Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Simon Yauw speedy

This chap's been listed for speedy. Anyone know if he's made a significant appearance in Dutch football? --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to suggest he's played for the NEC "A1" team, but for all I know that could be the reserves........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A1 is the Under-18 team, see here [1]. --Angelo (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks nn to me. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedied, no evidence of notability whatsoever. --Angelo (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Robinson Delgado expired prod

I'm working my way down the list of expired prods and came across this one. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. --Angelo (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Campbell (soccer) expired prod

Can't find evidence of him having made an appearance in 1st team professional football in England, but I might have missed something. No idea re American. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not expired yet. It is set to expire in 11 hours. --Angelo (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's showing on the expired list which takes note only of date, not time. However, if it's speedy-worthy, it makes no odds. From an English football perspective, it looks like a speedy candidate, but I have no knowledge of football in the USA. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the article claims he played a key role in a 4-4 draw between Stockport and Hartlepool in April 2004, but no such match actually took place according to Soccerbase, so I'd be wary of the veracity of anything else in the article ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I assumed that was a youth or reserve game. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He's at Montrose according to this [2] but released here [3]. Can't find any reference of him playing a game in England, but made 5 appearances for Cincinatti[4][5]--Koncorde (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Montrose don't play in a fully pro league, so that doesn't add notability, so it would all appear to hinge on his time in the USA..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And Cincinatti don't seem to play in a fully pro league either..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much, but have no idea about US league structuring. Presume they aren't MLS but some kind of regional league similar to the NHL vs WHL.--Koncorde (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Raheem Alibhai

Any evidence of a first team start? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to suggest that he has played 16 games in Belgium, but since I don't have a subscription to that website, I couldn't tell you whether any of the clubs he's played for make him notable. – PeeJay 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Played this weekend Belgian Div 2 [6]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the prod, added that source which shows he's played at a otable level. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, thanks chaps. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

User:Mario1987: I brought this subject of this guy up before complaining about the bucketload of footballer bios hed created that assert no notability. He ignored all requests and advice blanking all but the Barnstars he had awarded himself. He just got blocked for sockpuppetry so its even more unlikely that he is going to improve the articles to a suitable standard. As has been pointed out by editors from German Wikipedia, some of his work is so inaccurate, incomplete and misleading that it is an emarrasment to English Wikipedia. I went through all the Argentine ones to put the facts straight and tidy them up a bit. There are hundreds of others that need some real work (or deleting to be recreated properly at a later date). He kindly left this User:Mario1987/Football players to help us follow up on his work. If nobody has attempted to fix them within a reasonable amount of time i will go through the lot and PROD the ones that assert no notability. Please let me know if anyone is keen to save them and keep me informed on what you are doing to improve the articles in question so I don't blitz stuff you're about to fix. English peasant 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the French players and hope to finish them soon. I'll probably be able to check some others as well. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - I've cleaned the list of players from France and Poland (7 Prods so far). Jogurney (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

England C national football team

The England national team for Semi-pro players...are said players notable seeing as they are playing international matches or not? GiantSnowman (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no also. If they were notable, they would be in the 1st team.--ClubOranje (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. They are still non-league players. England "C" is one of the biggest misnomers of recent times. - fchd (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would figure most qualify as they'll have made league appearances long before they appeared for England C a la Kevin Nicholson. However England C games would not automatically grant notability, even though there's obviously scope there.--Koncorde (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that most would have played league football. If anything I'd say the vast majority, certainly of current England C players, wouldn't have played league football ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, most do seem to have played in the league ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to think that the best in the "Conference" is usually the dross of the Championship divisions who've trickled down.--Koncorde (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Footy, maths and the English teams in the CL QFs

If you are in the mood to help me with my maths, or, like me, can't do Probabilities but would like to be able to, check out Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Probabilities_and_this_year.27s_Champions_League_quarter_finals --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was able to figure some of the questions out. I hope they are correct :)  ARTYOM  13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. Why couldn't our maths teachers have used problems like this? --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More articles than seats in the Emirates

If anyone's interested, and apologies if this has already been done, but I've puled off a flat listing of every article under Category:Football (soccer) - there are 65,838 of them! That's almost 3% of Wikipedia. Full list here (as of 10/11 March). (I would've posted it on the wiki but it seemed to balk at the size :)

Big love — sjorford++ 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet only "24396" are tagged with the FOOTY banner. Woody (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cricket WikiProject has a bot to do this, I think. The tricky part is the manual categorisation of each for quality and importance. When I was helping out with this task a couple of weeks ago, a big push got us to "D", lol! --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several that can do it I think, I know BCB can do it if he has a list of categories, I will start drawing up categories some time soon. Woody (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Already there: User:Sjorford/Footy categories — sjorford++ 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe 8008 in total, what are the chances of that. Nanonic (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uruguayan First Division Opening Tournament matches (2007-2008)

I've proposed Uruguayan First Division Opening Tournament matches (2007-2008) for deletion. Wikipedia isn't a results service, and I think this page is somewhat excessive. Any opinions would be welcome. Dancarney (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AFC Liverpool

I am presuming that this hasn't been mentioned yet (apologies if it has been brought up before), but according to the North West Counties Football League website, an as yet unformed club, AFC Liverpool, being set up in a similar way to FCUM by disgrunted Liverpool fans, have applied to join the leagues Second Division for the 2008-09 season. See NWCFL website and click on "So who's applied to join our league?". There is also an article entitled, "First FC United, now Old Boys eye Liverpool" confirming it in a local newspaper in Barrow-in-Furness where one of the teams they would play, Holker Old Boys F.C. are based. So just a heads up really in case an article appears about the club.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The NWC league site has AFC Liverpool under the heading of "Late applications are expected from" but my understanding is that there hasn't yet been an application. - fchd (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said it was in the "late applications". The article does go on to say, "With regard to AFC Liverpool, representatives from that organisation have been in contact with the League and we are hoping to have an update on their situation in the next week or two". Mentioning it though was more a matter of bringing it to the attention of the Footy project as it is likely someone will create an article about them sooner rather than later.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 1992-93

This new article needs some TLC... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I'm currently adding the first round results and will try to add the rest of them in later. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There, much better. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good work. Well done. I fear you're on an impossible task though, because half-a-dozen FA Cup seasons entries have emerged since of differing quality standards. Peanut4 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have finished expanding the FA Cup 2002-03 article - in view of the hours of work involved, I wouldn't want to tackle another year, although I might have a go at FA Cup 1975-76 one day. Good luck to anyone who wants to have a go at any of the other years. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C. (and other Welsh clubs playing in English football leagues)

In light of the recent news reports regarding the status of Cardiff City if they go on to win the FA Cup ([7]), I propose that all of the following be removed:

• Any references of "English club Cardiff City" or "Cardiff City (England)". It should be replaced by "Welsh club Cardiff City" or "Championship club Cardiff City"
• Any pairing of the English flag with Cardiff City. If any flag is used, it should be the Welsh flag .

This is because Cardiff City is under the jurisdiction of the FA of Wales, and is not allowed to represent England, and therefore is not a club that "fly the English flag". All the relevant authorities (FIFA, UEFA, English FA, Welsh FA) treat Cardiff City as a Welsh club, and it is only their ruling on this issue that matters. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: if they win the FA Cup, they will qualify for next year's UEFA Cup. Will the points they win there count for England or for Wales in the UEFA coefficients? Aecis^Brievenbus 18:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff City cannot qualify for European competitions via the English system. Same goes for Swansea, Wrexham, Newport, Merthyr Tydfil and Colwyn Bay. – PeeJay 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholly support your proposals Chanheigeorge. I hadn't realised they came under FAW jurisdiction until earlier this week. Bizarre set of events to me, but hey you learn something new every day.

And as per PeeJay2K3, I suggest your proposals are the same (or similar regarding division) to those other Welsh clubs in the English league. Peanut4 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- if Cardiff was eligible to qualify for Europe via England, I think they would have to fly the English flag (much like Derry City F.C. flies the ROI flag instead of Northern Ireland -- but in this case that situation does not apply. --Balerion (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree too. For the record I don't agree with using any flags with club names unless there's a very good reason, such as in an article covering a UEFA club competition. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any Scottish clubs playing in an English league? And if so, how should we list those clubs? And what about AS Monaco: should we call it a French club or a Monegasque club? Aecis^Brievenbus 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is an English club, Berwick Rangers F.C., that play in the Scottish league. I'm not sure if they're eligible to represent Scotland should they win a cup trophy. The case of AS Monaco FC is pretty clear, as they have represented France many many times, and should be under the jurisdiction of the French FA. And if you're interested in more cases, you can go to football clubs playing in the league of another country. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)AFAIK, AS Monaco are registered with the French Football Federation, so they should always have a French flag. This is corroborated by the fact that AS Monaco regularly compete in European competitions, having qualified through the French league or cup systems. I don't know about Scottish teams playing in England, but I do know that Berwick Rangers F.C. play in the Scottish league due to their proximity to the Scottish border. IIRC, they've never qualified for a continental competition, but if they did, they would probably fly the Scottish flag. – PeeJay 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we know of what the status of other clubs in similar situations, that which FA has jurisdiction over these clubs? Will Toronto F.C. represent the USA in CONCACAF Champions Cup if they win the MLS Cup? (I know that they do not play in the U.S. Open Cup) Or will the Wellington Phoenix be allowed to participate in the AFC Champions Cup? Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of criteria: I think the criterium should be where the club plays. In this case English football system, so England. --necronudist (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The pairing of Cardiff City with an English flag imply that they are a club representative of England, and this is obviously contrary of the facts. I would have no problem if it's paired with the Football League logo. Moreover, if your criteria is used, you'll get Toronto F.C. and Wellington Phoenix. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The flag used should be the one of the football association that the club is affiliated to, so Cardiff should use the Welsh flag. I don't know what association Toronto F.C. and Wellington Phoenix are affliated to, but whichever one it is, that's the flag they should use. – PeeJay 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Wellington Phoenix article, it appears that they're affiliated with New Zealand Football. I suspect Toronto F.C. is also affiliated with the Canadian Soccer Association, given that they do not enter the U.S. Open Cup. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then Wellington Phoenix should use the New Zealand flag, and Toronto F.C. should use the Canadian flag. – PeeJay 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAGS is clear on the issue: flags should be avoid in controversial cases that can cause some misleading. I think no flag should be featured next to Cardiff City in case they win a domestic cup such as the FA Cup. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres been another twist on this one. The FA are reviewing the rule. The likely result is that it will be recinded because UEFA have said they'll take action if the FA don't. josh (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say that. Michel Platini has said that the UEFA might allow Cardiff City in despite the English rules. This basically means that they are admitted as a neutral side, without affiliation. If this happens, should we add the EU flag to Cardiff City, or no flag at all? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Small side-comment about Berwick Rangers F.C.. There has recently been serious discussion and opinion-gathering going on in Berwick and the surrounding areas with regard to possibly moving the England/Scotland border to make Berwick (and therefore its Rangers F.C.) officially Scottish.[8][9]. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're making a simple issue pretty complicated here guys. Cardiff City is a Welsh-based team, therefore they get a Welsh flag, regardless of which league they're affiliated with. Wellington are a New Zealand-based side therefore they a a NZ flag. Same with Toronto, same with Berwick Rangers and any other side not in their nation's league. Normy 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. It appears that the majority of the opinions expressed here prefer Cardiff City get a Welsh flag. The same applies for any club playing in a foreign league. The exception will be AS Monaco FC, which is affiliated with the French FA (there isn't really a internationally recognized Monaco FA). However, if the FA changes the rule and allows Cardiff City to represent England if they ever win the FA Cup, in the pages of these European competitions, they will use the English flag, but this will only apply to those pages. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but, if they'll win the Premiership (a long way...) they wouldn't be allowed to represent England in the UEFA Champions League? They'd represent Wales, but Wales don't have any spot in the UEFA Champions League so they would enter the qualifyin' rounds also if they win the Premiership...? Quite weird... --necronudist (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if they win the Premiership, they would not be representing Wales 'cos the Welsh FA has made it clear the only way Cardiff City can represent Wales is to win a Welsh competition. They represented Wales many times during the old days when they were allowed to play in the Welsh FA Cup. If the English FA do not change their rules, then Cardiff City also cannot represent England no matter what English competition they are going to win 'cos the English FA do not consider them eligible. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam Russell (footballer)

