. The idea of mentioning the foreign players on that page was first put forward by another user and then I included it as shown now. However, there is currently a debate about it on the discussion page as it is being argued by a user that it is irrelevant and if anything, inaccurate. Basically, I need a second neutral opinion on this. Can anyone comment on the importance (if any) of this foreigners section? Please keep in mind that the only reason it was put in is because Croatia itself as a national team is very unique in this area. They have a lot of players from other countries playing for their national team, and likewise a lot of players with Croatian heritage in other national teams. Right now, my best solution is to take another users advice and simply rewire this section as a prose of paragraphs, not just merely list with vague list descriptions.

Any comments or suggestions on this? I would really appreciate it because this page is about to go up for Featured Article nomination shortly. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "foreigner" is entirely relative (to me, every member of the Croatian team is a foreigner), and often carries an undertone that is disparaging. Even taking the meaning that I am sure you intend, I would be very reluctant to include this. FIFA rules in essence tie eligibility to citizenship. I do not think that we have the right to say that any Croatian passport holder is not Croatian. If you want to consider a section of players "born outside Croatia", that might have some merit, but I think this is better tackled through a category (eg Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland). Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to having written that in principle before looking at the Croatia page. Now that I've seen it, I would suggest that such a section applied to teams in the British Isles, or to any area of the globe that has had fluid population over the last few generations, or to countries which have special migration arrangements with former colonies/colonial rulers would be so large as to be entirely unmanageable. Kevin McE (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So should it be kept in the section or deleted/modified?Domiy (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I haven't had time to look at the article at the moment as I'm on the way to work, but surely they can't be "foreign" if they are eligible to play for the national team. I would remove it on grounds of inaccuracy, I don't see why it deserves a place in an encyclopedia. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically as the previous guy said, they are actually Croatian if they are eligible to play for the national team. However, there is the fact that a lot of them are not initially Croats, with a large number of them being born and raised in other countries (and holding citizenship in them as well), before coming to play in Croatia. Hence, it is worthy of mentioning in my argued opinion. Domiy (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a unique situation. Many countries have internationals who were born and raised in other countries. In 1982 the New Zealand team at the world cup had over half the squad 'foreign born'. Still have a number of current internationals foreign born, as does Australia, and no doubt other countries. Hardly worth mentioning in my opinion.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the uniqueness, too. Just thinking about Switzerland... However, it's pretty interesting the first list. The risk is to have a piece of this monstrosity also in national team pages. --necronudist (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves a mention either. First of all, plenty of national teams use foreign-born players and, secondly, I just don't like the word "foreigners". BanRay 10:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not so rare: there are "foreigners" in France national football team since the 1930's (for example Rudi Hiden)... And I agree with Dan1980, they can't be foreigners if they play for Croatia and surely hold Croatian citizenship. Maybe creating a category like "foreign-born footballers who played for Croatia" (if it doesn't already exists) could be enough---Latouffedisco (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though everyone is looking at the negative as this; maybe we have to look at it from the other side. Not as a measure of Croatia's uniqueness, but just as the only article that we've addressed the phenomena in. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing foreign-born players in the Croatia article, but rather than isolate it, I think it can and should be discussed in other applicable articles as well. matt91486 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Category idea is the right way to cover it. not notable in itself, but a handy reference list. Such categories already exist in other forms, so there is good precedent for it - vis Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams--ClubOranje^Talk 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of things that should/should not be in a national team article, what does everyone think of this section of the Croatia national team article? My thoughts would be that we shouldn't include such info as it could be regarded as recentist, and we also don't have similar info in club articles. – PeeJay 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all I deleted the other lists in the article after careful consideration. I admit that it was somewhat irrelevant to mention players in other national teams. The list is still the same format though, I just deleted the other two in left the first and most important one in.

