Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

David Burrows (footballer) etc

According to WP:NAMB, David Burrows (footballer) does not require a hatnote back to David Burrows, as it is not ambiguous (except if there were more than one footballer called David Burrows with an article). User:Chanheigeorge has added many such links however, and is continuing to do so after I left a message on his talk page about it. Assuming I've interpreted the MoS correctly, maybe an admin could have a word? --Jameboy (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a David Borrows or David Burrow out there who played football at the same sort of time as the left-back. Soccerbase is always good for that sort of thing. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the only footballer with a similar name on www.allfootballers.com is David William Burrows who made one appearance as a Fullback for Lincoln City in 1978-79. Hardly likely to have a WP article, but you never know! As for User:Chanheigeorge's edits, I think they are quite useful, so you can see why the suffix "(footballer)" is required - sometimes this takes you to quite interesting articles. Sorry to disagree! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability check

Is there a concensus about the notability of a player who has only played league matches in the Lithuanian Lyga A (top flight)? Davidas Arlauskis has not yet played for Unirea Urziceni in the Romanian league, but has played several matches in the Lithuanian league. He has also appeared for the Lithuania U-21 national team in UEFA qualifiers, but I don't think that is sufficient for notability. Before I prod the article, I wanted to check here. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the Lithuanian top flight fully-professional (i.e. no part-time teams in it), if so, then yes he passes notability. As for Under-21 caps, I thought that made players notable - could someone clarify? --Jimbo^[online] 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The consesus is that youth caps do NOT confer notability. GiantSnowman 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no way to confirm whether the A Lyga is fully professional, but since it is the top flight and there are only 8 clubs, I suspect it may be. I'll leave the article as is. Thanks for the clarification on U-21 caps. Jogurney (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a league defined as fully-pro? Is it if every single player in that league is full-time or is it if the majority of players in all the teams in said competition are full-time? --Jimbo^[online] 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried to get a list together of what leagues qualified, but we haven't succeeded yet. It should be in one of the fairly recent archives. I'd love to get that list complete and set somewhere a notability standards to go by. matt91486 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging "notable player" sections as OR

Hello, user:Fasach Nua has been mass tagging sections like ==Famous players== or ==Notable players== in national football team articles as original research before I asked him to stop and discuss his position here. I do not believe that mass adding tags is the best approach to the problem. Renata (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a problem. The sections might need trimming down in the case of eggregious offenders, but certainly OR isn't the offense. It's not like there are sources out there listing notable players, so that bar can't ever be met, but I think some threshold should be set to standardize these lists. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might not be OR, but it's certainly WP:POV. Who is to say if player A is notable but player B isn't? Peanut4 (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Fasach means well although I disagree with his approach as I have explained at Talk:Ireland national football team (1882-1950). I think his tags imply the list is inaccurate and serve to undermine the articles. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that this was in good faith and is something that should be dealt with at both the national team and club levels, but we should actually have some sort of discussion before we go mass tagging things. Centralized discussion should be pursued whenever possible. In any event, does anyone care to propose a criteria for notability on national team and/or club levels? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the football team FAs, e.g. Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Chelsea F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Scotland national football team. They either don't have such a list or have strict criteria what to include. Peanut4 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria for National Team notability

1. Captains
2. 100 Caps
3. Scoring Leaders
4. Caps Leaders

others? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what is meant by 'Caps Leaders' (top 50?, 100?) limiting this to the above would remove most of the 1966 World Cup winners (eg Nobby Stiles). However much of an opinion it would be there has to be some room for those who took part in a significant tournament or game.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a risk of recentism here as well, is it possible to look back 100 years and know who was captain, (if there even was such a thing). If we look in terms of caps/goals, it wil in almost all cases exclude pre-WW2 players, who wouldnt have had the opportunity to play in as many games, earn as many caps, or score as many goals. There are halls of fame, but this is not uniform across all associations, there is the FIFA 100, famous and notable are such subjective terms, its hard to know how to define them Fasach Nua (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So Fasach, and I'm seriously asking here not just rhetorically, are you suggesting that we scrap those sections entirely? -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All content must satisfy wp:verify, a list of 100 most capped playes can satisfy this, a list of 50 top scorers can satisfy this, but if there is to be section called "notable" or "famous" it must satisfy wp:verify criteria. I do not know how to satisfy this criteria on these two topic, if it can be met then keep them, and if it can't lose them. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria for Club notability

1. Captains
2. Scoring Leaders

others? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• International caps. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think having been captain lends any particular notability to a player. Being captain doesn't actually confer any significant responsibility or a special role upon a player apart from an apparent compulsion to shout a lot, the captaincy can change hands many times even during a single season, and records of who was captain in the past would be very hard to obtain. I'd struggle to tell you who the captain of my own team was any further back than about 15 years, and even that would be from my own memory rather than a reliable source..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a prime example: the usual captain of Gillingham is Andrew Crofts, but he missed one match recently so Simon King was captain. Would you say that King should now be deemed as a "notable player" in the 115 year history of the club simply because he was captain for one game....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. My point was in regards to officially named squad captains, as there will most likely be a press release announcing the appointment, or at the very least they will somewhere be called "club captain, XYZ" in a match report or something similar. Incidently, Up the Fleet! -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK we don't really have the concept of "squad captains", the captain is the bloke who wears the armband for the match in question. I'm sure there have even been examples in the past of teams rotating the captaincy around the squad on a match-by-match basis....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but you'd have to admit that there are guys who get named the club's captain. Thierry Henry at Arsenal or Keano at United, Raul at Madrid or Beckham at the Galaxy. All of these players are notable in their own right, obviously, but I think in instances where there is a clearly appointed captain, they should be in any list of "notable players." -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, but I think you'd be hard pushed to find out who was the captain of even a big name club in, say, 1911, and to include the 2007 captain and exclude the 1911 captain, when their claim to notabe status is theoretically identical, is surely recentism.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a really relevant "position" anyway - not like it would be in cricket for example. - fchd (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to ask. How is it gonna be "planned out", would you go from club-to-club, or is it "this player is a notable player" and you add him to all clubs he's played... To take some examples. Lucarelli, notable in Livorno, i think most can agree on... Probably not notable in the national team or in any other teams he's played in. Zidane, notable for both club and country and as he's more notable than Lucarelli, would Zidane be placed under notable at all clubs he's played in, even Bordeaux and Cannes... Even if he maybe wasn't as notable in there (worldwide). Owen notable in Liverpool, probably not in Real or Newcastle (yet), maybe notable in the national team... something like Zidane, if Owen is considered a internationally notable player, would he be added in the Real and Newcastle sections? The list could go on... Is it gonna be a list of notable players who go on every team they've played for... or would it be club per club... One thing I could point out, Maradona is under the notable section in Newell's Old Boys, where according to his article he played 7 games, and scored 0 goals. ← chandler 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be addressed on an article by article basis. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, I would always support the view that a list of notable players on a club article, if it has to be there at all, should only reflect players who made a notable contribution to the club in question. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be done on an article by article basis because I don't think determining general criteria is workable across all the leagues in the world. If anyone comes across a bloated and dubious looking list of notable players on an article, they should try to raise the issue of what criteria can be used to trim the list on the talkpage, instead of taking draconian action like deleting the entire section as original research or deleting all the players that don't meet their own personal idea of notability for the club in question. I would question the need for players to have made a specific kind of contribution to the club, for example Miguel Oviedo finished his career with Los Andes in Argentina, he didn't get hundreds of caps or goals for them, but as a member of the 1978 World Cup winning squad, he is clearly one of the most famous players in the clubs history and is definitely worthy of a mention in my estimation, especially since I haven't got around to creating a category for Los Andes footballers yet. EP 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What ever is decided it needs to a robust system, the reason why each player is added needs to be quantified, and a verifiable source supplied, a list of names without justification is unacceptable! Fasach Nua (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that every inclusion on that list needs to be for a "quantifiable" reason or that there needs to be a verifiable source supplied for it. The justification is the process used to compile the article. Someone adds a name, none of the regular edits goes "You're bonkers, mate," and they are sufficiently notable. I agree with the comments below that if you have problems then you should address the inclusion of individual players on the list, which the regular contributors to the article in question can decide on. We don't have a cite for every sentence on WP, nor should we. I think you are taking this a little too seriously. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having created a concept of notable or famous players, it's appearence in an encylopedic article, would suggest it is a definitive list, having done this

1. Should this concept of notability be extended, and create sub-catagories of category:notable England footballers and category:non-notable England footballers?
2. Should a template template:notable England footballers be added to each of the notable player articles, making it easier to navigate between them?
3. Should the articles Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Chelsea F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Scotland national football team be fixed to include such a lsit?