This article is in desperate need of a cleanup. It's badly written, POV, doesn't cite any sources and probably has copyvios as well! Could anyone who knows a bit about the subject take a look? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it at the weekend (if nobody gets there first). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied it up as best I can. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, DK. I've added a few citations. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bundesliga (among others) season articles

Quick question. Why do some season-based articles have an infobox (A-League 2007-08 for example) while others have nothing (Premier League 2007-08) or a map of the country with the location of the participating teams (Fußball-Bundesliga 2007-08)? Personally I like the infobox. Gives you a quick reference to the relevant information regarding the league that season. Thoughts? Normy 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

José Mourinho

Requesting protection ASAP. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason Clive Lloyd

is this a candidate for afd there seems to be very little actual information contained with in, I nominated it for speedy deletion a while ago and it got rejected but not sure why.Skitzo (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the article notes that he has played international football! Not exactly an AfD candidate... пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't. The first reference in the article says as much. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He has.[10] пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just seen this on the AfD. Can it be added to the article to avoid further confusion? (Perhaps remove the reference that says he has not played any games too) Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, per AfD comments. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but although the FIFA reference refers to him as one of the Guyanese players, this doesn't necessarily mean that he has actually played a game for them – he could have been an unused squad member. Coupled with the reference that said he had not played any games it seems like an AfD candidate to me, but all is well now! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve "Turbo" Robinson

Is this really the WP:COMMONNAME of this player? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved to Steve Robinson (footballer born 1975) per the usual DAB convention. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Simon nelson is back

Hello project. nelson's back and making his usual loan edits, but more significantly he's now adding international goals sections to player's articles. For instance, he's made this edit to Joe Cole. A similar edit he made to Louis Saha appears to have been reverted by an anon editor. I've warned him (again) that his anti-MOS edits will result in a further block but I was interested in what the project thought of the "international goals" section he's adding. My feeling is that it's over the top... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they're relevant to the players who score them but by no means is it needed. Pele's article for instance would be chockers with an "international goals" section. Normy 10:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, way over the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

I struggle to see the issue at hand here. The MOS of style doesn't have it included, but that's not to say it excludes it automatically surely? If it's well presented information, relevant to the player then I don't see the problem. Pele or not. Really though a list of International goals such as Pele's would probably be worthy of a seperate wikipage, which obviously Coles don't really warrant.--Koncorde (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it borders on trivia. Player's significant achievements are mentioned in the prose, their overall record is recorded in the infobox, this is another thin end of the wedge, what next, every international appearance? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some bios have them, some don't. I personally like them, but I can see the other side of the coin, that they could get long and unwieldy and trivia-like. Particularly on the latter, if the goals are important they will be in the article itself. As for the Football Bio template I think it could do with something of an overhaul, maybe using FAs Thierry Henry or Gilberto Silva as a guide. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how they're trivia. I think if they were picking and choosing the goals to list, or just randomly listing goals in the Champions league, or only goals against Man Utd then it'd be trivia. However for a player biography I don't see the problem - unless, as previously stated, we're on about people who have scored so many goals as to take over their entire article. In those cases a seperate stub would probably be better (and indeed I think, quite sadly I know, a topic on the International goals of Jurgen Klinsmann would be quite interesting :D). I think, like with the detailed season records that some players have and some don't, providing they are up to date, relevant to the person and accurate then they're suitable for a players page. For a vague comparison the records of Tennis players have infinitely more such information to no apparent detriment of the article.--Koncorde (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That tennis analogy is a good one. I'm sure there are probably others, golf for one would spring to mind. Peanut4 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Championship club in Europe?

Sorry to spam the project like this, but I need to settle an argument. My dad is a Barnsley fan and was wondering if they would be the first Championship club to play in Europe if they win the FA Cup this season. I find it unlikely that no clubs outside of the top division have played in Europe before, but can't think of any specific examples. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 11:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look for English clubs only,I can remember Millwall in 2004 when they lost to Man Utd in the FA Cup final. But there have been more clubs, I guess. -Lemmy- (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich Town have too. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, can't believe I forgot about Millwall... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And back in the days when it was still "Division Two", West Ham United in 1980-81. - fchd (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about other countries in Europe? I recall Alemannia Aachen and Union Berlin in Germany. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

These ones were the first ones on my mind. I can recall Hannover 96 (they even won the cup) as well. I think that must it for Germany's participants. -Lemmy- (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for a List of lower league association football clubs qualifying for European football competitions? Aecis^Brievenbus 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fulham might manage it too next season. They're currently top of the Fair Play league and England look like getting an extra UEFA place because of their fair play record. Peanut4 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But Fulham play in the Premier League.Even when they get relegated they qualified as a EPL team. -Lemmy- (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich also qualified as PL but played in Europe as a second tier team. Peanut4 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hapoel Ramat Gan played in Europe whilst in the Israeli second division (as cup winners). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The RSSSF (as may be expected) have some details on this type of stuff (here), but isn't this sort of listing really trivia and not encyclopaedic content? - fchd (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Peanut4 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gretna and Dunfermline have both recently qualified as Scottish Cup runners-up. •Oranje•·Talk 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the article Aecis mentioned? Can we create it? But we have to appoint some rules such as "qualification earned in a lower tier", "qualification earned in the first and played in the second tier", just for an example. -Lemmy- (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out by fchd above, I think it's trivia to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that. And just as trivia, the RSSSF link seems to be missing Kalmar FF in the first list as they played in the Cup Winners' Cup 1987-88 while being a third tier team (they qualified by winning the domestic cup as a second tier team but were relegated the same season). – Elisson • T • C • 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely trivia. I wasn't suggesting that we should create an article! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 1888-89 Qualifying Rounds

What are everyones thoughts on this type of article? Does it deserve its own article, should it be merged with FA Cup 1888-89 or should it just be deleted? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The current season has its own qualifying rounds entry, so in principle I don't see why we can't have one for 1888-89. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To merge FA Cup 1888-89 Qualifying Rounds and FA Cup 1888-89 while FA Cup 2007-08 Qualifying Rounds and FA Cup 2007-08 remain separate would probably class as recentist. – PeeJay 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe I haven't made myself clear, I'm certainly not a recentist. I wasn't referring solely to this article, it's just an example. My point is, should FA Cup season articles in general (and other cups for that matter) have separate articles for the qualifying rounds or should it be merged to the main article, or just omitted? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that, as long as the information is available and accurate, it should be included as a separate article. Normally, I would say that the articles should be merged, but since the qualifying rounds and rounds proper each make up a substantial article on their own, to combine them would make the resulting article much too big. – PeeJay 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Conor Grant

He's been a benchman or crossed the whitewash? --Dweller (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has yet to make an appearance according to the Greta F.C. website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See AfD here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured list of players

See the following two discussions, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks players/archive3 and Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1 regarding List of X F.C. players, which suggest there could be something of a disagreement about all the featured lists of a clubs' players. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to remind people that it is NOT a vote. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but couldn't we just change the names of all the lists to something like List of players who have made over 100 appearances for X F.C. (only more snappy)? Given that this was the criterion under which the lists were successfully promoted to FL, essentially nothing would have changed except the title more accurately reflecting the content.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer if the lists were updated to include all players, if the page needs to be 100K long, or split in two, then so be it. Presently, the lists fail FL critera 1b which says ""Comprehensive" meaning that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" With a title like "List of ____ players" one would expect it to include most of the players who have been on the team. So a title change ould be an acceptable way to meet the criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against this. Surely that is what categories are for. It is common for clubs to have existed for more than a century, in the case of the club I support nearly 1100 players have played in professional first team matches. It is far more useful to the reader to have the form of list we have now than have a series of lists for A-E or 1887-1930 or whatever. Leave the one game wonders to the category. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose if we do go down the line of making lists of all players we'd have to do "List of X.F.C. players whose surname begins with A", "List of X.F.C. players whose surname begins with B" or somesuch variant to split them. Swindon Town have had exactly 1,110 players on their books since 1879 including loans and wartime guests, only 175 are in the article List of Swindon Town F.C. players using the existing scope. A full list would probably be rejected for just including every article in the category "X.F.C. players". Foxhill (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if listing every player is so impractical, then the pages should be renamed. And in my opinion, list articles are much better than categories because categories don't include players with without articles, and don't give any information or statistics. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1913 FA Cup Final

This article is a right mess and seems to have been copied and pasted in from two or three other web pages. Does anyone fancy copy-editing it and generally putting it into an acceptable format? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Football: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 22 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Goffs Gremlins F.C.