Anyway, about the qualification section in national team articles - I think its a great way for people to stay in touch with the national team. Of course, after the qualification process ends the section will be replaced with the next qualification table for the next competition. But I think its worth putting something so current in. It would save people a lot of time in searching around and finding such groups, whilst they can easily just see who the team will shortly and how they are doing so far. Nothing at all wrong with that in my opinion. Domiy (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's blatant recentism, and WP is not a news service. Why is the 2010 qualification more notable than, say, the 2002 qualification? Just because it's happening right now? Sorry, but that's not encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think it's any more recentism than listing its current roster. matt91486 (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes good point. You may as well take out the current squad out of every national team page since it is very recent and current as the name suggests. Hey while we are doing that, we should also take out the current managers in the 'managers' table since it is also recent and current right? Domiy (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Derry City and British expatriate footballers

Further to the section above re Scottish expatriate footballers, I was looking at this last night to tidy it up because there seemed to be a fair number of Scottish players missing from this category. While doing this I came across a couple of players (eg Paul Kinnaird) who have played for Derry City, a club based in Northern Ireland which has played for many years in the Republic of Ireland league system. Do these players count as expatriate players? They're still playing for a club based in the UK, but play in a league outside of the UK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It also counts the other way: a player from ROI playing for Derry wouldn't be counted, nor would Monaco's countless French players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Turner

As you will notice, the four footballing Chris Turners listed on this dab page are disambiguated by their playing position. Now, although this method of disambiguation works (none of the four Chris Turners plays in the same position as any other), I was under the impression that year of birth was the first disambiguator for footballers. Since all four were born in a different year, should I move each article to be disambiguated by the year of birth or not? – PeeJay 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, in fact that's how they appear to have been dab'ed until April, when User:Mayumashu moved them around citing "better disambiguate, given that four Chris Turner footballers each played a different position" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The ultimate case of "text being replaced by images for no good reason whatsoever, contrary to policy".....?

After cogitating for ages on the funny little symbol next to Eduardo's name, I'm presuming it's meant to mean "currently injured"..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. That's like Champ Man. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen this a couple of times, also there are red and yellow cards out there taht sometimes appear next to peoples names. This red cross is being used currently on the following national football team pages - Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Albania, Morocco, Iraq and Pakistan. Paul  Bradbury 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability query

Would a player who has played for a fully professional team in a major cup competition pass as being notable? Ck12 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought so. Could you give a more specific example.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If they play in a league in which appearances confer notability, then their cup games do too. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is evidently the case. A player whose only professional appearances were in FA Cup ties would be notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur IMO. -- Alexf⁴² 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - if he plays for a fully pro club in a non fully pro league (e.g. Oxford in the Conference), then his cup appearances do not count. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought concensus was that cup matches should be considered league matches from a notability standpoint and so if both clubs in the cup match are fully professional, the cup match can be viewed as similar to a match in a fully professional league. However, cup matches involving semi-pro or amateur clubs are not any more notable than league matches involving those clubs. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "consensus" as there always seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on notability criteria, but there's certainly precedent that shows that cup matches should be considered league matches from a notability standpoint. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Please could an admin semi-protect this article? It's being vandalized a lot today by various IPs. Cheers Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for Bryan Robson and Brian Laws. I presume that they're all being done by the same person with different IPs... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola League logo in infoboxes

An IP just added a tiny version of Image:Cocacolalge2.jpg immediately to the left of the words "League Two" in the Gillingham infobox. There's no way that this copyrighted logo could qualify for fair use under those circumstances, so I removed it, but just keep an eye out in case it gets added anywhere else........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was, it looks ridiculous at 25px! --Jimbo^[online] 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA elite stadium

I should be grateful if someone from this project, with expertise on football stadiums, could take a look at this article. No-one has been able to track down a physical list but the concept of a 'UEFA elite stadium' certainly seems to exist - see here, for example. However, the page is a mess and needs the attention of an expert. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abubakar Bello-Osagie

I added a deletion review for the Abubakar Bello-Osagie article, as he has now played a fully professional league match (he played a Campeonato Brasileiro Série A match, check here), thus he now passes WP:ATHLETE. The deletion review is available here. Feel free to give your opinions. --Carioca (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:DRV is mainly used as a last grade for controversial AFD cases, and is superfluous when the subject's notability situation has improved from the time of the AFD case. In short, just recreate the article, there's no need to open a DRV case. --Angelo (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and responded over at DRV, but I'm going to say it here too so no one else needs to say the same thing. The page isn't protected from recreation, so you can just recreate it without going through a DRV. Cite reliable sources and make it clear in the article that he's made his profession debut, and there shouldn't be a problem. Hope that helps! Vickser (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just recreated the article and added references. --Carioca (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

List of footballers of Italian descent who played for another national team

Is this list usefull? I think it's another monstrosity. --necronudist (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists is quite clear on the issue, especially when it says "Lists that are too specific are also a problem". I agree with Necronudist, this list is way too much. --Angelo (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not entirely convinced it's too specific a list. If you take a look at it, it's a pretty sizable list. It's not so specific it's only got a few people on it.