If this shouldnt be the case, what is the difference between these suggestions and adding a definitive list to a team article? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree, like seemingly most people involved in the discussion so far, that there should be a strict criteria. I would liken this to the idea that history sections of these club and national team articles are selective as well. They don't include sentences about every match, player, tournament, or season, just the ones that people at the club commonly deem to be notable. I think that a list of players along those lines is equally acceptable. I don't think any articles need "fixing" in order to include such lists, as the consensus at those articles is currently that they don't need them. As a Gooner, I know that the Arsenal articles links to a list of players with 100 first class appearances, which is fine, but I don't think that every article should include or link to a similar list. Every article in the encyclopedia can be different, with its own selection criteria for information. So that is why I have disagreed with you this week. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[reindenting] That's a highly specious argument - prose and lists are entirely different things. Even if not every match is included in a History section, a team's performance over many can be summarised with a sentence about the relevant period of time. With lists, you're either in or you're out, there's no middle ground.

I fail to see the point of this discussion, to be honest. Any objective criteria for inclusion that we come up with is probably going to be pretty liberal, to make sure people's subjective favourites don't get missed out, and as a result the lists are probably going to be too long to include in articles anyway. We already have (for many clubs) lists of leading appearances, goalscorers, players with 100+ first class games, anyway - as long as they are linked to from the main articles, then the information's there and accessible. Qwghlm (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Totally agree. Peanut4 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Complete agree as well. The lists Qwghlm mentions are plenty enough, and based on definable criteria. Different "notable player" lists are going to be inherently subjective, and should be discouraged. HornetMike (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind list based on quantifiable qualities, a list without justification is not acceptable. I would propose that in the notable players section, you three subsections top scorers, most capped, and players who have won awards for excellence in play e.g. [[[European footballers of the year]], English Football Hall of Fame members, FIFA 100 etc. There will be the odd exception, such as having the Pope in goal, however if a player is truly notable, they should already be mentioned elsewhere in the article, without having to shoehorn them in with some abstract notion of notability. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

The original research tags I had added to a small selection of articles have been removed pending this discussion. I do not believe that the because there is a discussion here that some of these lists cease to be original research. The individual responsible for removeing the tags has stated "it's not like there are sources out there listing notable players" at the top of this thread, if the source of the list is a wikipedia editor, then it is quite clearly original research, and should be tagged as such. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. Claimed notability only needs to be verifiable, not citeable. Establishing notability for a named player is an easy task, and will each time rely on original research from someone precisely because as can be seen above no standard has yet been set or agreed on. Without one, your mass taggings are not appropriate, unless you assert you have investigated every list you tagged yourself, as AGF requires you to assume of the people who created them. What you should be doing is tagging each player you suspect is not notable, allowing others the chance to agree/disagree. The heading 'notable players' is not an immediate pass to assume OR may exist, you need to back up your opinons on a case by case basis. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are stating in article that someone is notable and someone else is not, it needs to be clear where this stuff is coming from, everything that is likely to be challenged needs a citation. As pointed out above the featured football team articles, define their criteria for players lists, and they are verifiable. To use a standard yet to be defined is ridiculous, it is not WP role to set this standard, it is WP role to document the standard set by some official source. I certainly didnt mass tag, I picked a small subset of ~50 articles, out of the 1000s of soccer team articles, and from that subset only tagged those which contained unquantified lists Fasach Nua (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that statement shows that you violated WP:POINT rather than start a discussion about a percieved widespread flaw. The fact is that we're developing a criteria (or criterias) for working this out (read: the right way to go about this), so for the time being refrain from being disruptive about this issue (read: the wrong way to go about this, as several people have pointed out to you).