Sunday league side article created today. Should articles such as these be put forward for speedy deletion?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If they don't assert notability then yes, and I've deleted that one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Player categories

I was wondering about these player categories. I looked at the Arsenal F.C. players category and it says This category is for footballers who are or were on the books of Arsenal (or Royal Arsenal or Woolwich Arsenal, as the club used to be known). They do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club, though. But how many players is that? And shouldn't it be changed to players that have actually played for Arsenal? I am not sure what it is like across the range. But in the Tottenham one it's past and present players. I assumed you have to actually play for the club before joining the category. Not just be on the books. I am not sure what the norm is across the range. Maybe someone can fill me in. Govvy (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always interpreted Template F.C. players as meaning the same as the Arsenal category makes explicit, i.e Template F.C. players, not specifically first-team players. Specifically, Category:Birmingham City F.C. players says "players past and present", but I've always included former youth-team players who left without playing first-team football for the club, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure this was discussed a while back and the consensus was that being on the books of a club is enough to merit inclusion in the category. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that can be classed, but seems over slightly over the top. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IFA Supporters League

Just wanted to check, what kind of coverage do teams and players in this league get? Some articles seem to exist Burnley FC Supporters Team, (Martyn robinson deleted). Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Burnley FC Supporters Team seems very non-notable to me. It's a candidate for PRODding, never mind AfD to me. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of some articles seeming to exist, the article linked to above about the Burnley fans team was only created about four hours ago and seems non-notable.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On that score I've prodded it. Peanut4 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Football is to try to find time to review Lancia LC2 and Ottawa Senators. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Creswick

I thinking about creating an article about Nathaniel Creswick. For those not in the know he founded Sheffield F.C. alongside William Prest. They also wrote the first Sheffield Rules together. He was also remained one the most formative members during the early years. He was also knighted for services to the volunteer movement. Rather than creating it and risking a AFD I thought i'd get a consensus of whether hes notable enough on here first. Any comments appreciated. josh (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if William Prest is notable enough for an article, and Creswick was as influential as Prest was, I'd be wondering why there wasn't an article about him already. – PeeJay 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

William Prest already achieved notability due to playing for and captaining Yorkshire in cricket. The club was Creswick's only notable achievement (unless establishing a local volunteer movement also counts). josh (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of Prest's other achievements, but I'd still say that Creswick is notable enough for his own article, as one of the men who drafted the earliest recognisable rules of football and the co-founder of the world's oldest football club. – PeeJay 21:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'd support such an article as an important figure in the history of football. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I created an artilce for Jack Humble even though he never played a major first-team game for Arsenal, he was notable enough; being a founder of one of the oldest clubs and contributing to the Sheffield Rules makes Creswick even more so. Go ahead. Qwghlm (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I thought it should be okay but just wanted to make sure. I've now created the article. josh (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Segunda División 2007/2008 (Spain)

If the WikiProject Football supports all Association Football articles (such as the Segunda División or Liga BBVA) could you please state of the discussion page of the Segunda División - 2007-08 that the WikiProject Football supports this article? Thank you! Qampunen (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BUSA Football League

A newish and unsourced article about a football league system for UK universities and colleges. Is it a notable league? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, I can't see there being too much coverage of it outside that written in internal student newspapers. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the BUSA Championships are sponsored by the Daily Telegraph, so they probably get a fair bit of coverage in there, even if it's only in the results column. – PeeJay 10:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What's notability got to do with presenting information on a league structure that exists?--Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it's at least as notable as some of the lesser pyramid leagues that we do include, so I'm in favour of keeping expanding and keeping it. - fchd (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the league itself is notable, but the teams contained within probably do not warrant their own articles outside of that for the university as a whole. Dancarney (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD/TfD

Does anyone here actually pay attention to any deletion discussions other than AfDs? In the last couple of weeks, I've submitted a couple of categories and templates, and even a redirect or two for deletion, but I barely got a single reply for the lot of them put together. I realise that the articles on here are what make the encyclopaedia, but it would be very helpful if we could get some input on the categories and templates too. – PeeJay 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? – PeeJay 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rate

• Could somebody rate this page - Giourkas Seitaridis. The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the article's current rating. The content of the page is limited, and could use a buttload more references. It's not good enough for B-class yet, so Start-class seems appropriate. – PeeJay 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• More references were..???,a reference that he wears the number 2...that he Greek...??. The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are several PoV issues; e.g. "after showing great ability", "one of the few youngsters who shone", "he did not like the weather and football style" etc. The second sentence of the Club Career section is 83 words long! Who commented that "he was the player of the (Euro 2004) tournament"? Until these issues are addressed the article will never be more than Start-class. If you don't agree, put it up for peer review. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Appending a link to our project tag

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Suggested_addition_to_the_WikiProject_tag. I wonder if a similar link to WP:FOOTYN would be a useful addition to this WikiProject's tag? --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ofori Sarkodie

International U20 - looks a speedy candidate to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1948-49 English Champions

Very odd title. Should be merged into Portsmouth (F.C.!)'s article, ja? - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition season articles

What is the project's view on articles on the individual seasons of leagues such as the Southern Football League? On my travels around the bowels of Category:Football (soccer), I discovered several articles like that, including Southern Football League Division One South & West 2006-07, and I wondered whether or not there is actually a need to keep a season-by-season record of leagues at Step 4 of the national league system. Personally, I think that the Conference National is the very lowest level of football in England that deserves season-by-season articles, and that any below that should probably be deleted. Thoughts? – PeeJay 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile, but only in the format of Southern Football League 2006-07, covering all three divisions of the Southern League (as with The Football League 2006-07), as there is no need for articles for separate divisions within the same league. I have just starting converting the post-2004 Conference season articles to include the North and South (I did Football Conference 2004-05 earlier today). I was even considering starting Eastern Counties Football League season-by-season articles! пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would perhaps be OK. I'll just go back to my recategorising of football articles then =] – PeeJay 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is below the divisions listed in the above topic I reckon aren't noteworthy. Normy 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jersey drawings

My club has announced the new jersey design for the away and third jersey here. As the design is not included in the kit who knows where I can ask for someone to draw them? Or can anybody here draw them? Help is much appreciated! -Lemmy- (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody know where I can ask for a drawing at least? -Lemmy- (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the skills to do it, but I am absolutely full of work, so I don't really have the time to do it. Try asking to the Graphic Lab. --Angelo (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed (I'm not football-grounded) - fouls by Samyperron

I've already seen that at least three series of edits by Samyperron are "too good to be true", (e.g. Raúl González, Andrés D'Alessandro‎), but I'm unsure enough not to revert wholesale all their changes. Can you check the remainder? Thanks. Shenme (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All of Samyperron's edits were 'misguided' at best, vandalism at worse, and all seem to have been reverted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Gillingham F.C. players

Please could I invite a few more people to chip in to the debate about the naming of this article? Basically, because of the attempt to de-feature the Arsenal equivalent due to it not containing every player that's ever played for the club, I was attempting to move the Gills list to a new title which specified the 100 apps criteria and then create new list article(s) covering those players with less apps (which I've currently got almost fully formed in my sandbox). So far the move request has been unanimously opposed, either on the grounds that the list is OK as it is and the FL criteria people should lump it, or that I should add all the other players into this one list. As the former course of action would probably result in the people who want to de-feature the Arsenal list getting on to this one next and the latter would create an article of nearly 150KB (unacceptable per WP:LENGTH) I'd prefer to take a different approach - what do people think....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the name. Write a forked article which is List of Gillingham F.C. players with less than 100 appearances and add them in there, linking back to the main article. See List of Medal of Honor recipients (currently FLC) for further on-going debate! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's mission

It seems that David Gerard has decided to add the no-free-image picture to nearly every article on my watchlist in first name alpha-order. Personally I think the pic is rubbish and adds nothing to the articles involved. It is still clear that we have no picture of the player if there is simply no picture on the article. I was thinking that if people agree with his mission, wouldn't it be easier to make the infobox default display the no-free-image picture if the image parameter is left empty, thus saving him tens of thousands of edits. If we don't want this image on virtually every footy-bio, perhaps we could invite him to discuss the issue with us before he adds it to any more footballers, or at least mark his edits as minor so that I can easily ignore them. Any comments? English peasant 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate those no-image pictures, it only encourages naive users to upload copyvios to replace them. I'm more than happy to get rid of them. Qwghlm (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate them too. Let's face it, we're unlikely to ever have a free image for hundreds of the players who have articles - I mean, what are the odds that someone happens to have a free picture of Alec Farrall or Andy Arnott stashed away? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he has too much time on his hands, but according to his userpage he has a wife and a girlfriend, so I'm not sure how that can be... - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, let's not get personal here. Getting back on-topic - does anyone have an easy way of getting rid of these images easily or is it going to be done the hard way? Qwghlm (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for personal attacks, no matter how "slight". I see that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon have notified him that his edits are potentially a waste of energy, has anyone here done the same? As Chris says, we have quite a few articles where it's unlikely that a free image is likely to pop into existence... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. These things tend to go one photographer at a time - lots of placeholder requests gets someone who has a lotta snapshots. e.g. professional sports photographers putting their seconds up on Commons as GFDL in the US - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working from home for a week, which means I'm paid to play with my baby daughter and answer the phone ;-) Glancing over the wikitext and clicking the big green button in AWB is easy to do as long as the kid doesn't try to rip the keys off the laptop - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the personal comments are a little out of order, I just wanted to get some community feedback before I left him this message after I had my tea. English peasant 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above. Only one page that has been edited thus was on my watchlist, which I'd already reverted before reading the discussion here. - fchd (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, he's done 7 more on my watchlist since I politely asked him to stop. I don't really want to point him here now because of the rude comments above. Any suggestions? English peasant 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered that it seemed to be from conjecture rather than numbers and asked for substantiation. Thanks to someone else for finally providing the asked-for link - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I find those pictures hugely annoying especially when they're in your face right at the top. I find they only get replaced by pictures in breach of copyright anyway. However, looking at his talk page, he seems to think they're a good idea. So I don't think we will change his mind. Peanut4 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that there is little value in these edits. It is a minor annoyance (I have many footballer articles on my watchlist these edits are filling my watchlist), but I'm worried that it will encourage copyvio uploads. Jogurney (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Worrying that asking for participation will encourage bad participation, and then gathering up a bunch of people to actively discourage participation, is ... greatly missing the point of a wiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Images that are uploaded through the attached upload system land at Category:Images_of_people_replacing_placeholders where rather a lot of them get zaped ({{subst:nsd}} it is you friend). Those that survive initial review land in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders.Geni 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, so "oh noes it will flood our wikiproject with copyvios" is not in fact an objection with any substance? - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone uses the upload system but the problem should be reduced somewhat.Geni 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm working on gathering up-to-date numbers on the effectiveness of the placeholders in securing images. I'll get back to you - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I hate those non-images too. I'd get rid of them and ban them from Wikipedia if I could. -- Alexf⁴² 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Argentine footballers

I think I've added an infobox to virtually every article in Category:Argentine footballers that didn't already have one. If you ever come across an argentine player that hasn't got one feel free to list it here. Cheers English peasant 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Blackpool F.C. have today signed a player from Spurs on loan until the end of the season, Joe Martin who is part of the Spurs reserves set up. As can be seen there is no article for him as yet. He has played for England at Under 16 and Under 17 level apparently (taken from his profile at the official Spurs website). My question is, should the article be created for him yet (which is currently redlinked) or not? Or should it be left for now and wait and see if he does play in a game for Blackpool? There are only 6 games left this season and he might not even play I suppose. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the article should wait until he's made an appearance in Blackpools' first team. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And according to the advice I was given when I raised the issue of squad members who have made no professional appearance and therefore do not have an article, his name should appear in black text rather than as a redlink. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was loathe to create the article just because he has signed on loan, especially when he might not even play in a game. Once and if he does play it can be created then. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alloa Athletic F.C.