I also think it could actually be of interest and is about a relatively encyclopedic topic. I think one could write a pretty good introduction explaining how people can be eligible for multiple nations and maybe describing common reasons why people choose to play for a particular country. I think there would probably be sources for it--I know I've read several stories about why so and so plays for such and such a country. I think maybe list of Italian footballers rather than "of Italian descent" would work better (so you don't get someone who had one great great grandparent who's Italian), but I do think a list of players who are of one nationality but play for another national football team is pretty encylopedic, and on the basis of the current list, it seems like there's enough of them for Italy to get its own list. Vickser (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a pointless list with no sources. Delete it. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more exploration and it seems there's a good bit of precedent for having such a grouping, but it looks like it's generally being done in categories. Check out Category:Football (soccer) internationals with dual nationality and its associated subcategories. I do think it's an encyclopedic topic, but it's possible it would be better done as as category. Verification should be eminently doable if it's restricted to "Italian footballers" than "of Italian descent" since we're often able to find things like place of birth and parental nationality for players who are good enough to get senior national caps. Vickser (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability in disambiguation pages

Is Reading's kit-man, Ron Grant notable enought to be placed on a disambiguation page? He's not wiki-linked or red-linked, but I'm a bit unsure about note-worthy on disambiguation pages. --Jimbo^[online] 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that anyone who doesn't have/is never likely to have an article certainly shouldn't be included on a dab page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for getting people to articles. Every entry should have an article. No entry, no notability, no inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chances are he will never have an article. Is he still listed as being on the disambiguation page? Caden S (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Starostin

As far as I can see many references links to the same 2 articles, and the findarticle.com link is dead... --necronudist (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. A case of a user not realising refs can be used multiple times without repeating the footnote. Some of the findarticles refs can be rescued using the ever-useful archive.org. Strangely enough, that was one of the first articles I ever started. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection request for UEFA Cup 2008–09

Can someone of the administrators put a protection on the UEFA Cup 2008–09 article? There is currently an edit war about the question of including the goalscorers of the qualification rounds, which is extremely disruptive. I already suggested to discuss the matter here since a decision for this article would affect several other articles as well, e.g. the UEFA Champions League, but the opposed parties did not follow the proposal, to the contrary. Hockey-holic (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and can't protect pages, but my understanding is that you're generally better off asking for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There will be more admin eyes there and you're likely to get a prompter response. Vickser (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that at once. Hockey-holic (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A few editors are considering changes to WP:ATHLETE