The fact is there remains original research in hundreds of articles in what is meant to be an encylopedia, and there is no reason it should not be tagged as such. If people want to compile their own lists of notable players, they can go to geocities and make their own website, however this is wikipedia, and the information needs to be encylopedic, not the opinion of User:Grant.Alpaugh Fasach Nua (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view is plain wrong, and your actions shown to be even worse if all you've done is picked a random set to tag if your concern is actually a general one. A club notability standard is simply just not required before any editor can claim notability for a named player for a named club, the policy you apply is called common sense, and is freely checkable on an individual basis. Your approach is an incorrect interpretation of the notability and verifiability principles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He's started again, and I would appreciate it if an admin could block him from continuing to make disruptive edits and violating WP:POINT. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua, I respect your concern over this issue and I do believe that you bring up a valid point of discussion. However, I do agree with the other editors and thinking that you are approaching this issue in a non-conducive manner. We are here to discuss the issue in an attempt to reach a consensus that we can all agree to and all apply in our own edits across Wikipedia. I also have to say that I believe your approach to be disruptive to the community as a whole; for more information on disruptive editing, I encourage you and all other editors here to review WP:DISRUPTIVE. These guidelines state that a disruptive editor is one who continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Your actions fit this criterion. The guidelines also state that such an editor rejects community input: we are here to discuss the issue, not continue an edit war. We would all be more productive to settle the issue rather than reverting and undoing each others edits to the topic sections in question. You, along with a few other editors, are guilty of this. The guideline also states that a disruptive editor is one who, in essence, is on a campaign to drive away productive editors. While I believe that characterizing you as such would be an extreme stretch, I do fear that your edits, which appear to continue despite attempts to first discuss and come to a consensus, could be seen as such a campaign. While I think that edits should satisfy Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, I think the issue of notable players/managers is one that can only be assessed by those with a personal knowledge of the club/team history. This is a tricky issue, I completely agree with you. But it is an issue that doesn't simply encompass National team articles. This is an issue that would carry over to all sports related articles, from cricket to tennis to volleyball to basketball. Most expansive sports team articles, whether of a club or national team, include sections on Notable/Famous players. I think that the Footy community, and Sports community as a whole, is in consensus that such sections are an integral part of the article in its spirit to provide a thorough overview of the team in question and on its history. Suffice it to say, I believe that we should keep the sections as they are..cosme. (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasach is correct that those sections are problematic. Criteria need to be agreed for inclusion, or else I'd say the sections need to be removed. --John (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is notability. The way he and you are acting is as if this word doesn't have a meaning in Wikipedia. It not only has a meaning, but is a commonly used guidline. Its proper use and application to these lists does not need fretting about the lack of arbitrary rules before anyone is able to use their brain and apply it sensibly to the situation at hand. MickMacNee (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely these lists are just what they say they are - lists? If I want to check why a particular player is notable for say, playing for England, I click on the name and read the article. If the article fails to support 'England notablity' then the article is at fault and either it should be amended to prove notabilty or the player's name removed from the notabilty list. In a nutshell these lists shouldn't prove notabilty, the individual article should (IMHO!).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are lists of most capped players, there are lists of top goal scorers, the definition of a cap and goal are well established, and can be verified by FIFA. How do you define 'England notablity'? It is arguable that every player that ever played for England is notable, what criteria are you using to exclude players? There are also list of famous players, most of whom 99% of the planet's population have never heard of, how many people need to have heard of you before you achieve fame? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, you have no credibility on this issue because you are claiming to know who is notable in England, Sweden, Romania, Iceland and Serbia, better than the people who edit or watch those articles, and despite every player I've checked in your tagged lists having a very long wikipedia article. I sincerely doubt you have such a comprehensive football knowledge to back up such a scope of indiscriminate tagging. Your edits are to make a point and to disrupt, not to improve the quality of information in each article. Notability is certainly subjective when you are comparing English to Serbian players for example. You're suggestion that gaining even 1 England cap makes someone a notable player for England clearly demonstrates you have no grasp of one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, common sense, and anyone who needs comprehensive hard and fast rules to cope with this shouldn't be entrusted with judging what is and isn't original research in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does User:MickMacNee meet the criteria of WP:RS and thus becomes crediable? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with that comment you've proved beyond doubt you don't have even the basic grasp of the issue. You have seriously misunderstood how wikipedia works, and how original research is prevented. MickMacNee (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can see exactly where Fasach Nua is coming from. For example, on the England page, Paul Madeley is listed as a notable player. On what grounds did someone feel that he, out of all the people who've played for England, should be on the list? He won 24 caps, which isn't particularly high, he played in no major tournaments - on what grounds could his "England notability" be quantified.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Not only should he not be on the list but, more importantly, his article does nothing to support his England notabilty. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone reading an individual article on a footballer as to why he is considered notable for that club or for his country(he played nn games, scored nn goals, was club captain for nn years, was in the team that won the World Cup etc) You can't blame the list if the individual articles do not support inclusion on that list.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And on seeing that why are you finding it so difficult to apply common sense and tag/boldly remove the obvious error? If nobody reverts or questions you, then he wasn't notable. If one person questions, but others support you, by consensus he wasn't notable. If everybody reverts you, you're probably wrong. This is the normal way of wikipeidia, why do you feel the need to be backed up by an arbitrary rule, the criteria of which looks like never being agreed above and thus just becoming another perrennial uneeded wikidrama and subject for rules-lawyering, distracting people from editing real articles. As I keep saying, if people honeslty feel they require such piffling and arbitrary beurocracy before they think they can edit, then they don't understand wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like mass editing, whether I agree with the individual edits or not, but unless I've missed something, the tags added by Fasach Nua were intended to get each article's editors to think about the lists within the articles. Fasach Nua doesn't know enough about each individual national team to know whether any particular player in the list is "notable" or "famous", hence the tags, so that those who do know about the subject would get a wake-up call. If the tags provoke knowledgeable editors into re-considering the content of said lists, whether by pruning them, clarifying "their" article's inclusion criteria, or removing the OR tag with an edit summary of "sod off mate, there's no original research here", then that strikes me as working within the spirit of Wikipedia. General criteria of the sort suggested above certainly doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why people above have suggested that if Fasach thinks this is such an important issue then he should remove any players from the list that he thinks are not notable, and if several people disagrees, then the issue is settled. Mass tagging these sections in such a way as to violate WP:POINT is surely the wrong way to go about this. He picked the most followed articles (England, Italy, Spain, United States, etc.) and then decided it wasn't enough so he just filled out his list by alphabetically adding a dozen or so more. Fasach has conducted himself in a way that is fundamentally antithetical to WP by following WP:verifiability to such an extent as to violate WP:common sense and more importantly WP:civil. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't like mass edits. Nor do I like revert wars, or trying to make general rules where none are appropriate. There's been far too much drama, WP:POINT-making and general argumentativeness around WP:FOOTY recently, and it's uncomfortable. It's a pity really that when Fasach Nua first raised the matter, in a civilised manner, here and here, there was no response. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, the atmosphere around this project's been terrible of late. I'm sure it's no coincidence that a number of long-standing regular contributors haven't been on this page recently.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if participants here could remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Failing that, it would be no trouble at all to block people to help them to remember to follow core policy. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed above. I've only been here for a few weeks, but this conflict, the MLS conflict, and the FC/F.C. conflict I think highlight some important things. When people act unilaterally problems will always result. The MLS conflict started when PeeJay saw a flaw and fixed it, which everyone yelled at him for, and to his great credit he left it alone while the (very contentious) process was allowed to run its course. Everyone was able to be satisfied, and we moved on to productive things. In the other two examples I mentioned there have been users that ignored discussion to continue pushing their agenda, much to the detriment of the articles and the community at large. I think there really needs to be more respect for other editors, their opinions, the process, and the community/project at large in order to make WP work. I hope to see more of that in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorable Matches

User User:Grant.Alpaugh has deemed this to be part of the same discussion, and has barred editing while this discussion is going on, so if this could be addressed to, that would be nice! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorable matches should be removed. If the match is truly notable, there should be an article about it. – PeeJay 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's even more prone to POV and recentism than "famous players". I mean, look at that Turkey list, over half the matches are from the last eight years, and it includes things like a 0-0 draw with Brazil in a friendly. Maybe if it was American Samoa that got a 0-0 draw with Brazil in a friendly that would be worth noting, but for Turkey it's hardly an awesome achievement worth recording for the ages.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RoI do it slightly better here, but even still ... Fasach Nua (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with lists of "memorable matches" is that most of them are loaded with POV, and they can potentially end up being indefinitely long. Like I said, if a match is truly notable, an article should be written about it. Then all of the matches related to a particular team can be categorised together and the category linked to from the main article. – PeeJay 09:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I liked how it was done on Ireland there, I agree that the turkey one seems very strange, but if its a historical match, that you can find good citations etc, and just have a small comment under I would be Ok with it for example lets say Sweden and England meet in the next world cup (there's been alot of talk about their meetings at least here) because England havent beaten us for so long, and if England won It might be a nice little note "2010 Sweden 0 - 1 England<br />For the first time in 46 years England won over Sweden after 20 missed attempts" (now those numbers are not right, but it might be something along those lines) At least, not noted for a own article if it isnt the World Cup final, but a small note somewhere might be nice :) though this was maybe not the bst example ← chandler 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem Fasach is that the way you have conducted yourself is not productive. I've said repeatedly that you probably are right on the issue of, as another editor put it, "pruning" these lists and sections, but that you went about it in entirely the wrong way, showing yourself to be quite a dick in the process IMHO. When several people called you on this you should have stopped, but you went back for more in a way that is problematic. If consensus is that these memorable match sections should go, then fine, but unless there is you should work on contesting individual players/matches on lists in a way that is productive and cooperative. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of discord and contentiousness in this WikiProject

I do not like the recent turn for the worse that has been experienced on this page and others relating to this WikiProject. I've been around here for some time and we've always worked collaboratively and supportively. We've not always agreed, but we have disagreed respectfully and without getting heated.

Of late, discussions in this WikiProject have too often degenerated into incivility, strawman arguments, playing the man not the ball, tendenciousness and aggressive fixation on getting one's way, especially over minutiae, and edit-warring.

This saddens me greatly.

I therefore plan to devote all my efforts to WP:CRIC, WP:FAC and WP:FLC for the foreseeable future, which is a shame, as I was well on the way to completing a football-related FT on Norwich City F.C.

I strongly recommend WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You finally asleep...this is Wikipedia baby. --necronudist (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by Dweller. I think this project needs to look long and hard at what it has become, and needs to rememeber that we are here to edit in a collaborative and congenial manner. Woody (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'll back that up too. I'm relatively new to the project but I've felt a little disheartened these past few days with the apparent cohesion or lack of it recently. We're fast heading towards losing some very good, nah excellent, contributors. Peanut4 (talk)