Hi there

I have just been looking at this page and I feel that the page needs a tidy up. Now I would do it but since it is regarding Alloa Athletic it would be better for someone else to do it as I am a Stirling Albion fan and I do not want to start a edit conflict, so could some one have a look especially at the Loyal fan section. Thanks Gorillamusic (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "loyal fans" section was pure vandalism, so I have removed it completely ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. •Oranje•·Talk 12:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Again I wasn't want to edit it because I have had problems before with Alloa fans. I will keep an eye on it. Gorillamusic (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Progression of British football transfer fee record

This article says that "The earliest recorded transfer fee record was the £520 paid by Sunderland in (June) 1904 for Alf Common." I am researching to create an article on the Scotland international Andrew McCombie. Two references [11][12] I have found state that "In January 1904, Newcastle United broke the World Record Transfer Fee when they paid Sunderland £700 for Andrew McCombie." Can any one shed any light on this? Cheers.--Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would replace the claim with the McCombie one - the latter is cited in many places, but the £520 is not - it is often incorrectly stated to have been in 1902. (link commented out as it was tripping the spam blacklist for some reason.Oldelpaso (talk)) - which would have been a record then, but not in June 1904. Qwghlm (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bondz Ngala

Looking at this article shouts AFD to me. Same with Zavon Hines. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ngala fails WP:BIO, while Hines played for Coventry today, so he now passes. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the Bondz Ngala article just for the name...nah, AfD. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Current squads

I think the time has come to fix the many problems with current squads and current squad templates. The main problem is that most editors update either/or, meaning that the current squad and the squad navboxes are often at odds. The other main problem is that every time a player gets transferred, you nearly always have to make at least 5 edits: update player article, take out of old current squad, take out of old navbox, put into new current squad, put into new navbox.

I think the best solution to these problems is to combine the two things into one template that displays differently, so that

{{Templeton current squad}} displays something exactly like the current squad navboxes we use at present for use on player articles, and {{Templeton current squad|main article}} displays a template that looks similar to the current squad layout we use at present on the club article. We would need to include additional parameters for the "last updated" hatnote etc. Each player would only have to have his details logged once as something like:

{{CS player|no=1|nat=Templetonia|name=Tommy Temple|shirtname=Temple|pos=GK}}

As well as cutting out the whole problem of the navbox and current squad getting out of sync by storing all the details together, I think this approach would save people that update a lot of football articles a serious load of edits during the transfer window chaos, by cutting down the number of necessary edits per transfer from 5 to 3. With the ever increasing number of teams including current squad info and navboxes for their player articles, this 40% cut in edit numbers would surely pay off.

I have a fairly good picture of how the template would work, but I have no idea how to make templates display differently in different circumstances. If anyone can offer me any advice or help in designing a prototype I would be very grateful. English peasant 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I agree that this would save a lot of edit time, and would reconcile the navbox and the article section (which are often out of sync). Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to make the same template display differently on a player article and a team article. Anyone have an idea? Jogurney (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After giving this some more thought, I imagine the "birth date and age" template may provide a solution. The author of that template used the "df" (dateformat) parameter to make the template display differently on different articles. Perhaps there is a way to add a parameter playerarticle=yes (or no), to accomplish the same here? Jogurney (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, but probably better to have the club article require the additional parameter, only being one of them compared to multiple player articles. I'll look into it tomorrow after other people have had time to comment and contribute ideas. English peasant 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilsons Cup

Although I have tagged this article for deletion under CSD:G3, I have a feeling it's a bit of a tenuous nomination and that some admin will probably come along and untag it soon enough. Nevertheless, I wondered if any of the admins from here at WP:FOOTY would help to hurry this article through the speedy deletion process. – PeeJay 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Raphael Mazzucco

Does anyone at this project have any information that could be added to Raphael Mazzucco to explain his professional soccer career.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

He played for Vancouver Whitecaps 1984. played as a centre forward, wore number 19, played 1 game, scored 1 goal. Known then as "Ralph" Mazzucco - I guess "Raphael" was more suitable to the world of glamour photography! --ClubOranje (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Record attendances

I have been trying to fully reference Record attendances of English football clubs, however, in two cases a club's highest "home" attendance did not occur at their usual home ground. Arsenal played a couple of Champions League matches at Wembley, and Accrington Stanley played an FA Cup tie at Ewood Park. Should these be included in the table, or should only matches at a club's home ground be counted? I intend to clarify it in the text either way. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the table, i see Manchester United's attendance is at Maine Road. Although they played there during the rebuiding of Old Trafford, shouldn't the attendance be from Old Trafford, as it is their home ground. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If they were designated home matches by the relevant competition organisers, and in a first-class competition, then they should be counted regardless of venue. Bias should not be in favcur of a team's current home ground if they played some matches elsewhere. Exception and unusual matches can always be clarified in footnotes, in any case. Qwghlm (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Personally, I'd stick to all home games, irrespective of where they were played, not home games at certain grounds. Particularly as that's what the title suggests. Otherwise it should be Record attendances of English football clubs at their home ground. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Q and Peanut, on grounds (pardon the pun) that it is record attendances of clubs that you are recording, but perhaps it needs a section, or even an article, for record attendances at football league grounds. Kevin McE (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about changing the name of the article to Record home attendances of English football clubs. Seems a bit more precise to me. – PeeJay 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now on peer review. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jamaica national football team

A friend and I have been making efforts to this page to make it respectable, how can I get it on the queue for review ? Krayziegunts (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

League navigation templates

It's coming to the time of year when promotions and relegations are confirmed, frequently some weeks before the end of the season. After Derby's relegation, an IP changed the Template:Premier League teamlist by removing Derby and changing it to 08-09. What should we do about this? As I recall last year we kept the lists as they were until the season was completed, but added asterisks saying "so-and-so has been relegated/promoted". To me, this overcomplicates what should be a simple navigation box. However, if we don't use it, we'll get edits like that constantly until the season finishes. So, what should we do? HornetMike (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the asterisks are probably the best idea. It may overcomplicate things, but it's a small price to pay for a bit of calm. – PeeJay 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Derby County are still a Premier League team. For a start they have six Premier League games to play. I'd leave them all as they are, without any annotations, until after the play-offs. Peanut4 (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a date on which,officially, promotions and relegations take effect. I think that for England it might be 1st June. Derby remain a Prem league team until that date, and I would suggest a remmed out note in the template telling editors not to make any changes before that date. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup

I would like this article to be at good status at least, what can be improved to achieve this?  ARTYOM  13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon the tournament summary could probably do with an overhaul, as User:SuperSonicx1986 would take great delight in telling us. There's probably a few statements in there that could use a reference too. – PeeJay 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a quick look suggests that he actually added some pretty good prose (besides the other massive changes he made) [13]. Why was it not kept?  ARTYOM  14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably because of the rest of that diff. I suggest that the tournament summary he put in be used, but none of the rest of that edit. – PeeJay 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that for the group stages we make a table similar to the one used for the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) group stages? Just makes things look a little neater. Normy 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Since each team only plays each other team once in the group stage of the World Cup, using such a table would mean that either results get duplicated or you get an ugly table with only half of the squares filled in. – PeeJay 12:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough about the table but then the results look a little out of place and lacking detail just like that when you compare them to the later matches such as the finals. May I suggest that the goal scorers get added back in similar to the round 16, QFs, SFs etc.? Normy 12:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the match summaries/goalscorers of round 1 should be added back. Every World Cup page contains all the match summaries except the 2006 article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If we put the match summaries back into the main article, what is the point in having sub-articles for each group? If anything, we should work on a way to remove the match summaries from the knockout stage of the 2006 World Cup, and then progress to the previous tournaments. – PeeJay 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Knockout stage summaries should still be kept no matter what, IMO.  ARTYOM  18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see the point of having sub-pages for each group. There are only six matches for each group, hardly a large number. Adding the summaries back to the main page won't increase the size of the article much. And the Wikipedia page of every international tournament contains the match summary of every match bar this one. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Fantastic Five

While on my travels searching for the former Oxford United manager Arthur Turner (footballer born 1909) i found that there were a further 4 Arthur Turners, each named differently:

• Arthur Turner (1877-1925)
• Arthur Turner (amateur footballer)
• Arthur Turner (football manager - Tottenham)
• Arthur Turner (football manager)

How should these all be renamed so that they follow the same pattern. I'm guessing it may be by footballer born xxxx. Suggestions? Eddie6705 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say how the last three should be renamed since I can't find any birth years for them, but Arthur Turner (1877-1925) should certainly be renamed Arthur Turner (footballer born 1877). – PeeJay 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently created the stub article for *Arthur Turner (football manager - Tottenham). As he was never a player I used football manager and added the club name as there was already an article of that name. So footballer would not be appropriate and as the THFC Arthur only ever served this one club it would seem the most appropriate suffix. To be honest I have not got a dob and wonder how much utility that would provide, anyway. Tmol42 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Arthur Turner (1877-1925) was originally Arthur Turner (footballer born 1877), but was moved to its current name by User:Chanheigeorge with the edit summary "use both birth and death years". I personally think the original name was better. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree with moving the 1877-born player Arthur Turner (footballer born 1877). I would keep the amateur footballer where it is unless a DoB can be found, as he appears to be the only amateur player in the list. As there is no proof either played at the top level and each manager was only in charge of one club, I would move the managers to Arthur Turner (Tottenham Hotspur manager) and Arthur Turner (Norwich City manager) respectively, as both titles would make more sense at first view. Qwghlm (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would go one further and suggest Arthur Turner (Tottenham Hotspur F.C. manager) and Arthur Turner (Norwich City F.C. manager). I don't know if there are any other sports clubs called Tottenham Hotspur or Norwich City, but it's probably best to make it plain that we're talking about football. – PeeJay 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I would put my vote to to Arthur Turner (Tottenham Hotspur manager) and Arthur Turner (Norwich City manager). Neither team name is in use elsewhere . If we need to define further I would add 'football' ahead of manager. The term football manager is already being used as a naming convention for this group.Tmol42 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • To complicate things further, there is another Arthur Turner. Football League Players' Records 1888 - 1939 states he was born in Plymouth, but not date of birth is given. So my best bet on the naming of this is Arthur Turner (footballer from Plymouth). Mattythewhite (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • You've missed another one - Arthur Alexander Turner, born 1922, Centre forward with Colchester in the 1950s. As for the managers, I agree with Qwghlm; i.e. Arthur Turner (Tottenham Hotspur manager) and Arthur Turner (Norwich City manager) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for moving Arthur Turner (footballer born 1877) to Arthur Turner (1877-1925). That was a while back but now I think the first title is better. As for the Olympic gold medalist, why not just call him Arthur Turner (1900 Olympics footballer) or something similar, since that's what he's notable for. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Football at the Summer Olympics