If you are interested in the discussion, one or two editors have proposed some changes to WP:ATHLETE (here) that will probably have a dramatic effect on this project. The proposed changes are not aligned with WP:FOOTYN and I suggest project members might want to give input over there. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The notability issue must be solved as soon as possible, I'm getting bored of all these discussions. My proposal is to revive WP:FOOTYN and make it officially a part of WP:BIO, or alternatively revive Wikipedia:Notability (sports) with WP:FOOTYN part of it. In either case, we need to push it all together in order to make it pass. Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of getting our notability into policy. We just need to stop the changes that are proposed first, because they're ridiculous. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful: some editors seems to be very restrictive about sport-related articles.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE seems to have been amended. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it now reads simply "Articles about athletes must meet the provisions of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability without exception." No such changes have been made to the "career-specific" guidelines for entertainers, porn stars, etc, thereby confirming that this whole drive to change WP:ATHLETE is simply a pointy vendetta against articles on sportspeople, specifically footballers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems about as vague as possible now. It's probably not the best place to ask the question, but why the change? Except for one editor who is annoyed that there are 17,000+ bios on footballers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea - the change was made by User:Kevin Murray, who doesn't even seem to have participated in the debate on the talk page. As a pretty drastic change which has clearly not gained any sort of consensus, I suggest it should be reverted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It must be reverted, I don't find any track of such this consensus in the talkpage. I've just reverted it, and I suggest you all to join the discussion, regardless of your opinion, to help finding a sort of consensus about the issue. --Angelo (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a suggestion there to limit it to those who have played at the "highest tier of a fully professional league." How many footy bios would that wipe out at a single stroke? Peanut4 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh too many. It seems the people who are proposing these changes don't comprehend what a massive effect this would have. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is one editor in particular who appears to be on a bit of crusade to eliminate WP:ATHLETE (i.e., User:EconomistBR). I'm trying to follow WP:AGF, but his behavior here and on WP:ATHLETE in the past has left much to be desired. I think there are other editors that are concerned that WP:ATHLETE is too permissive, but I've yet to see them consider WP:FOOTYN. Should we have an RfC on incorporating it into WP:ATHLETE somehow? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a centralized discussion, as we already did earlier to approve the current naming convention for sports team. --Angelo (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I've just had to file five (!!) AfDs in one go - Pedro Beda, Michael Ohnesorge, Akanni-Sunday Wasiu, Titus James Palani & Maic Sema. I have to say that I am beginning to get seriously pissed off with all these articles being created, and ten times more so with the bloody IPs who keep deprodding them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that editors should have to provide a reason when removing a prod. If one isn't provided, then the prod should be re-added. That would prevent the IPs from forcing us to go to AfD when an article should obviously be deleted. – PeeJay 22:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also allow only established users (i.e., registered users who have been active for at least a month or two) to remove PROD notices. By the way, something similar is already happening with creation of new articles, so I think this thing should be reasonably extended for all other things around (except, of course, for regular edits). --Angelo (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd like to disclose so as not to be mistaken for a role account

I don't know anything about football - in fact, I hate the sport! I have a friend, however, who's really into it. He doesn't know much about Wikipedia so I agreed to incorporate facts he knows into articles - mainly those of Grimsby Town players. This was not me acting as a role account - Ii did all the editing, he just read me the facts. Just thought I'd disclose that, and here seems as good a place as any...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of role accounts, but perhaps you should persuade your friend to tell you the sources of his information, and then you could add those at the same time. However knowledgeable your friend may be, I don't think "facts he knows" quite constitute a reliable published source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

m:role account. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this WikiProject not support FL-Class articles yet?

I was having a look at {{football}} to see why List of Manchester United F.C. managers was being categorised as an FA-Class article despite being assessed as an FL-Class article and I noticed that the project and all of its task forces categorises FL-Class articles as FA-Class. Why is this? – PeeJay 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Football#Adding_List_and_FL_classes_for_all_taskforces, if it's changed - by all means update it. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LuaLua

Does anyone know of a credible source for the number of caps that Lomana LuaLua has for DR Congo? The article says 30 but that's dated August 2006 and he has played several games since then. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia national under-21 football team

Hello WikiProject Football. This article needs a bit of an expansion and a cleanup of the table. I would, but I'm pressed for time and do not know enough about the squad to be of much help. BalkanFever 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Baguley

I've speedy-tagged the above article. Its creator should probably have an eye or two kept on him. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Xabi Alonso

Would someone like to protect Xabi for a few hours. Its obviously a slow day in Turkey today, There have been about a hundred IP edits moving him to Fenerbahçe despite lack of reports of any sort about him. I have asked over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection but there have been another 20 since I did that 3 hours ago. Thanks--ClubOranje^Talk 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected. As the edits are generally speaking misguided rather than outright vandalism, a short explanation for the revert reason would probably be more effective than template warnings. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Irish season articles (both NIR and IRL) for 2008-09