Ditto. There used to be a core of good, loyal editors, and unfortunately we are starting to lose them. WP:FOOTBALL needs a good kick up the backside, as it were. GiantSnowman 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My overwhelming view is that way too much time is spent by editors trying to ****-off other peoples efforts. The endless search for articles on players from the Scottish 3rd div, English squad players who have not (YET!) made a 1st team appearance or players from some obscure league so that the article can be deleted (can anyone tell me if the Lithuanian 2nd tier is fully-pro!!!). If we were talking about the tea-lady or the programme seller or Wikipedia was running out of storage space I could relete to this trend for removing articles. The emphasis seems to be on destroy rather than build and the bickering over the notabilty lists is just another instance of this. Surely there must be a more constructive trend on here rather than the obvious whoop of delight felt by some as another article or amendment bites the dust? Perhaps a read of WP:INSPECTOR would help? --Egghead06 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in some respects with Egghead06 that there seems to be too much focus on the mass-killing of articles instead of actively trying to save them (oh so he hasn't played a game? well I'm sure you've all checked to see if they've had some press reportage before AFD'ing haven't you, I mean WP:N still trumps WP:BIO..). A lot of tit-for-tat deletions, no real wish to do anything other than maintain the status quo. The same old arguments rolling back and forth for years, the same problems rolling back and forth for years; both with no solutions either suggested or adopted. A stubborn few refusing to let any changes be made and putting their fingers in their ears and going 'lalalalalalalala can't hear you lalalalalalalala' whenever it's pointed out they're in the wrong. New editors stamped up and down on and labelled as pariahs before anyone bothers to explain to them what (if anything) they've done wrong. No-one thinking 'well actually that looks kinda good, lets do that elsewhere too'. The only thing that kept me interested was seeing the contributions from amongst others ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Rambling Man and Qwghlm - quality edits, advice and additions that helped and improved the encyclopaedia. But in all honesty, I gave up on it all a few months ago.. Nanonic (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A pile of non-notable footballers

User:Gokhantig seemingly is lacking in understanding of Wikipedia notability policy, as he created an article for every player from Fenerbahçe Under-20 squad. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to sort it out, so I'm asking someone to do mass deletion instead of me. Thanks!  Jhony   13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. However, it has raised in my mind an issue in relation to WP:BIO: would it not be true to say that all the players in all the teams in the Premier Reserve League, and probably also those in the Premier Academy League are full time professionals? I don't think I like the idea of anyone who has played in these levels suddenly flooding the project, but these are leagues, with prizes and proper officials and fixture lists, and they seem to be fully pro. Do we allow them, or is there something in the phrasing that I have missed, or do we have to try to tweak the definition at WP:ATHLETE? Kevin McE (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they aren't notable, at least because it's impossible to find any of them in a decent published football encyclopedia.  Jhony   08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest all players in either the Reserve or Academy leagues are full-time professionals - they are under-21 and under-18 leagues respectively and many involve apprentices or trialists. For example, for Mark Randall of Arsenal, he played in the Premier Reserve League for a season and a half while still on schoolboy forms, until he signed a pro contract in February 2007, midway through the 2006-07 season. I'm sure there are many more players like him in other teams. Qwghlm (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that the PRL is an U-21 league, it is used to maintain fitness and recuperate for any age of player, but so long as we can keep on finding examples like the one you cite, we should be safe. Thanks. Kevin McE ([[User

talk:Kevin McE|talk]]) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify - three overage players are allowed per match (to allow for fitness & injury recovery) but rules state that at least eight must be 21 or under. Qwghlm (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? I ask because in this game there were at least four on each side (Taylor, Knight, Berger and Salifou for Villa, Taylor, O'Connor, Schmitz, Doyle, and De Ridder for Birmingham) over 21. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a reserve league such as Football Combination. --Jimbo^[online] 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did I misunderstand something? The game I mentioned was in the Premier Reserve League a couple of months ago, is that not what Qwghlm was on about? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not three, but four, but there is a limit. I definitely read about the restriction somewhere as they revamped the PRL to be more like a bridge between the Academy and first teams - premierleague.com is terribly bad website and has a very poor search function, alas. Qwghlm (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Season for premature changes

Listing of teams according to the division that they are almost certain to be in next season has already started, and by 4:50 this afternoon will probably be rife. However, Colchester do not formally become a League One team until a date determined by the FL: I think it may be 1st June, but that is no more than an uncertain recollection. Equally, players now in the last few weeks of their contracts will have their next employers announced over the next few weeks, but they do not become members of those new teams until (again, according to my memory of contract expiry details) 1st July.

Is it worth trying to preserve accuracy in the face of what will probably be large-scale, well-intended, but ultimately premature, edits? Kevin McE (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can try if your name's King Canute, but you will be fighting against the tide. I have given up trying to revert edits regarding Claus Lundekvam for example. Although he has announced that he will never play again because of injury, he is still under contract with Southampton until 30 June and should therefore remain as apart of the club's first team squad and on the squad template. As I write, he is shown correctly but I'm sure that there will be a queue of editors (usually non-registered) waiting to remove him. Hey ho. I'll stick to writing historical articles - less controversial! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradford City A.F.C. decided to release 13 players this week. There's already been a number of edits removing them, but again they're under contract and some played today. It's going to happen, we've just got to put up with it. Even if it means putting in remarks into the wikitext, asking people not to change until a certain date. Peanut4 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added such a comment into the Bradford City current players section. GiantSnowman 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Once the season is over, and there's no chance of the players playing for the club again, I see no problem with the players being removed from the current squad and having "unattached" on their profiles. The fact their contract doesn't finish until 1 June doesn't really matter, the decision has been made, they'll be on holiday or searching for another club, they might even sign for someone else before their contract is up. With regard to League talk - I don't mind Forest have their league status changed to Championship once their season is over. It's not going to change, even if the play-offs are still to come in League One. What I wouldn't change is the lists of teams on the league articles, and the team navigation template. They shouldn't be changed until the complete league line-up is confirmed. HornetMike (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree with that. PLayers are not unattached if they are under contract. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to report what is, not make an interpretation of the effectiveness of a contractual bond. I wouldn't object to them being removed from the squad list template box, but it is an anticipation, even if it is the anticipation of something inevitable, to say that, for example, Flamini is not an Arsenal employee until 30th June. Likewise, Forest do not become members of the Championship until next season, and next season begins when the authorities say so, not when the whistle goes on their last game of the previous season. Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much spot on. Some of the changes are fluid. The templates aren't because they actually say 2007-08. So until the year is likewise changed, the teams should match the title. Peanut4 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Belford

Cameron Belford is now up for re-creation as he has played in a game in professional league. Discuss here. Kingjamie (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreated. D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded this article and I think it is start class so if people agree with me than re-classify it. Also can I people check for bad grammar, typos etc in the expanded infornmation about Worcester City Kingjamie (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Football statistics templates

I noticed that a lot of articles have been updated using templates like {{Football player statistics 1}}. Is there any documentation on how to use these templates specifically? I'd like to use those templates on one of my pet articles (Klaas-Jan Huntelaar), but I'm not exactly sure how they work. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-4 22:18

To be honest, I prefer the chart you've already got at Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. The above template doesn't look as consistent as the one that is in the Klaas-Jan Huntelaar entry. Peanut4 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the new charts at all. Someone's added it to one of my pet articles, Duncan Edwards and I think the layout is poor and the "international" heading is potentially very confusing...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's got to win a prize for the most horribly un-user-friendly template set ever! All it seems to do is provide an ugly squashed table format without any usefully tagged fields to let you know what you're doing. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding a handful or so as I recently noticed its use but I agree with the above: the Huntelaar example is far nicer to view. How about incorporating this version as the new template? •Oranje•·Talk 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have some form of standardised template, with proper documentation. We have a standardised infobox, why not do the same for the career statistics? JACOPLANE • 2008-05-6 20:37