Some editions are really good articles, others are nothing much than a stub (see Football at the 1960 Summer Olympics)... Shouldn't Football Olympics articles be improved? --necronudist (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so, and I'm currently working on squad lists, like this one:Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Men's team squads.Feel free to help me!--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen. :-) But as you know, I'm really busy. I just noticed that some articles are stubs and I wanted to put the focus on this. However, sure I'll help! P.S.: Shouldn't be better to have a template for Olympic rosters? Working with those tables is really a mess. --necronudist (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I will create soon a template for Olympic rosters!--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on infoboxes

Under the "teams managed" sections of infoboxes, should non-management roles be included, e.g. assistant manager, coach, goalkeeping coach, etc? My own view is no, but I've noticed a few have them in, and today Steve Staunton's was changed to include Leeds United assistant manager. Peanut4 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - assistants/coaching staff do not belong in there, only managers (including caretakers IMO). The exception might be someone whose job title is "Head coach" but who is clearly in charge of the first team. --Jameboy (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree about the head coach bit too. Peanut4 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both - IMO only the full management (inc. caretaker) roles should go in the infobox; not coach (except "head coach"), assistant manager or director of football. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What about in the 'current club' position with the non-playing position in brackets, e.g., Leeds United (Asst Mgr)? I've used this in conjunction with adding (Retired) after a player's playing position. •Oranje•·Talk 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I started the (retired) thing, but I know some people don't use/like it. I usually only add non-playing roles to the current club field if they are a manager, assistant manager or coach, but if the consensus is to only include the current club (if applicable), then I'm happy to take them out. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to change the infobox template to add currentrole. I don't particularly like the (retired) bit, when used in position section, partly because it's strictly not a position. Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Skinner

User:23skidoo has moved Justin Skinner (footballer born 1972) to Justin Skinner (football player) claiming that "it is improper format to use the disambiguation (footballer born 1972)". I know of no other association football player whose page is disambiguated using "(football player)" - what do people think.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, he's moved it back..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a query on User:23skidoo's talk page and this was his response --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)-

There are actually two issues here. One is whether to use the term "footballer" which may be seen as a localized term (which are frowned upon) or "football player" which of course could be confused with American/Canadian football; this being an American-based website, it would be correct to use the term "soccer player" and possibly preferred for this reason. The second issue is in using the year of birth in the title -- just because it's used by a number of articles doesn't make it correct under MoS. But as I say I need to check this out. The fact we have 2 football players with the same name complicates matters. 23skidoo (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"...this being an American-based website, it would be correct to use the term "soccer player"...".... shakes head, starts whimpering... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to think what he'd make of all the Lee Martins..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but the sad fact is there is football -- the game from Britain and other countries and the World Cup ... and there is football with the weird-shaped ball and guys with nicknames like "The Refrigerator". It's not my opinion which is the more correct -- to be blunt I dislike both sports equally ;-) -- however it just seems that in cases of WP:BLP and WP:NFCC and everything else, it seems that the general consensus is to base things upon the home base of Wikipedia, which happens to be the United States. But in any regard, this goes away from the issue of properly labelling articles, especially when you have two people in the same field. Do we include the year of birth, or do we make it more specific such as "Justin Skinner (INSERT TEAM NAME player)"? That was the sole reason for my move earlier, not the matter of semantics regarding "footballer" or "football player" or "tiddlywink champion". 23skidoo (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Skinner has played for six different teams, so which one would we use in the article name if we had to follow that route.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the use of football or soccer, WP:ENGVAR says "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others.", and specifically, that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." As to the disambiguator, players move teams on a fairly regular basis; year of birth is stable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"...it seems that the general consensus is to base things upon the home base of Wikipedia, which happens to be the United States...." - Not at all. Both policies you note are related to legal issues and as such would obviously relate to the locale of the servers. The same geographical logic most definitely does not follow for naming articles. Adding the year of birth is the de facto standard in this situations. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"this being an American-based website" and "the general consensus is to base things upon the home base of Wikipedia, which happens to be the United States", nothing to add really other than more head shaking. Oh and sighing. And there was me thinking this was the "English language Wikipedia" not USA, USA, USA. :) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

European Golden Shoe current count

Does anyone know if the UEFA keeps an official count (online) of the current season's European Golden Shoe? JACOPLANE • 2008-03-31 20:47

UEFA doesn't, but the European Sports Magazines website does (here). – PeeJay 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford United Fans

I am currently working on the list of Oxford United F.C. managers page and was wondering if any one has a free image of one of the managers included on the list, ideally Maurice Evans, Jim Smith or Darren Patterson. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Eddie6705 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's always this one...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh thanks. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Norwich City F.C.

the next step towards what will hopefully be another footy FT is now at Peer Review. Criticism welcomed. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bundesliga Match reports

Does anyone know a site that provides Bundesliga match reports in English? ESPN seems to have cancelled it completely, I'm afraid. Maybe a site which stores the reports and doesn't delete it after a month. Thanks in advance! -Lemmy- (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Try www.kicker.de. I believe they have match reports archived for the past few seasons. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help but searched for an English speaking site. Or have I overseen an English button on kicker.de ? -Lemmy- (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your question very carefully. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else knows a source? -Lemmy- (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculated transfers

Is there a policy about including/not including speculated transfers into a player's article? There is a small editwar going about a possible transfer of Márcio Rafael Ferreira de Souza to Liverpool. I don't think that rumors about a transfer belong into an article even if they are cited with a source, but I would like to know how this is usually handled. --Jaellee (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it unless it comes directly from the clubs involved, virtually all transfer speculation originates in the press which could be used as an external link. If the club doesn't make an official announcement that they have signed a player, I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article. English peasant 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the rumour is present in enough sources, I would usually say that it's worth including in a player's article, although special care should be taken to ensure that people know that it is a rumour. In this case, I've heard about this rumour from a number of sources, so I'd say it's worth including. – PeeJay 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay, I have read it in numerous sources, also Benitez has commented on the player. Seems much more substantial than a rumour. The language at the minute is clear that he as yet is not a Liverpool player but that the player and Benitez want him at Liverpool. Language could be worked on a further sources added.Londo06 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If the source quotes the manager of the club talking about wanting to sign the player, or states that the club has announced that the player will join the team in July (or whatever date), it would be better than the pathetic bunch of unsourced rumours I revert every time I look at my watchlist. I still think it needs to come from an official source though, links citing the Daily Mirror as their source probably dont count as reliable sources English peasant 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this one's on Sky Sports' website. – PeeJay 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That one is almost word for word the same as the one the IP editor keeps removing, except it doesn't state where they got the information from. I'm really not that bothered about it, I just think that being an encyclopedia we should stick to facts, leave the speculation for the press and footy blogs. Perhaps if it is properly worded with the right source, ie "Rafa Benitez has stated his interest in signing the player[http://Source with Rafa quotation]", I reckon it could be considered a fact, not a rumour. I still wouldn't aprove of its inclusion a great deal. But it would be much better than the usual standard of transfer speculation. English peasant 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are enough reliable sources then yes we can mention it, but as long as it is very obvious that is is speculation. John Hayes^talk 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Without quotes from Benitez (as opposed to what the player/his agent would like to happen), it'd be an automatic revert per WP:CRYSTAL if it was on my watchlist. Sky saying Liverpool have scouted him doesn't make it any more than gossip, and even if Liverpool are watching his every move it doesn't make a transfer imminent. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, the speculation can be commented on, rather then the transfer itself.John Hayes^talk 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I categorically disagree' with adding transfer speculation. Until a player signs on the dotted line it is only speculation and encyclopaedic. Even if a 'reliable source' states they are 'interested' 'looking at' 'talking to' etc. The papers are full of b*ll*x designed to sell copy. It is not notable until it is real. Benetiz stating he would like to sign a player does not make it notable. Benetiz would like to sign lots of players...this -if acceptable at all- would only be appropriate for Benitez's page... or are you planning on editing Ronaldo's page top say Benetiz, Wenger, Jewel, Megson, Keegan, Ramos and 4 thousand other managers would like to have him in their team? Please let's not propagate the misinformation, it belittles an encyclopaedia.-- ClubOranje (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments precisely. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a definitive link here between Rafinha and Liverpool, with comments from all sides. I think that it would inappropriate if it were anything less than that, but there does appear to be a concrete, verifiable link with Liverpool.No9shirt (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with ClubOranje. If a journalist asked Jewell would he like to sign Ronaldo, he'd say yes. If that leads to headlines saying so, it doesn't mean we should add it. Earlier this season Ronaldinho was linked with Middlesbrough. I doubt that it's in his biography article because it was simply a load of rubbish to get his name banded about. The encyclopedia should be full of the truth, not what ifs and maybes. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference in this case is that Rafinha has come out and said he would like a move to Liverpool. This rumour has been fuelled from all sides, so it's not really comparable to Paul Jewell being linked with Ronaldo, or Ronaldinho being linked with Boro. – PeeJay 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps such an example is far-fetched. But if Journalist A asks manager B if he wants to sign player C, and he says yes, then Journalist D asks player C if he wants to sign for manager B, and he also says yes, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. If Rafinha does sign for Liverpool then it would be perhaps fair to say something along the lines "Rafinha signed for Liverpool after months of speculation" because the speculation at least have some substance. Peanut4 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been nuking any transfer speculation from articles like Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and Karim Benzema because almost 99% of all transfer reports (even in normally reliable newspapers) are complete bullshit. Usually the sources are agents that just want to get a story out there in the media. Newspapers like AS and Marca in Spain get together in the morning and pull ridiculous rumours out of their ass. I think that transfer speculation has no place in a GA or FA-rated article, and as such should be removed from every article. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-2 20:38