1. I just completed the setup of the IFA Premiership 2008-09, but I had problems filling the "Team changes" section due to the recent competition changes applied by the Irish FA. So, could somebody more familiar with the topic please provide the necessary information for this section?
2. Would it be OK if I adapt the FAI League of Ireland 2008 season article to the use of fb templates? This is currently the only article not using those structures, so it would add to the uniformity of UEFA league articles for 2008. However, I do not know if such a change would be accepted. I already left a comment on this article's discussion page, but nobody has answered so far.
3. Speaking about the FAI League article, wouldn't it be better to split up the article into three smaller articles? The current format includes the first three tiers of football in Ireland, which, in my opinion, creates an information overkill and prevents quick and easy access to the desired facts, not to mention the confusion that may arise over three different (although related) competitions in one page. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, I wouldn't split the article. We manage perfectly well with the likes of The Football League 2007-08. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "season" at the end of FAI League of Ireland 2008 season be removed? All other spring-fall leagues have it that way (except 2008 LFF Lyga which maybe should be moved as well) — chandler — 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word "season" should be removed, but when referring to a league season, don't we usually say "the 2007-08 Premier League" or "the 2007-08 Premier League season", rather than "the Premier League 2007-08" or "the Premier League 2007-08 season"? Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to put the date first in all season articles? – PeeJay 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to have the year(s) after as it's easier to list them together in categories wither other leagues etc. — chandler — 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

International competitions football squads

Wouldn't it be better to have a standard template? In the Olympics squads I've seen three different ways to show selected players:

• The useless one
• The World Cup one (used in all World Cup squads articles)
• The massively used too specific one

Obviously I would like to use the World Cup one, also 'cause is the only real template (others are not-user-friendly tables) and it's far the easier to handle. Plus doesn't provide useless informations (mostly left blank, like in the too specific one) and it has automatic redirects for roles. A squad list must be a squad list, with nothing more than player's name, shirt #, role, DOB with age, caps (optional) and the club as of the end of the preceding season (and not like the 2008 one updated daily... we've debated about this since ages but someone still wanna misunderstand...). You know, like the one we use for World Cups. --necronudist (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The "World Cup" one should be used. The others are just awful. Truly awful. – PeeJay 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

World Cup template for sure. The rest are bad. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. And players should be sorted by squad number once they get them (positions are fine until then, sorted by last name within the position). Also, we should look at a better way to do overage players than simply an *. Bolding might be good. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I think that we should continually update the players' clubs until the tournament is over. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to convert all the Olympic squads to the World Cup template, but I think I'll need an automatic tool, or it will take ages! Something useful for Linux? --necronudist (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the world cup template is the best template, that is my opinion. The first one violates wikipedia policy by using colour to denote info. The third one seems to be unecessary. However this discussion seems to follow a worrying trend that seems to happen regularly at WP:FOOTY, that is the following

• A point is raised
• People agree or disagree
• No reasons or logical arguments are given just POV (e.g. The "World Cup" one should be used. The others are just awful. Truly awful)
• A revision is made
• It is then considered consensus

Bottom line, deleting things or sudo-policy should be discussed more thoroughly and cogent arguments should be made before people start mass changing or deleting. Obviously some people are not aware of the project or all WP rules, but regulars at this talk page should try and hold themselves to that standard. Remember wikipedia doesn't work by votes. Paul  Bradbury 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you've used my POV comment to make a point, I think I'd better respond... I agree with Necronudist with regard to the content of the table (name, shirt number, position, date of birth/age, caps, goals and most recent club), and the "World Cup" style table does that perfectly well. Any other information is superfluous and therefore unnecessary. – PeeJay 23:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanna remember that a consesus was reached before the 2006 World Cup to keep the clubs as of the start of the tournament, with optional footnotes for the transfers occurred during the tournament. Just like the age is the one at the start of the tournament, so is the club and caps. It's a widely used standard who reached a consesus as well. --necronudist (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. You often see news reports saying that a player will link up with a new team after their involvement in the tournament is finished, indicating that players rarely switch teams mid-tournament. Therefore we should only use the team the player was with before the tournament. The problem comes when a player has been on loan. Do we list his parent club or the team he was on loan with? – PeeJay 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the club on loan, with a footnote saying he spent the run up of the tournament on loan from y club. --necronudist (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is unlikely that a player would fly home in the middle of a tournament overseas to sign a contract with a new club....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Contracts are signed before but takes effect after. For example Ronaldinho must be listed as a Barcelona player and Vanden Borre under Genoa (on loan from Fiorentina). --necronudist (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the upcoming Olympics, I would say that Ronaldinho should be listed as a Milan player as he has already signed with Milan before the Olympics started. Furthermore, Barcelona weren't even willing to let him go to the Olympics, so that would make things even more complicated. – PeeJay 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AC Milan too, Galliani said that he left Ronaldinho 'cause "Barcelona already gave him permission"... a bit complicated, yeah :-) --necronudist (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with necronudist and PeeJay on this point. About squad templates; well, as I'm currently working on past Olympic squads, I will use WC templates in the future, as everyone seems to prefer it. I would have prefered to know this before, however... In that case, could we use a bot for what I've already done? I used what Christian called "the too specific one"? It would take some time to do it manually...--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll help you. I didn't think before at this template issue... --necronudist (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't realise the "The massively used too specific one" one existed! I was looking at squad articles the other day, and I was actually thinking there was room to include some of the stuff in that template. Not the minutes or reds and yellows, but tournament caps and goals might be a useful addition to such articles. The only problem, as far as I could see it, would be confusion between the caps pre-tournament and the caps in it.