Does anybody with suitable knowledge of parameters, etc. want to knock something up in their userspace? •Oranje•·Talk 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who made an argued template. Like a list of Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and Duncan Edwards, layouts are different by a player. Because I wanted to unify layouts, I made a template. I referred to a Japanese edition. As for the Japanese edition, layouts are unified in most players from a famous player to an amateur player. For example, it is ja:中村俊輔(Shunsuke Nakamura) or ja:マイケル・オーウェン(Michael Owen). There was a united feeling to a statistics table, and I thought that the statistics table of the Japanese edition was splendid.--Nameless User (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the headings are/were very confusing - for example in the Duncan Edwards article there was a column headed "international", which would naturally make most people think it referred to appearances for England when it fact it referred to his appearances for Manchester United in the European Cup...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm, 'international' would be better served by 'continental'. •Oranje•·Talk 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Had better I change "international" into "continental"?--Nameless User (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed "international" into "continental".--Nameless User (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a variety of these charts. The most common three I've seen are the one above, as seen on David Beckham, a simple wikitable, as seen as Thierry Henry and a similar one as seen at Nicky Law (footballer born 1988). I suggest we decide on a standardised format. My own preference is the second one, and I'm afraid to say the least preferable is the current template at David Beckham. It's too squashed and ugly and I'm not sure is very user-friendly nor has the ability to be expanded to more cup competitions. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the template on the Beckham page, he never played for Man U in the League Cup - yet another reason why that format is very user-unfriendly and potentially confusing..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About the "squashed", I can improve a template. About League Cup of Beckham, I made a template to be able to make entry of League Cup by changing the parameter of the template into "YY" from "NY". Therefore, the cause of the problem is that I do not know data in League Cup of Beckham. The cause of the problem is not the template.--Nameless User (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the simple, straightforward table as per Nicky Law, with coloured background and cups separated out. I think the Steve Finnan layout has it about right, with optional club total rows where the player has been at a club longer than one season (though for some reason they've done it upside-down, with the most recent season at the top). Needs a bit of tweaking; I'd centre the columns, and span the first two columns together on the totals rows. But that layout is clear both to understand and to read. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nicky Law one was also the wrong way round till I changed it last night. My main quibble with the Law/Finnan template is the alignment of the figures. I don't think the centralising like at Henry, is perfect but it's certainly more asthetically appealing than left aligned. It really ought to be right aligned, as most infoboxes are. Peanut4 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Law/Finnan template is nice to look at...shall we start a vote on the above three examples? Or are there other examples that we have missed? •Oranje•·Talk 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tesfaye Bramble's non-league stats

Does anyone know where I can find Tes' early career stats for when he played for Chelmsford, Cambridge City and a short loan spell at Southend United. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found some at playerhistory.com, where I am a member and so have access to all their stats. It states he played three games at Chelmsford City during the 1997-98 season, but it gives a void for 1998-99. Then gives 18 appearances and three goals during the 2000-01 season at Cambridge City. And for the loan at Southend, he simply played no games. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matty --Jimbo^[online] 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle United Transfers

Notable or not? – PeeJay 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a typical impulsive idea that the author will abandon when they can't get past ten years or so... 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The originator got bored fairly quickly - his editing career lasted 11 days! see [1]. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not notable, transfers should be covered in season articles. I'd redirect it to Newcastle United F.C. or something. GiantSnowman 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think a redirect is worthwhile. It's not a likely search term when looking for Newcastle United F.C., and those looking for a list of Newcastle's transfers would be more likely to find them on a list of Newcastle's records and statistics like the lists that already exist for some other clubs. – PeeJay 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Very true, thinking about it a redirect would not be worthwhile. GiantSnowman 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at AFD now. Sorry to jump the gun, didn't see this discussion... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portsmouth 1939 FA Cup Team

This template has been added to articles for all the members of Portsmouth's 1939 FA Cup Final winning team. I have put it up for TfD. Any comments? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No complaints against the TfD from me. As per usual, we should only have squad navboxes for current squads and World Cup finals squads. – PeeJay 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the templates doesnt even look complete? Where are the subs? Or did they play seven-a-side :) One note though, I'd really like to see World Cup, current club and the confederation cups (not this one, but these!) ← chandler 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Substitutes were introduced in the 1960s. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, i never knew that, if you look at like the 1930 world cup, they're more than 11 players :o ← chandler 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to take squads to tournaments, but no changes during a game. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathieu Flamini

A load of wise users are including his name into AC Milan's squad, despite the fact he is contracted with Arsenal until June 30, the summer transfer window in Italy will not open before July 1, and both Premier League and Serie A are yet to end. I've semi-protected A.C. Milan and included a disclaimer in the section, but this actually seems not to be enough. Can you please put Mathieu Flamini and A.C. Milan into your watchlist and revert at sight such these erroneous edits? Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Valentine scores.jpg Featured Picture list

Shouldn't this be added in the Featured pictures section as it is a listed as a Featured Picture. 90.240.94.133 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, it's featured at Commons and not Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm completely ignorant of the guidelines for Featured Pictures, but this is a pretty nifty close-up action shot, is it of FP standard........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been BOLD and listed it, hope for your comments on it. 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS for Completion name

There is lots of English "common" name verse using Romanization likes:

Soviet Top League vs Vysshaya Liga

Belarusian Premier League vs Vysshaya Liga

Ukrainian Premier League vs Vyshcha Liha

Russian Premier League vs Premier-Liga

Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Premijer Liga

Moldovan National Division vs Divizia Naţională

Latvian Higher League vs Virslīga

Hungarian National Championship I vs NB I

Ukrainian and Belarusian league have the succession to Soviet's Vysshaya Liga (Top League), but how come it became Premier League? Should was mention that since the establish of English's Premier League, it common known as Ukrainian Premier League but it means Top League in Ukrainian language. For the rest, it doubt the name is a common name. Matthew_hk tc 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point. What is the common name for these leagues. Certainly in some cases the local name should be used (Bundesliga rather than Federal League). What are these best known as in English speaking countries? John Hayes^talk 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're saying but for example the Ukrainian Premier League would be more common and more easily understandable than just Vyshcha Liha or Ukrainian Vyshcha Liha. ← chandler 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can always have redirects to the proper names though from the more common ones. matt91486 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Evans (footballer born 1962)

Could someone who has a better knowledge of WP:BLP take a look at this article? The section on his management career is entirely negative (despite his undoubted success with Boston and Crawley) and until I removed them, contained some very dubious statements (though the "sourced" one about him being "busy eating hot dogs and wobbling like a lavalamp" when the club were relegated did make me smile...). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Zenit and British press

Introduction to the subject is at Talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg#Response to ongoing defamation campaign by British press.

Apart from this, I've found that almost every example of racism or accusations of racism from racism in association football article isn't mentioned in the respective club articles. Is there a consensus about such[2] accusations in the club articles? Jhony (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

National Football Centre

I've been looking for an article on the planned National Football Centre to be built in Burton-upon-Trent and opened by 2010, though I can't find one through any search. Nor does Burton's article link to it. Surely one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction? If one does not yet exist I'll gladly create one, just don't want to duplicate! Grunners (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have created an article at National Football Centre Grunners (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of league tables in articles

A user has added the current league table into the Huddersfield and District Association Football League article. Personally I think it's wholly inappropriate to include the table per WP:NOT a news update service, but then I got to thinking that articles like Premier League 2007-08 have the table in (which I also don't agree with, personally, but that's just my opinion). Now the HDAFL is clearly not going to have articles on individual seasons, so the closest equivalent could be said to be putting it in the main article on the league itself. If this rambling stream of consciousness makes any sense at all, then what do people think? Leave it in or take it out......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a list of teams currently playing in the league is what should be in the league article, not the current standings table. Although there probably won't be an individual season article for the specified league, I don't think it's a good idea to put the current league table in the league article.  ARTYOM  08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Former football league members}}

Before I take it to TfD, do people think this template is really necessary? With two clubs relegated each year from the FL, it has the potential to get very big very quickly. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Axe it. I'd suggest this is type of thing is what Categories were made for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice scope for a list there, actually. Lead detailing when the Football League was first set-up, first team to go, process of re-election (frequency of teams being dropped), changes to the system, switch to two relegated to the Conference etc. Columns in the list - team, year joined league, year left, current league...? HornetMike (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice idea... who'll get there first? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a section in the Football League article listing former clubs, but this was removed at some point... пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one tell ChrisTheDude... shhh.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Err apparently the list exists already: List of former Football League clubs. But we do have {{Former Scottish League clubs}} which doesn't have an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've TfD'd it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael Welsh - place of birth?