I would say that speculative reports are not useful, however the article in question seems to have quotes attributed from both managers and the player himself. This case is in no way comparable with Jewell saying Ronaldo is a good player or Ferguson saying he would love to have Gerrard in his midfield. When there is only a tenuous link it would not add to the article. There does seem to be something to this Rafinha link, be it momentum or a concrete link, but there is a solid link there, as shown by the references.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Only information of long term value should be added to articles. Before add info it should be considered whether it will still be in it a year or two from now. Transfer speculation clearly doesn't make it into this category. If the player does get transfered then information about the transfer will be put in the article otherwise the whole thing will die a death and have to be removed. Either way the current speculation will not remain in the article for that long and this is not a news site. josh (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I'm opposed... the deleted the following (verbatim) from Tim Sherwood...200(ish) words of speculation involving a dozen clubs, and almost none of it happened!
In the autumn of 2000, Tim was surprisingly linked by the media with a move back to Vicarage Road whilst January 2001 saw a return to Ewood Park mooted in the media. The summer of 2001 was filled with rumours regarding Tim's future. June 2001 saw Tim linked with a £3million to Wolves whilst Aston Villa were also linked with rumours suggesting an exchange for David Ginola. July 2001 saw the media speculate regularly that Sherwood would be departing from Tottenham. On the 15th, he was linked with a £2million move to Southampton. A similar fee was suggested on the 22nd with a move to Everton. On the 29th, Tim was linked with moves to West Ham and Wolves. Transfer speculation continued into the new year with January 2002 seeing Tim linked with a move to Scottish giants Rangers, possibly as part of a deal that would bring Tore André Flo to White Hart Lane. On 15 August the media suggested another move to the South Coast with Harry Redknapp's Portsmouth said to be preparing a £400,000 bid. In January 2003, Tim leaked to the press that he had had a major argument with Spurs manager Glenn Hoddle and that Hoddle had told him that he would never play for the club again. Clubs said to be interested in this development included Portsmouth, Sunderland, Newcastle United, West Bromwich Albion, Charlton Athletic and Bolton Wanderers. Throughout January 2003, Sherwood was linked with Portsmouth. The media then reported his imminent signing for West Brom only for him to move to Portsmouth on a four month contract on 29 January 2003. The News of the World speculated on 6 June 2004 that Tim would be joining newly promoted QPR. In the end, he signed for Peter Reid's Coventry City on 9 July 2004 and vowed to win his third promotion to the Premiership.
--ClubOranje (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Euro cup icons

File:Coppacoppe2.png

Hmmm, like it?

Hello all, I noticed Image:Coppacoppe2.png and its many friends have started making appearances in articles like Liverpool F.C.... Does the project consider this useful, and if so, should it be rolled out across all team articles? If not, those articles with the icons should have them removed. I'd like to see what you all think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hate them. They are obviously purely for decoration, and I'm sure that UEFA probably has some sort of copyright on the design of these trophies anyway. Delete them all! – PeeJay 10:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They add nothing to the Liverpool article that the competition name doesn't already provide. Even if there aren't copyright issues, the reader isn't going to be helped recognise the Super Cup section by a tiny image of a basic silver cup next to the name, which makes their addition pretty pointless. (And purely personally, I think they look tacky.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have a similar discussion regarding the World Cup and European Championship trophies a while back. Both of which looked very poor indeed. I don't see what benefit these images can add to an article. Peanut4 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did thats why I just removed a bunch of Euro trophies, they look cheap and ugly and are clearly only being used for decorative purposes. How is it going to increase recognition of the trophy when it is 15px or 20px in size and sits next to the name of the trophy written in bold? They should be deleted on sight, just because they use billions of them on Italian wikipedia doesn't mean we need them here. English peasant 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Get rid. If someone wants to know what the European Cup looks like, they can look at the European Cup article. The Italians have it badly wrong in my opinion - showing the Premiership trophy 18 times for Liverpool, when they haven't won that trophy once is totally misleading in my view. --Jameboy (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- Gruesome. Agree re decorative. And my dad would have called it "swanking". (I do love that word). --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kit detail

Ed g2s has been removing design details from infobox kits, stating "kits are for colour overview, not minor details". I haven't heard this before? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From template:football kit - "To create a new pattern template follow the examples below. When you have created a new pattern please add it to the list below. Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit". See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 12#Edit war with the Liverpool F.C. home kit. Nanonic (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of people citing that line of text as a reason for removing details from kits. Normally, I wouldn't object to a level of detail similar to that used on Manchester United F.C. What I would object to, however, is the inclusion of sponsors' logos or the club badge. If the kit has a distinguishing feature, such as the spikes on the Ukrainian kit at the 2006 World Cup, then that should be included. – PeeJay 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. We had the same problem with the Wednesday away kit which was reduced to a plain yellow kit making it exactly the same as every other plain yellow kit. It's often the 'minor details' that distinguish the kit from others of the same colour. josh (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But at that size the level of detail shows completely different to the actual kit - for instance you've got to be really close or have a massive picture to see the red shadow stripes on the real Manchester United kit, yet they are easily viewable on the icon on the Wikipedia page. In this case, a plain red shirt would be more realistic. - fchd (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Richard. Keep it simple as far as you can. By the way, the football kit template was originally thought as a simple way to describe the club's kits, as you can see yourself on the template's talk page. --Angelo (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What should we call the team from Milan who aren't called Milan?

Please see this diff and opine away. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Their article says "commonly referred to as simply Internazionale, Inter or Inter Milan[1]", though the footnote says Inter Milan is only used in English-speaking countries. "Inter" is confusing, unless you've already introduced a fuller name previously, so I'd use either of the others, and in the past have used both fairly indiscriminately, though more recently have settled for Internazionale. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Inter or Internazionale. Though just Inter could be a variety of clubs. It's wikilinked anyway, so I think Internazionale is perfectly acceptable. Peanut4 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Google News result count for all of the three chances:

1. "Inter Milan": 5,123 [14]
2. "Internazionale": 761 [15]
3. "Inter": 1,543 [16]

Please note the latter of the Google News searches was made using terms which can filter out references unrelated with the football club. --Angelo (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I normally use Internazionale except for the odd occasion when space may be an issue. - fchd (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always hoped for a pre-season friendly between Inter and Bury, possibly to be sponsored by a gravedigging company. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good image sources on Flickr

There are two users who consistently upload good football-related images on flickr under a Creative Commons license, namely Free-ers and wonker. I've uploaded a bunch of images from them. I was wondering where WP:Footy participants get their images. Are there other users on flickr worth watching, or other sources? Maybe it would be worthwhile creating a list somewhere? JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 22:08

I got this one from Geograph.co.uk yesterday. All images on there are CC licenced. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered, the Brazilian government also releases all their images under a CC-Attribution license too. Their main image site can be found here. You can find images like this and this there. To search for pictures, select "Banco de Imagens" from the drop-down box. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 22:19

The best way to search flickr for pics is to use the flickr tool for commons which allows you to auto-upload pics as well. The search function on that page will only return CC licensed pics that are acceptable for commons. This is how I scour for good pics for the portal and other places. Nanonic (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I hadn't seen that tool, thanks. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 22:55

new article notablity

On new page patrol I just came accross Special:Contributions/Yalaemshi and Special:Contributions/Mkd23 who create articles about Macedonian football clubs and players. To an outsider it is difficult to establish notability. Please have a look and either tag for deletion or help the editors to expand the articles. Agathoclea (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of players who have not debuted with a pro club yet are signed to the club

The fact the player has signed with a club makes him notable, he is a pro already, deleting a player for not debuting does not make sent to me, any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the player never makes his debut due to injury/death/dropping out of the game? Then we're left with an article which essentially says "Person X never played professional football"........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head I can think of a player at my own club, Gillingham, by the name of Ben White, who signed a pro contract and never played for the first team before being released. The "high point" of his subsequent career appears to be 9 Conference appearances for Gravesend & Northfleet - would you say he's notable....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Elomen76 I can't agree. Until he/she steps over the white line to make an appearance, notability requirements are not met. - fchd (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say don't make an article until the player has made his pro debut! Govvy (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And there are plenty of friendly admins around who would happily provide appropriate material from deleted articles should notability be conferred by playing... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If a player has signed from a club, no that IN ITSELF doesn't make him notable, but shouldn't automatically rule him out of having an article either. Say Manchester United sign a hot 16 yr old player scouted in Asia over the summer - cue lots of news coverage,interviews,etc.; morning of the first game of the season two months later, random punter comes to WP and looks him up and gets 'page not found'. I get the sense some people here would still be deleting such a page at 2:58. I know this has been done to death (and thanks for those of you that hammered out sensible guidelines at WP:Footy/Notability) - could we perhaps have a reminder on that page that WP:N/WP:BIO are still a perfectly valid measurements of notability, not overruled by WP:Footy/Notability? Paulbrock (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:FOOTY/Notability seems to have become irrlevant as several people have claimed it should be ignored in AfD debates. Nevertheless, WP:BIO also states that a player must have played to meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, contrary to popular belief, WP:BIO doesn't say that, which is why I raised this. From the top of the additional criteria section of WP:BIO (emphasis mine):

"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Paulbrock (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Football categories nominated for deletion

Category:Footballers who served in the British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Footballers who served in the RAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These above articles have been nominated for deletion. Does anybody here have any opinion on the subject Djln --Djln (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these categories have any place on Wikipedia. They are basically just confluences of two fairly distant subjects, and would mainly include people who were conscripted during the Second World War. – PeeJay 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully professional leagues

I may have missed one somewhere, but has anyone put together a list of which leagues qualify as fully professional so we can easily refer to it when looking at player notability? If not, can we quick figure that out and post it somewhere as a general reference, maybe on the notability page? matt91486 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like that for leagues outside England would be really helpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just list the obvious ones and get them out of the way, and then we'll have people add to it.