I do wonder why we bother, actually, with including the date of birth in such templates. They're unnecessary, and they look ugly with no unified length and the age in brackets. I'd prefer it if we just used a template that displayed just the age at the start of the tournament - which is what the DOB is there do but would be neater and save room.

So, thoughts? I'd certainly be pro adding/removing the above to the World Cup template. What is important though, is that everything is standardized, and the World Cup one should definetely be rolled out across the articles. HornetMike (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hey! I didn't realise the "The massively used too specific one" one existed!"- Me neither, and I have looked at A LOT of squads lists, and this is really the first time that I saw this one. So "Massively used", I'm not too sure about that. UmutK (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should change the "World Cup template" to have DoB in one collumn and Age in another collumn right next to it. That way everything will be relatively standardized in width so the table doesn't look like poop. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "poop" comment is a bit of an overstatement, tbh. It looks fine to me, but if you want all the column widths to be standardised, you should set a width parameter in the template. – PeeJay 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree on using the World Cup template as the standard template for football squads. Now two issues remaining:

• I wouldn't agree on a separate column for the age. I'd keep the current DOB column filled with the {{Date of birth and age}} template.
• How can we massively convert the various tables to the World Cup template? --necronudist (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be a separate column for age. As you suggest, the {{birth date and age}} template is perfectly suited for this task. As for the mass conversion, we first need to establish how many articles currently use the incorrect ones. If it's not too many, the task can be done manually, but if there's a lot, we may need to get a bot to help, although I don't know if a bot could cope with a task as complex as this. Otherwise, we can always change them as and when we see them. – PeeJay 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where to find tutorial or help page on kit (pattern) design?

Where can I find a tutorial or help page on kit design? {{Infobox football club}} is not much help. I specifically want to fix FC Barcelona's kit which shows as blue-red when it should be blue-maroon (C32148) as stated in the Talk page, but though I tried I did not get satisfactory results due to lack of kit template (pattern) design information. -- Alexf⁴² 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for editing the kit are on Template:Football kit. You may be experiencing problems though due to the pattern being set as "| pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=_redhalf2|pattern_ra1=", that is - the underlying colour for the shirt is set as blue but it has Image:Kit body redhalf2.png sat on top of it. The easiest way for you to then edit the kit would be to upload a new image (possibly Image:Kit body maroonhalf.png) as per the instructions on the template and use that. You can then set the right colour for the right arm and socks. Hope that helps. Nanonic (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's the template I was looking for and couldn't find. Thanks! -- Alexf⁴² 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

INVESCO Field at Mile High a priority article

With the Democratic convention weeks away, and the nominating acceptance speech to take place at INVESCO Field at Mile High, this seems like a good time to get this article in shape. If anyone knowledgeable about the stadium and its history could improve the article's references and perhaps expand the article, it would be helpful for the curious who wander onto the page. ThanksJohnelwayrules (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you, my friend, have wandered into the wrong "football" discussion page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not - if you look at the image on that page you can make out the markings of a football pitch. It has previously housed Major League Soccer franchise Colorado Rapids according to the article, and Johnelwayrules did ask for anybody with knowledge of it's history.--ClubOranje^Talk 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Football and nft articles