Was he born in Deptford or Dartford? Soccerbase says Dartford, but I don't trust it too much. Can anyone shed any light on this? Cheers --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deptford is correct. --necronudist (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of professional football leagues

Pertaining to the list of professional football leagues we were trying to compile last month, I just found this article right here on Wikipedia with quite an extensive list. I don't know how reliable it is, but it could be worth comparing the two lists. – PeeJay 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a list of leagues which may have some professionals playing in them e.g. (Scot League 3). Pretty sure it is not a list of leagues which are fully pro e.g. (Italia C2).--Egghead06 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mário Silva (football player) vs Mário Silva (footballer)

There are duplicate articles on the quite average Portuguese left-back. Turning the football player into a redirect to the footballer would perhaps be the easiest way of dealing with this. There wouldn't arise any problems, would it? Sebisthlm (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No complaints here. Go for it. – PeeJay 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How notable is winning the reserve premier league

Before I start I just want to mention that I am a member of WP:LFC so there is probably a slight bias on my part. My question is how notable winning the reserve premier league is, as Liverpool did last night, and therefore how notable those players are. For example the Liverpool Echo, has quite a few articles before and after the match [3] [4] [5], same for Liverpool Daily Post [6], along with some minor mentions in the national press. Some of the players, such as Damien Plessis have articles already as they have played in a Pro league, but someone like Stephen Darby doesn't, even though he has been captain of two Fa Youth cup winning sides, and now a reserve Premier League winning side. I'm not suggesting everyone who wins this title is notable, but someone who has won it, and has multiple third party sources (which this does, even if largely in the Liverpool area), should qualify for an article. I would suggest there are more people interested in such a player as 7500 people turned up for the game, which is more than many lower league professional teams. What does anyone else think about this case. John Hayes^talk 10:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:N, significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I'd say they'd fail WP:N because the articles linked mention the names of (a few of) the players, which doesn't constitute "address[ing] the subject directly in detail", nor is the coverage "more than trivial". If you could find multiple non-trivial sources for any individual player, then you'd always stand a chance under the general notability criteria, but being owned by a big club and therefore surrounded by other better-than-average players and being part of a team that won the PRL wouldn't be enough on its own. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not, largely as I think winning the FA Youth Cup is more important than a reserve league (based on the attendances in five figures for the finals), but that players who win the FA Youth Cup are not necessarily notable. Looking at Ipswich's win in the FA Youth Cup in 2005, six of the players who played in that game have disappeared without a trace. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it then until the players in question either play for a pro team or have widespread coverage. Thanks John Hayes^talk 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Shorts and socks for the kits

I raised the same question at {{Football kit}} but only one person replied so I thought I'd try here too.

Isn't it time for {{Football kit}} to get parameters for shorts and socks like {{Rugby kit}}. Other templates like {{Basketball kit}}, {{Netball kit}}, {{Baseball uniform}}, {{Field hockey kit}} at least have shorts. Many teams have two colored socks etc... isnt it at least time to add the parameter? ← chandler 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As the only respondant at the template talk, I'll respond here as well, giving my support for such parameters. GiantSnowman 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to oppose this suggestion, my advice, be bold, do it. EP 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its protected so I can't do it... Would suggest Football kit to use Rugby kit's parameters etc... And one thing more, why are there all these different templates, wouldnt one "{{Kit}}" work for everything... if its the default kit ppl worry about, maybe a sport parameter. ← chandler 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Works team

I've just converted this from a redirect into a stub. Can anyone think of any other football clubs which began as works teams (I'm sure there's a couple in the League, but I can't think of them off the top of my head), or confirm if Ford United were actually one? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Airbus UK used to be a works team. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Think bigger. There are European trophy winning former works teams — PSV Eindhoven, Bayer Leverkusen. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is what you were looking for but some obvious ones for starters West Ham United as Thames Ironworks F.C., Arsenal as Royal Arsenal, Manchester United as Newton Heath, L&YR F.C. Livingston F.C. as Ferranti ThistleTmol42 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City F.C. used to be Singer's (a very long time ago). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Argentine teams started off as the works teams of British owned railway companies, Rosario Central, Talleres de Córdoba, Ferro Carril Oeste, Club Ferrocarril Midland, Club Atlético Central Córdoba and others. Although I'm not sure this is what you are looking for. EP 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're works teams, I think it is. Feel free to add to the article. I've taken a few of the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to Football_club_names#Club_names_referring_to_a_profession which does the same thing? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't about club names, its about the concept of such clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one define "works": Metropolitan Police F.C., Royal Engineers A.F.C. and many teams from the former Soviet block who were made up from members of the army or police (eg CSKA and Dynamo Moscow respectively). Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

West Bromwich Albion were formed by workers from a spring factory, although the "Boing Boing" didn't evolve until more than 100 years later :-) --Jameboy (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most unnecessarily detailed section on WP........?

Surely we don't need this level of detail? I'm surprised the full menu at the refreshment kiosk isn't also listed..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No fewer than twelve external links too... •Oranje•·Talk 09:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you could go through scores of football team entries, and find recentism and too much detail of club officials, or biographies and find far too much POV and MOS issues. I'd suggest anyone who finds a lot of it just be Wp:BOLD and edit away. Peanut4 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Asaph City F.C.

What is the notability cut-off point for Welsh football clubs? I'd like to create an article about my home town's club, but I'm not sure whether they're notable enough. FWIW, the club plays at step 6 of the Welsh football league system and, IIRC, was formed about two years ago. – PeeJay 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about "St Asaph F.C." of the Clywd League Division Two, I'd say that is a long, long way from notability - it is the absolute bottom of the league ladder in that part of the world. There was a St Asaph City that played one season in the Welsh Alliance (1993-94), which might just be on the very edges of notability, but I'd be hard pressed to give even them a definite "yes". On the more general point, the trouble with setting notability standards in the Welsh Pyramid is that it is so unbalanced - the better clubs who are at level 5 in the South (S Wales Amateur League Division One, Gwent County Premier etc.) would probably be about level 3 in Mid Wales and maybe level 3-4 in the North. I think it would be best done on a by-league basis rather than a straight forward "Level" basis as in England. - fchd (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Changes to WP:FOOTY and its talk page have suddenly stopped appearing on my "My Watchlist" page: going through an unwatch-watch cycle does not seem to make any difference, and other articles that I watch seem unaffected. Anyone have any idea what is going on? Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have "hide bot edits" enabled in your preferences? A bot archives old threads every day or two. If the bot edit was the most recent to this page, it will not appear in your watchlist unless you select the "expanded watchlist" option. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems odd that it does not allow the last non-bot edit to show. Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Costel Rădulescu

On his article it is written that he took part at the 1936 Winter Olympics as a bobsledger. He coached the Romanian national team at the 1930 World Cup so it sounds to me really strange... Does anyone know (or have some sources) if they're the same person? Thank you. --necronudist (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it's possible. I know in the US there have been athletes primarily known for other sports who have randomly done bobsledding at the Olympics (Herschel Walker), so there's at least similar circumstances. matt91486 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as we don't know for sure, we need a source. --necronudist (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't need a source. I was simply trying to say that the possibility wasn't so terribly out of the ordinary as to be automatically untrue since you said you thought it really strange... matt91486 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange doesn't mean untrue. --necronudist (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources given on Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics include a Constantin Radulescu competing for Romania. Its certainly possible that it is the same person. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the official reports and he's cited. I'm not doubting that. Also, Alexandru Papană competed with him, and he was a football players in the same Radulescu's period of activity (see this). --necronudist (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Any news? Last time I ask...I promise :-) Should I send an e-mail to Romanian FA and the Romanian Olympic Comittee? --necronudist (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

SoccerBase and play-off games

If you look at the Michael McIndoe entry, his play-off apperances last season for Wolverhampton were counted as Other, but his play-off apprance this year for Bristol City has been classed a League which makes thier data unreilable. It seems a bit odd when Conference play-off games are classes as other like the Magno Vieira entry So what shall we do about this? Does anybody know if SBase has a email address where we can put this point them. Kingjamie (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. I've usually received a reply back from them, although it sometimes can take a while. --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Soccerbase data is extremely unreliable. I've spotted a few mistakes, but this makes me treat all the data with a very big pinch of salt. Peanut4 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed soccerbase and got a reply. All the games should now be going under the "Others" column. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They are now counted as others, I remember they did the same thing last year. 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Summer releases