• AUSTRALIA:A-League
• AUSTRIA:Austrian Football Bundesliga
• BELGIUM:Belgian League
• BRAZIL:Campeonato Brasileiro Série A
• DENMARK:Danish Superliga
• ENGLAND:Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two
• FRANCE:Ligue 1, Ligue 2
• GERMANY:Fußball-Bundesliga, 2. Fußball-Bundesliga, 3rd Liga (when it begins this fall)
• ISRAEL:Ligat ha'Al
• ITALY:Serie A, Serie B, Serie C1, Serie C2
• JAPAN:J. League
• MEXICO:Primera División de México
• NETHERLANDS:Eredivisie, Eerste Divisie
• NORWAY:Tippeligaen
• PORTUGAL:Portuguese Liga
• RUSSIA:RFPL, Russian First Division, Russian Second Division
• SCOTLAND:Scottish Premier League, Scottish First Division (sometimes the odd club remains part-time)
• SOUTH KOREA:K-League
• SPAIN:La Liga, Segunda División
• SWEDEN:Allsvenskan
• UNITED STATES:Major League Soccer, USL First Division, North American Soccer League (defunct)

-This is just what I put off the top of my head. I know there are more leagues that qualify, but I didn't want to accidentally put anything incorrectly. Please, please add to this list what other leagues qualify, and then let's put the information somewhere easy to check up on. Thanks for your help everyone! matt91486 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that the USL First Division is fully professional. I read an interview with a player who also had front office duties with the California Victory and he described how many players had to supplement their income with side jobs (like he was doing). I suggest the many clubs in the league could be considered semi-pro. Jogurney (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

**Hmm, alright. I just know we've counted USL 1st Division players as eligible before, so I'm hoping that doesn't change. matt91486 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The California Victory seem to be a special case and sort of a disastrous attempt at forming a club that didn't work out, so I don't think it's representative of the division as a whole. matt91486 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently the Q-League is not yet fully professional, but should be soon.[17] Jogurney (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What about leagues in Africa? I'm not too knowledgeable about them but when I know Figo has played with one of them surely they've got to be somewhat professional. Normy 05:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the ones that I didn't know about but thought were probably professional were Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Romanian, Russian, Greek, Turkish, Brazilian, and Argentine. And then I thought that the South African, Swiss, Finnish, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian leagues might be. And then probably more I didn't think of. matt91486 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Premier League, First Division and Second Division are professional. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ligat ha'Al in Israel is fully professional. Liga Leumit is not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've added those in. Thanks for the help. Anyone know about the rest of those? matt91486 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of professional sports leagues#Football: Association Football might be useful, although I wouldn't vouch for any of them without checking first. Nanonic (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Added Norway. Punkmorten (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Added Sweden. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Added Denmark. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

When this is complete, it should be appended to WP:FOOTYN with a hat-note pointing to this discussion in the archives. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Does anyone know anymore that should confer notability? I'm inclined to believe that Argentina, South Africa, Greece, etc will confer notability, but I've not researched it to find out for sure. matt91486 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Javi Alonso Martinez

This is not real, right? Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Think you're correct. I noticed it earlier and was wondering why I'd never heard of him, but didn't even think of checking. I can't find a Javi Martinez with those clubs on soccerbase. I think it's a total fraud. Peanut4 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's way too "accomplished" for somebody to not have a Wikipedia page before yesterday! Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Note the birthdate :)  ARTYOM  22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great story...I really enjoyed the reading. I'd keep it! :-) --necronudist (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter James Butler - was Peter Butler (footballer)

I'm away for a few days. Was wondering if someone could look into this seemingly pointless page move. I've fixed some of the user's strange edits to the page. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Back now. Thanks for cleaning it up. --Jameboy (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this notable?

As some of you might know Arsenal and Liverpool are this week meeting three times. Does anyone know if any similar amount of meetings on one week has ever happened before? And is it notable enough to mention it somewhere on Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08 / Arsenal F.C. season 2007-08 and/or maybe in 2008 in association football / 2007-08 in English football ? Chandlertalk 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but in the 1980's they played 5 times in 19 days (4 FA Cup semi finals). John Hayes^talk 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

An article in the Echo on this John Hayes^talk 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In wartime football, the same two teams used to play each other over consecutive weekends in the league, so I don't think it's beyond possibility that two teams met a third time (i.e., in a cup competition). - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bradford played Millwall three times in 11 days last season. And back in the day of multiple replays it must have been a regular occurence. I remember Wednesday and Everton going to something like four replays in the late 80s / early 90s. Peanut4 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, given the examples quoted above, plus the many (hundreds?) not quoted, I don't think it is unique enough to warrant any special mentions anywhere. Invariably, comparisons such as this border on original research (the facts don't directly speak for themselves if merely inserted into an article, the editor's human brain orders such facts in a certain way to illustrate something within that article). Or so I believe anyway. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is probably worth a mention in either of the clubs' season articles, just as a matter of fact, but nothing further. Although these days such occurrences are quite rare, they're nothing to shout about really. – PeeJay 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was a Liverpool F.C. Arsenal F.C. rivalry article it would be worth mentioning in it, but I don't think it's notable enough for an article (and I can't find an existing one) John Hayes^talk 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Luke Freeman's clubs

What's the best way to display the clubs in Luke Freeman's infobox? He was a youth team player at Gillingham who was drafted into the first team and played one Football League match and one FA Cup match while aged just 15. He then signed for Arsenal and, given that he's still only 16, has been placed in their youth squad and to be fair it'll probably be two or three years before he gets anywhere near the first team squad (if he ever does). So, should Arsenal be shown as a "youth club", a "senior club", or both.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess Arsenal should be down as a youth club, because I expect he's only got a youth team contract at the moment. Had he moved from Gillingham to Arsenal without playing, Arsenal wouldn't go down as a senior team, but I can see where you're coming from. It would look strange. Strictly, ought to be Gillingham -> Arsenal (youth team), and Gillingham (senior). Peanut4 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

TBH I don't see the point of splitting the clubs section between youth/senior for reasons like this. In Freeman's case I would prefer to keep Arsenal in the "senior" clubs if only because it makes chronological sense (as it currently is) when reading the infobox, it would be confusing otherwise. Qwghlm (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Portsmouth and the UEFA Cup

As many of you will undoubtedly know, Cardiff City are currently ineligible for entry to the UEFA Cup if they win this season's FA Cup, as they are not full members of the Football Association. Therefore, as things stand, Portsmouth should be guaranteed a place in next season's UEFA Cup, regardless of the result of the FA Cup Final. However, Michel Platini has said that UEFA will most likely step in to allow Cardiff City entry to the UEFA Cup should they win the FA Cup, and the FA has said that they will re-examine their rules regarding Welsh clubs' eligibility for European competitions. Therefore, my question is whether Portsmouth should be annotated as having qualified for the UEFA Cup in the league table in the Premier League 2007-08 article. Opinions please. – PeeJay 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless any team qualifies for Europe through the league itself, I don't think the league table should be annotated with that team's qualification at all. After all it's strictly incorrect. Only teams who qualify for the Champions League / UEFA Cup / Intertoto Cup because of their league position should be annotated with said qualification. If you are going to annotate it, it should said "Qualified for UEFA Cup by ..." Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

E.g. Tottenham should have no annotation, but if you insist, it should be "UEFA Cup 2008-09 as League Cup winners" Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that - I don't see the problem with noting Cup winners/finalists as qualified for Europe. As for Pompey, I think it's worth marking them as qualified, but with a footnote to the article covering the situation as described it above. To say they won't qualify full stop would be a bit WP:CRYSTAL, because as the rules stand, they have - it's not our job to assume that UEFA will manage to change things. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all a bit WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. What is the rush? Wait until the FA Cup Final has been won, then deal with it if Cardiff win. Woody (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Hi, I remember many months ago someone mentioned a way of saving a snapshot of particular webpages so that they can be linked to without someday dissapearing and becoming 404 not found errors. Could someone refresh my memory on this so that I can start using it. Regards English peasant 07:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the Wayback Machine. --Edgar (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or WebCite (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 14#Saving a static copy of a referenced article forever) Nanonic (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Club season summaries

Hi. I'm working on Norwich City F.C. seasons and wondered if anyone could recommend a useful online source that will give me on one or two pages NCFC's season by season stats, to make referencing the article easy? --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FCHD........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is perfect, thanks. For some reason, I can't access it just now, but I used the Google cache.Q2 Where will I find season top-scorers? --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dominic Iorfa

I just chanced upon this article Dominic Iorfa, surely that can't be right, 9 clubs between 1998 and 1999? John Hayes^talk 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It may sound implausible, but I don't see why not. – PeeJay 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In non-league, players often spend very short periods at a club before moving on, even if 1998-99 against three clubs is less than convincing (though I'd guess that just means the writer of the article didn't know for sure when he moved). This webpage, from a generally reliable fansite, would indicate he does get about a bit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

According to one of the books I have on the history of Gillingham, former Gills player Dave Mehmet played for six different senior non-league clubs in one calendar year, so it's not impossible..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

World Cup move request

There is a requested move request on the Talk:FIFA World Cup‎ page. Someone wants to move it to World Cup. Comments appreciated. I am going to go play in the snow. Woody (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Valley Parade

I've put Valley Parade up for peer review with hopefully putting it up for FAC. I've had a couple of good comments, but if anyone else has anything to pitch in with, it's at Wikipedia:Peer review/Valley Parade/archive1 and all comments would be gratefully received. Peanut4 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the peer review and put forward to FAC, if anyone has any more comments. Peanut4 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Danish football expert needed for an Olympic issue

IFFHS claims that Axel Thufason came to Denmark from Føroyar and Tufvesson was his original Faroese surname. Wikipedia (and other Danish sources) claims that he was of Swedish origins and born in Copenhagen. Who's right? Any ultimate source? If IFFHS is right he can't be born in Copenhagen, and many sources would be wrong. Plus: does anybody know if he or his family make the surname change official in the public registers? Thank you! (if nobody will answer, as I think, can someone translate this in Danish and post in the Danish wikipedia somewhere?) --necronudist (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody? Come on... it's really important. --necronudist (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a few active Danish editors at the project, but apart from User:Kalaha most of them are either a lot less active than they once were or don't edit anymore. In any case it looks like it'd be difficult to resolve even with all the best possible sources. For a player born so long ago it is quite possible that a definitive source no longer exists. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that too, but it would be a great catch to solve this issue... I'd post on the Danish wikipedia, but I don't know a word.. --necronudist (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you post there in English. Many Danes speak excellent English and I'm sure there's the same spirit of helpfulness there as there is here. Alternatively, you could post at our languages Ref Desk and ask them to help you. --Dweller (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --necronudist (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd discussion

Thought some of you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground improvements at English football Stadia. Personaly i think we should keep it, as its usefull. Willy turner (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear not eh Willy? MickMacNee (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or was that last comment completely unnecessary? – PeeJay 08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of transfers

The List of German football transfers 2007-08 is so obsolete, it almost hurts. I don't think we can rescue it, don't we? -Lemmy- (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of world cups and world championships

This is perhaps a more important article than at first glance, because World Cup (disambiguation) points here, which in turn is pointed to in the hat note at World Cup.