My inclination would be to avoid anything other than the most fleeting of references to the Olympic football competition in nft articles; in particular, squad lists and recent results sections, or details of captaincy/management in the infoboxes should not reflect the events of Beijing over the next few weeks. However, 10 of the 16 teams in the men's competition have links to the main team rather than an underage side. Is there general agreement with my sense that the Olympic team is not the top national representative side, and that therefore Olympic details should not be on them (maybe a summary sentence, but not the sort of section already appearing at the Korean team's article)? And if there is consensus that such details should be excluded, is it appropriate to have <!-- a remmed out note for editors to that effect --> ? Kevin McE (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Gustavo Poyet page

Over the past 24 hours User talk:Regozcan and User:86.162.69.29 (the latter I believe has also previously used several related IP addresses) have been edit warring at Gustavo Poyet over the appropriateness of an image of Poyet here. The image depicts Gus and another person who it turns out is Regozcan. There was at least one earlier round of tit for tat reverting by these two editors on 18 /19 July but this stopped when I suggested they discuss their respective points of view on the Talk Page instead. But today sadly it seems although they have started discussing their points of view ( Options ranging from removing/ replacing the image to cropping the image to leaving it intact) as their skills in polite debate are severely lacking they have just wound each other up by reverting each others' edits. I have advised both editors I will report them for 3RR if they repeat they 'revertings' which will hopefully call a temporary halt to their editing spree. Please could someone with some experience of image protocol cast a look and suggest a way forward. I will point both Editors to this posting here. Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to crop the image to only show Poyet. matt91486 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done BanRay 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable players, or notable FORMER players?

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while is the tendency to add players to the “notable players” list when they still play for the team in question. I’ve always thought it was a bit redundant, and overly-repetitive, to have players listed in both the current roster and in the notable players list. Although it is clearly not specified as such, in my mind, the notable players list should only include players who no longer play for the team. Does anyone else agree? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable players sections really shouldn't exist. They are POV, and strictly any player with a wikipedia entry is notable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken... but given that they DO exist, should players who still play for the team in question be in the list, or should it be only former players? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be of the opinion of deleting them for the reasons above. You won't see any football articles at WP:FA or WP:GA with such lists, certainly not ones without any proper criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you mean notable players lists within football club articles) where they exist, there should be very strict criteria, like being members of the club's Hall of Fame or something equally objective (and restrictive). Then so long as a player fits those criteria he should be in the list whether he's still at the club or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we sort of agree. In this list, for example, I would remove Segares, Blanco, Frankowski, Brown, Mapp, McBride and Rolfe, as they all current members of the Fire roster. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you would,) on what grounds would you keep the others? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you know... international caps, played a significant amount of games for the club, did something really important like scoring the winning goal in a major game, or something. I appreciate that the list is totally subjective, but I didn't add the players to the list. I really wasn't thinking about criteria for inclusion; the lists already existed before I even thought about this. I was more thinking that still being an active player for the team in question should be criteria for EXCLUSION from the list of notables. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>The need is to set the criteria and then note players who meet it, whether or not they are still playing for the club, I think. A player who makes over 1,000 appearances for a club will be a notable player in the history of that club even if he still plays for the club, for example. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The point I'm making, though, is that while he remains an active player with the club, he's not part of it's history yet; he's part of its present. When he leaves the club, or retires, or whatever, THEN add him to the notable players list, because otherwise it's repetitive and rendundant to have him listed twice.--JonBroxton (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the way to go about "Notable (former) player" sections is for them to be blank in cotent, but provide a link to a seperate article for the notable players, e.g. "List of X F.C. players". Also, by doing this, the redundancy would be eliminated. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Matty's right, obviously. But where such lists do exist, I'd disagree about active players. An active player with 1000 appearances is making part of the club's history now. Incidentally, that Chicago Fire list includes Brian McBride, great player without doubt, but he's never played for them... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about Brian McBride illustrates exactly the point I'm making... but whatever. I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. Consensus always wins :) --JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If a player is in the current squad list then they don't need to be listed twice. If the criteria used is , for instance, having played over x number of times, then a note can be at the bottom of the list stating that a current member of the squad has also exceeded this. I've been having problems with the equivalent section for Grimsby Town F.C. One editor seems to think that a player who played less than 20 games for the club should be listed, for example. Dancarney (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the "Notable players" lists are only for former players; at least most articles I've read/edited/created follow that criteria. Bruno18 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Dancarney, the problem is why isn't 20 games notable? Without any set of criteria, any person can list / delist a player, because it is totally POV. There has to be some strict criteria such as Hall of Fame, or internationals, or players with 500 games. Peanut4 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Without citation and reference, any list of "notable" players or definite stated criteria, whether former or current, appears to be WP:OR to me. - fchd (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree Richard. If we take "notable" literally then every player who has played a pro game must be listed, which is the purpose of List of XYZ F.C. players, so I feel that these sections are best avoided unless a reliable source has published a list of "legends" that can be referenced. There used to be a list on Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which was not referenced and was constantly being changed depending on each editor's point of view, so it was removed when the article was being improved in order to gain FA status. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I opened a can of worms that I had no intention of opening, didn't I? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At least people responded to your query. There've been a few times when I've raised a topic in here and I haven't had a single reply. – PeeJay 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable or not?