Clubs are starting to announce these, so don't forget to update List of unattached footballers. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think you should. Although players are often described by their clubs as having been released, you will find that even if they agree a new deal elsewhere during May or June, (in England) they do not formally join those clubs until 1st July, because their contracts, and their registration, remain with the clubs they have been with this season until 30th June. There will be an equivalent date for other FAs, but I do not know what that date is. I would argue that players should remain on the articles for their present clubs (see the Gillingham, Brighton or Norwich squad lists), and that their individual articles should read something like Noel Christmas (born 25th December 1980) is a Laplander footballer currently at Arctica FC, but who is to leave the club at the end of his contract on 30th June 2008: in a couple of weeks, that might become ... but who is to leave the club, and join North Pole United, at the end of his contract on 30th June 2008. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a technicality - if their season's over, they're not going to play or train with that club again, so are free to find another. To all intents and purposes they are unattached, and that's what's useful, not that they are technically still under contract. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And if we were chatting in a pub or on a fan website, I would agree entirely with you. But if this is an encyclopaedic project then nothing should be a higher priority than relating present realities. The role of encyclopaedic editors is to communicate facts, not try to evaluate the effectiveness of them: nothing is "just a technicality". They are not unattached, and will not be so until 30th June (and, of course, will hope not to be unattached by 1st July). Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - an encylopedia should provide useful information. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution on the Gillingham/Norwich/Brighton articles, and the proposal for individuals that I suggest above and have placed on articles of players leaving those clubs, provides information that is useful and accurate. Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, the page doesn't say 'out of contact', it says unattached - regardless of their contract, the clubs have effectively detached them, made them free to find another club. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The clubs do not have the contractual freedom to detach them: they have to pay them for May and June! Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They're still paying them, but that's not the important thing - to all intents and purposes they are clubless. Adding these 'soon to be released' notes, all to be updated on July 1, seems like a waste of time. There is no practical difference between their situations between now and July 1. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was put off adding to the list purely because of the columns that need filled (especially when a club releases, say, eleven players, as Blackpool did this week). I'm not sure date of birth and nationality need listed, when that information can be gleaned from the player's article. In the case of someone such as Dimitrije Golubovic, who doesn't have an article, I say we <!--hide--> his date of birth next to his name until his article is created. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured, since the category was listified, we might as well use that to add more info. There's a reason why all list pages aren't just bulleted lists, and I think the extra info is useful (the category was much easier, though, I admit). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the players should be removed from club articles and put on the unattached list. Not all released players are actually released. Three years ago (maybe four), Bradford City (under Bryan Robson) released Ben Muirhead. Robson's contract wasn't renewed and Todd took over and instead gave Muirhead a new contract. The same happened last year when under one manager several players were released, McCall came in and wanted to re-sign some of them, but they already had signed new contracts with other clubs. Until their contracts are up, I would keep them at the club they are at. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Competition names

Hi guys, there's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Rugby Union about whether or not competition articles should be titled after the tournament's sponsored name. The competitions in question are the Guinness Premiership, the Magners League and the Heineken Cup. This discussion could potentially impact on the way competition articles are titled over here at WP:FOOTY, so I would appreciate it if some of you guys could contribute your opinions. The discussion is located here. – PeeJay 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Henri Pierre Armand Nnouck Minka

Surely this chap is known by a shorter name?!?! GiantSnowman 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his profile on the clubs website (which isn't the link given on the article despite what it says in the EL section) his name would appear maybe to be "double-barrelled with both his first name and surname: Henri-Pierre A. Nnouck-Minka? Unless it is Henri P.A. Nnouck-Minka?!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A double-barreled name would make more sense...GiantSnowman 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Many naming systems have a double, but not double-barelled (i.e. hyphenated) surname: Spanish for one. I have no idea what name this player is usually known by, and no real knowledge of Cameroonian naming customs (but some Wiki article might have light to shed on the matter), but let's be careful not to impose Anglocentric conventions without evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to impose it, just speculating, without any knowledge about the topic, as to whether or not the surname could be Nnouck Minka (with or without the hyphen) and his first name Henri Pierre (with or without the hyphen). Whatever the correct format I would have thought that there was no need for his full name to be used.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that (some) Cameroonian naming customs are similar to Spanish ones - Samuel Eto'o and his siblings have a 'double surname' of Eto'o Fils. However, we cannot assume that this is the case with this particular player. GiantSnowman 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameroon is a French speaking country and "fils" is French for "son" so I suspect that's not a double surname per se, more akin to him being Samuel Eto'o Jr. ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good point...but what about his brothers, David and Etienne? They are also 'Eto'o Fils.' GiantSnowman 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, pass :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much :) GiantSnowman 11:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also sons of Mr Eto'o? Shows the dangers about making assumptions based on Anglo- or Euro-, centric knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Major League Soccer season

There is a discussion and voting on Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season about the standings/tables format. Kingjeff (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the discussion is not about removing some information from the MLS articles (like the one about the team infoboxes), but instead is about formatting. I think this directly corrolates to how we changed to a standard format between all footy articles and simply allowed the MLS teams in include extra information within the standard format. I think consistency is what matters the most here, please weigh in at the discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about giving people a chance to digest the whole discussion before you throw your two cents in. I was just letting the WikiProject know that this discussion was going on. Kingjeff (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I was merely trying to explain why I was against a unique MLS format on this issue, as opposed to before. Please don't try to belittle me this way. I have every right to participate in this discussion wherever it takes place. I'm part of both communities. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think w-d-l should be used (if that's why we're talking about)... And I don't like all those table colors :P ← chandler 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though Major League Soccer Uses W-L-T? Kingjeff (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely W-D-L to keep consistency across like-for-like articles, i.e. football articles. The fact one league displays its results in a different format is not a significant enough reason to depart from the norm on an encyclopaedia with a world-wide view. - fchd (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with W-D-L, but might make an exception for the MLS. However, I'm with Chandler on the colours. Ugh! Though, there are a some offenders in other leagues too. Peanut4 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason there should be an exception for MLS is if content that would otherwise not be in a footy article would be in a North American sports article, like with the infoboxes discussion before. This is an issue of style, and like the infobox compromise we deferred to the international order of items. This appears to be a direct analog. We're not trying to change the information, just the format, so international standard trumps the US one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I voted for the W-L-T system, mainly because I view this as an AmEn vs BrEn issue. In my experience, the term "draw" is not often used in North America for a game where the scores finish level. In fact, draws are a relatively alien concept to North Americans, it seems :-P Seriously, though, as the article in question involves an American subject, AmEn should be used and I believe the W-L-T system falls under that. – PeeJay 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its an ENGVAR thing, just the same as using "soccer" throughout an article. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Derby's season in the trivia

This trivia is taken from the PL 0708 season article.

• Derby County finished with the worst record since the league was founded in 1992-93.

Now I was under the impression that this season of Derby isnt only the worst in the PL but the worst season of any team in the whole history of the Football League's top division. And the team before was Stoke City in 1889-90 (they've talked about it on tv for some weeks, don't remember if it was Stoke that season, but it sounds likely), because you take into account that they only played 22 games with the 2pt rule etc. ← chandler 23:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"As for Derby, their 29th defeat of a wretched season means they equalled Loughborough Athletic and Football Club's 108-year Football League record of going through an entire season with only one win."[7] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the above linked article, Stoke had 10 points, so the worst since then. But in percentage terms, hey ... Peanut4 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that BBC report about Loughborough Athletic. Has anyone ever heard of them? It appears the BBC have magicked them out of thin air to me. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Loughborough F.C. played 1899-00 Though in the Second division... guess they changed ID and disappeared after that shame ;) ← chandler 00:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. And there's me trying to find them under Loughborough Athletic F.C.! Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I searched for Loughborough Athletic and Loughborough F.C. was the fourth result... I'm a regular Sherlock Holmes ← chandler 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes 10 points because of the 2pt system. Had they used the 3pt system as now, Stoke would have had 13 ← chandler 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Portuguese football stadia by capacity

List of Portuguese football stadia by capacity - Many of the capacities of the stadia in the table do not match the capacity given in the stadium's article, in some cases being as much as 12,000 out! (and I've only checked half the stadium articles so far). This whole article needs a thorough check-up.

Please add further comments on the article's talk page Grunners (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the bizarrest thing about that article is that in several cases a stadium has an article but the team that plays there doesn't!! Why would anyone create an article on the stadium before one on the team......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conference National Playoff Final 2008

Is this notable enough? The article is clearly not worthy of an entry in its current form, but I'll wait on that until at least the final is played. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I havent checked this, but does the Championship playoff final have a own match article? If not, this has got to go. ← chandler 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent (Category:Football Conference Playoff Finals is well populated). The Championship play-off did have an article last year (2007 Football League Championship playoff final). Not sure about League One or Two though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The last two year' have at 2006 Football League Championship playoff final and 2007 Football League Championship playoff final. I notice those two and the above (which has too many capitals) don't hyphenate play-off. Peanut4 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Conference National Playoff Final 2006 might be unreferenced (and so doesn't ascertain WP:N) but at least there's some substance in there. Peanut4 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need the hyphen in play-off. The BBC use it on all their recent match reports, and the front cover of last year's Championship play-off final programme also hyphenates. P and F in "Playoff Final" are capitalised in a "Welcome message" in said programme, so I'd support that also. I think we should be consistent though. --Jameboy (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I say a big "no, no" to using primary sources for capitals. So many places do it to overegg their own importance as far as I'm concerned. If secondary sources use capitals, then so should we. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. The BBC used lower case last year. ([8][9][10])

As per FA Cup and League Cup finals the year should go first. I think the "Football League" bit is necessary to clarify what the article is about. I propose therefore a naming convention of 2008 Football League Championship play-off final. --Jameboy (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'll agree with that. And if those are create pre-Championship and Premiership, I'd run that through to 1990 Football League Second Division play-off final, which would be for Football League Championship play-offs#1990, Swindon v Sunderland. Peanut4 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amend own comment slightly: As per FA Cup and League Cup finals the year should go first. In the case of The Championship and Leagues One and Two, I think the "Football League" bit is necessary to clarify what the article is about. I propose therefore a naming convention of 2008 Football League Championship play-off final and 2008 Conference National play-off final (assuming the latter isn't deleted). --Jameboy (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say merge to Football Conference 2007-08#Playoffs and do the same for others. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a merge would be much more suitable. Dancarney (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that. I think that articles for matches is very dodgy territory: it invites a lot that is far more journalistic than encyclopaedic, the noteworthiness of a match is rather POV (winning the third round match is just as necessary for cup success as winning the final), and every professional match has multiple independent reports. Kevin McE (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo use in football articles

The original discussion posted here related to the proposed deletion of a number of national team football logos by User:Fasach Nua drifted away from here onto other pages and has recently been archived. The issue is not dead and has been inflamed by FN's stepping outside the bounds of the discussion he initiated by unilaterally deleting a number of football logos claiming they failed #8 at WP:nfc. (He's variously claimed failure for logos at #2 and #3 at points in the debate). You can follow the resulting discussion at my talk page, at FN's talk page (root through the history, he regularly whitewashes the page), and at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#These_Logos. The original discussion that appeared on this page is here.

Fasach Nua has made it clear that he is strongly opposed to the use of any non-free content, including logos. I am in my turn strongly opposed to that notion, specifically with respect to the use of logos. You should get a pretty clear sense of our respective positions from the links I've posted above.

So down to the nub of it. You are permitted the use of logos under the existing non-free content policy Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. It's not a right and it has to happen within the bounds of current policy and guidelines Wikipedia:Logos. This is further supported by consensus. The nature of this consensus is touched on here Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Why_does_this_page_exist and there is other relevant discussion on this page that should help capture some of the flavour of the debate.

Fasach Nua is trying to arbitrarily take that freedom away from you by aggressively pushing his no non-free content agenda based on a narrow and unsupportable interpretation of policy and guideline and disregard for concensus. Ultimately, if he gets his way that could mean stripping logos from all articles on sports clubs, or from any other article where you might legitimately see a logo displayed today. We've been duking it out in the various spaces identified above and now its come down to this attempt to delete a group of logos I've placed in articles on German football.

Whatever your view of the whole thing, its time to weigh in and express an opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_11. I don't have any doubt that if it goes his way, FN will take it as carte blanche to remove or block the use of team logos on other football pages. And then move on to some other pet point of policy.

The other aspect of this whole thing that I find disturbing is Fasach Nua's bullying approach to this and other issues, and his general disdain for other editors. There is another thread here about the rancor that some editors feel has crept into this project, making it a less pleasant place to be than it once was (review it above and check some of the related links). The type of pointy editing employed in this debate and in the mass tagging of noteable player sections as original research without any prior meaningful discussion is just the sort of thing that is contributing to the deteriorating atmosphere here. And yes, I understand the gross irony of what I've posted here, but I believe it is important to stand up to editors who are clearly disruptive and more interested in pushing their own POV than contributing in an effective and collegial manner. It is wrong to snipe at your fellows in this manner and it is sad to see good editors driven away or intimidated by this sort of thing. As a group the project members here have generally managed to work things out over time through discussion, experimentation, and trial and error - not through aggressive, non-collaborative editing practises, which should be opposed at every turn.

This is your space. Stick up for it and make it the best you can. Wiggy! (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of former Scottish Football League clubs

Following on from a point made at this article's PR, I would appreciate some wider discussion on two points:

1. Should those clubs currently in the SPL be on the list? They aren't currently members of the SFL, after all.
2. Should the 1965-2002 incarnation of Clydebank be included, even though legally and officially Airdrie United is the same club under a new name?

Thoughts please...... :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not to include Clydebank - Airdrie United is exactly the same club (in the same way that Meadowbank Thistle/Livingston and East Stirling/ES Clydebank are the same clubs). Regarding SPL clubs, have they retained some form of league membership to enable them to compete in the Scottish League Cup? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to rule 21.10 of their constitution membership is terminated as soon as a club gets promoted to the SPL. The League cup is open to members of the SFL and SPL (rule 27.2). josh (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A batch of templates nominated for deletion

I've just come across a batch of templates which have been nominated for deletion. Please comment over at the discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Allen (footballer)

Martin Allen's article has just been moved to include footballer in the name because someone has created an article on a writer. Should this really have been moved, or should the less significant writer just been linked with a hatnote? --Jimbo^[online] 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move. They are both about as notable as each other. There is no really predominant figure from a neutral point of view. It seems to be a run-of-the-mill move to me. Woody (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the move; however, all associated pages & templates etc. will have to be edited to match the move, so they link to the correct Martin Allen. GiantSnowman 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think two sentences really can't move the footballers article... And look at all the new unnecessary faulty links here ← chandler 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick run-through with AWB will fix the links. Laziness should never be a barrier to an article move. A two-line stub can become a full article soon enough. As I stated earlier, they are both seemingly notable in their own professions. Woody (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of the writer's article, Allen the footballer is far more notable. A totally unscientific jump into google brings up several other Martin Allens before the author. Dancarney (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the dab, it's not like Martin Allen the footballer is much known outside of football fans. Also fixed all the links. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{otherpeople|Martin Allen}} hatnote you added, because it's unnecessary thanks to the (footballer) disambiguation in the article title. This has been explained to you on your talk page before now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to MOSFLAG

FYI, changes are afoot at WP:MOSFLAG to add a caveat for sports people. Currently standing at -

Use of flags for sports people

There is widespread usage of flags in squads and lists of results. However flags should only be used where that person is representing a national team or country such as the Olympic games. Flag usage such as Delray Beach International Tennis Championships or using a national flag for Golf players at the US Open is incorrect as they are not representing a nation.

National teams

In sports where the national team in the highest level of competition such as Soccer or Rugby Union, flags are commonly used on club pages to indicate the players' national team. However this can be confusing as readers may assume the flag indicates the player was born in that country or has ties to it, sports such as Rugby league and players like Matt Gafa have loose requirement and so can declare for a chosen nation where there may be little prior ties. Flags should be replaced by links to national associations/federations such as Malta on clubs pages to indicate the national associations/federations associated with.

Feel free to join in the discussion there. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)