Knowing little about the Scottish pyramid system, how notable are Welfare League clubs, i.e Buckie united? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That link is a redirect to an article that doesn't actually exist?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Think if you capitalise it, it does. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Silly me! Anyway, to answer the original question, there is no pyramid system in Scotland at all - see Scottish football league system - so we can't make the same "club has to have played at level X" calls as we do in England. However, looking at Buckie Utd's website, they appear to play matches in a local park, which would suggest their level of football is below that which we would consider notable in the English pyramid. The cut-off point in England, level 10, tends to generally be the lowest level at which teams play at proper stadia, as opposed to park pitches, and charge for admission. All of the above is based solely on gut feeling, though..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are not notable. Try prodding them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New article bot

Doesn't seem to be working anymore. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its owner, Alex Bakharev, is on holiday at the mo. Should be back on 9 August. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The 6th of August at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Let's have a laugh! --necronudist (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure we should have a laugh at a new editor's expense to be honest. Why not talk him/her through the fact that this article isn't exactly ideal instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm too old to be kind. --necronudist (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. – PeeJay 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was announced that"; grrrrrrrr

The phrase "It was announced that" is rapidly becoming my greatest bête noir on Wikipedia. Typical instances might be

   "On 31 July 2008 it was announced that Fred Bloggs had signed for Melchester Rovers FC."

Either it was announced by a reliable source, in which case we simply state it as a fact, giving the appropriate citation, or it came from a dubious source, in which case it has no place in an encyclopaedic project. It is the fact of something happening, not the announcement of that fact, that comprises encyclopaedic content. Occasionally, the circulation of a rumour is worth reporting, but if the phrase is widespread, it ceases to serve as a warning that the press may have been muck-spreading, and simply diminishes the apparent confidence of an encyclopaedia in its facts. Am I right? If so, is there any way that this can be established as a house style, at least in the articles under this project (which is where I have seen it most), so that we can free ourselves of this feeling of being uncertain and denying responsibility for what is posted on so many statements? Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, there are some instances where a future event is announced in advance, in which case "It was announced that..." would be appropriate. As an example:

   "On 31 July 2008, it was announced that Fred Bloggs would be signing for Melchester Rovers FC on 6 August 2008."

Do you see my point? – PeeJay 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but in that case it should be changed after he signs, or fails to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally with you Kevin McE. It doesn't matter that it was announced. The relevance is he did it. In your above example, it should simply say "On 31 July 2008, Fred Bloggs signed for Melchester Rovers." Simple. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes to show manager's nationality etc

Is there a local consensus here to ignore the provisions of WP:MOSFLAG in club infoboxes? My removal of decorative flags from Heart of Midlothian F.C. sparked an interesting conversation at User talk:John#Hearts/Flag icons. I'd be interested to know if this has already been discussed; I was sure it had. --John (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the general consensus was that flags were not necessary in players' infoboxes, but were acceptable in club infoboxes for the chairman and manager, as the chairman and manager are not always from the same country as the club, whereas a flag is not required to identify a player's place of birth, national team or club team in the infobox. – PeeJay 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay's summary of previous consensus is spoton - flags are not to be used in player's infoboxes (mainly because of issues some browsers seem to have with it), but can be used in club/nation infoboxes for chairman/managers. GiantSnowman 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bored?

Have a read of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#30,382 articles related to soccer players if you haven't already. Some interestingly ludicrous points. Enjoy. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)