So, it's worth checking that we're happy with football's entry in the list. And I'm not entirely.

Here's some relevant extracts from the table under "Men":

Sport	Competition name	Competing entities	First held	Current holder	Next	Held every
Beach Soccer	FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup	Nations	2005	Brazil	2007	One year
Football (soccer)	FIFA World Cup	Nations	1930	Italy	2010	Four years
	VIVA World Cup	Nations	2006	Sápmi	2008	Two years
	FIFA Club World Cup	Clubs	2000	AC Milan	2008	One year
Futsal	FIFA Futsal World Championship	Nations	1989	Spain	2008	Four years

I wondered if Viva World Cup is really necessary for inclusion? If it is, does it need some kind of clarification, as it's rather confusing. It looks like in a boxing-style manner there are two rival world bodies awarding world cups, one of whom has a national football (soccer) team representing the Sámi people, who inhabit northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia as their champions. (If you're interested, they beat Monaco 21–1 in the 2006 final. A splendid total of four team competed for the title, 1 of which didn't actually turn up due to visa problems).

I also utterly dispute that there is such a thing as clubs' World Cup, but since that's what FIFA calls this misbegotten appallingness of a nothing competition, I guess we're lumbered with it.

Comments welcome. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The VIVA World Cup is specifically for teams not recognised by FIFA, which appears to mainly cover the "national" teams of disputed territories and minor ethnic groups within existing countries. It's kinda equivalent to having an "alternative" UN with delegates from Cornwall and Gibraltar. And I can't see how anyone in their right mind could class it as a "world championship" or a rival/equivalent to the real World Cup ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But, given that it is called "World Cup", and has RS to attest as much, would it be POV to remove it? Please, please, please argue convincingly that it's not. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. It's a tournament that's worldwide (in theory) where the winners get a Cup and it's run by a body called VIVA. VIVA World Cup it is. Horrible isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

VIVA World Cup is not a World Cup in itself, as it admits only territories, nations and countries who failed to join FIFA. Thus I think it should not be featured in the list. --Angelo (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm arguing against you, I wanna be on your side! You could equally argue that the FIFA World Cup is therefore not a World Cup as it admits only countries that have joined FIFA! --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The lot that organise it only admit people ineligible to join FIFA so that, by its definition, reduces it to a sub-World Cup. FIFA's is also a sub-World Cup. But thus we need a neutral definition of what constitutes a "World" Cup. Fair enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just put 'Non FIFA nations' in that table. Or is that too obvious? MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, FIFA-unaffiliated countries usually are not recognized countries themselves (here's the list, in case you wonder). I doubt Sealand, Rijeka and Padania could ever consider to join FIFA. Personally, I think we're giving way too coverage to these weird "teams" and "competitions", all of them having no relevant reliable coverage at all. --Angelo (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[reindenting] At the very least, the football competitions should be organised alphabetically - having the VIVA cup sandwiched between the other two is illogical given the World Cup & Clubs World Cup are both under the auspices of the same federation. As for the "Nations" status, maybe a footnote explaining what is considered a nation by VIVA's standard should be there to avoid confusion. Qwghlm (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kasey Keller vandalism

Too much vandalism in the last few days...I surrender :-) --necronudist (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No retreat, no surrender; now it's been semi-protected for ten days. --Angelo (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angelo! But I hate Bruce Springsteen. --necronudist (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Football Club infobox clubname parameter opinion poll

See Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitals in the top flight

Probably more of a reference desk question than a WikiProject question, but my hopes of getting a correct answer are higher here than at RD/Entertainment or RD/Humanities (with all due respect, obviously). With PSG's impending relegation, has there ever been a country where the national capital didn't have a top flight football club? The closest I could think of was Germany before Hertha BSC's current Bundesliga spell. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a fantastic question. How about Italy? Surely it hasn't been that long since both Roma and Lazio were out of the top flight? – PeeJay 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian addressed this just last week in fact. See here.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been several seasons in which Jerusalem was not represented in the top division in Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dulee Johnson

I just came across the article Dulee Johnson. Beside the BLP violations in the article history, there's also some dubious information in the article itself. The infobox says that he played for Floda BoIF between 1998 and 2001. He was born in November 1984, which would mean that he joined the club at age 13 and left the club at age 15. So is it really a senior club, or should it be listed as a youth club? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His entry on the Swedish wikipedia has it listed as one of his youth clubs. Nanonic (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The clubs match up to the external link cited in the article. Which even claims he played 60-odd games during that time. Peanut4 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus his own website claims he amassed more than 200 games by the age of 21. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio

Off again I see....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 55 hours. My AGF has finally run out. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How ironic: I've estimated it will take me the same length of time to fix the problems he's caused. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this TRM. Shame it had to go this way. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Per here, I've started the attempt to remedy the situation. If anyone thinks things should be left as-is, please follow the link and state so. At this point I could live without F.C. and the like in the infobox header, incorrect (in my opinion) as it is, because I think hope Sarumio has learned the lesson of heeding warnings. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regards the 'per here', are you taking that as consensus for inclusion of F.C? Or is there some historical decision elsehwere? MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As my edit summaries stated, I'm just matching the "clubname" (which is the common name, apparently) with the article name, as brought up in the discussion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, I don't see any consensus in that linked discussion for such a mass change of titles. And it's clearly not the case that F.C. is the common name for many clubs, as can be seen by the club crest images just below it, or is this a WP:POINT edit in response to the blocked user? MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was no consensus for Mr. Sarumio's mass change of titles (see here, dated February 8, for when he was first invited to discuss his changes, but he ignored it and went on to make 3,000 similar edits) which is why he is currently halfway through a block. (It's not too late to add your opinion to the linked discussion, by the way. I noticed your input consisted of wondering if the discussion was taking place in the correct location.) Sarumio claims the majority of club-article infoboxes omitted the F.C. or A.F.C. from the header, but as Tmol42 pointed out, this is unlikely, since the former spent countless hours on his crusade. It was also pointed out that Sarumio decided for himself what a club's common name is, rather than enquiring on the club's talk page. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was talking about your mass change to the prem team articles where the usage hadn't changed for a long time. So which is it, are you vandal reverting, acting with consensus, or making your own mass edits as one party to the dispute? A mass change doesn't support the club article talk pages approach you suggest above. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• e.g. After the first edit warring, the West Ham infobox has stayed as plain old West Ham since mid Feb [18] MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal reverting. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of vandalism made in early February? MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of...the...ignoring...warnings...to...stop...disruptive...editing-type vandalism. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused because before he came along, none of the Prem articles look to have had FC in the infobox, e.g. Man U in Jan [19], and the discussion you linked to above has no consensus to mass edit all the Prem article infoboxes to FC, so how was this mass edit a vandalism reversion of actions made pre-dating that discussion? MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't really explain it more than I have done. If you can verify Sarumio's dubious claim that 95% of infoboxes didn't have F.C., A.F.C. or whatever in their titles before he went to town, please do. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the two examples above? Are you saying I just managed to randomly pick the 5% of prem articles without FC? When did he start this so-called rampage, and why if it is clear vandalism is there an unresolved discussion on the veyr subject? MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What a shocking surprise Dudesleeper never responded to this!!!!! This is due to his accusation that Ive lied is unfounded and that he is the one making things up! He knows full well that the majority didnt include FC to begin with! If they did I'd never have removed the FC - I was standardising Football Clubs infobox headers and the overwhelming majority did not include it! I'd have done the opposite if they had and a few were missing it! Sarumio (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find my original post on the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 17#Massive club name edits and further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 17#Sarumio edits again and further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 17#Consensus required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still none the wiser, all I can see is that on 8 Feb Sarumio variously started removing Football Club, FC and F.C. from several infoboxes, but never touched the Premiership artices which seemed to have no football club/fc at all (e.g. Arsenal in Sept 2007 [20], Bolton Wanderers in October 2007 [21], and the Man U example above, and West Ham), and now, when the discussion he was pointed to at the infobox to form consensus didn't reach any as far as I can see, with the last input on 28 Feb, now yesterday the Premiership articles have had F.C. added to all of them in a mass edit by dude sleeper, something Sarumio apparently got in trouble for doing in the first place, and now the dude sleeper is variously claiming it is a vandal revert, or per the discussion that ended on 28 Feb with no consensus. Can you see where someone might be confused? I can't see any justification for this mass edit as either a vandal revert nor enforcing consensus, and hence just seems to be continuing the edit war. If that template discussion is dead without consensus, then perhaps its time for a multi option vote, with the results incorporated into the template instructions? MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's a little late to suddenly have an opinion on the matter. Several people attempted to protect Sarumio from himself, but ultimately failed. I hope he comes back and displays the decent editing he's shown glimpses of over the last two months. If he reverts to previous form, then we'll take it from there. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt explain your edit, are you now saying you are appling your version in absence of any others input? As it seems even without me there are plenty of people objecting to this solution. I didn't have an opinon before because I didn't see these edits on my watchlist. But my opinion is definitely that this was an unjustified edit. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then head on over and explain your reasoning. Getting a headache here. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And your play on my username was very witty, hasn't been done before, and has left deep, deep wounds. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly not intended, didn't even notice it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't really believe he got blocked over it, it's so trivial. I stated before that I think it should be the common name at the top of the infobox, like Liverpool, Manchester United, Ipswich Town etc, with possible exceptions, like FC United and maybe AFC Bournemouth. There's no need to overuse FC so much. I was never aware of the consensus to enforce the inclusion of F.C. as far as I read it, some people strongly support F.C., others would go along with my view that it is unnecessary, but most people really aren't bothered one way or the other. For an occasionally decent editor (as dudesleeper puts it) to get blocked over this issue when there are rampant sockpuppeteers are on the loose is a bit much IMHO English peasant 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if an editor edits against consensus and against multiple "final warnings", would you suggest an alternative method of reinforcing the message? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are editing against consensus then yes, block them, but personally I don't think there has been consensus. I've stated my case as many times as I can be bothered, but the pro F.C. voices just seem more persistent. I think I've stated my case about 3 times in previous rounds of this discussion, many other respected editors such as Ref, Dan and Struway, and Chris the Dude have made similar points in support of using the common name. To me the fact there are thousands of inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, poorly categorised, outdated and generally rubbish articles in the scope of WP:FOOTY means it doesn't really matter if already decent articles like Liverpool F.C. has Liverpool or Liverpool F.C. above the crest in the infobox. People should focus on fixing the real problems and not the trivial issues and that goes for everyone doing mass removals or additions of F.C. English peasant 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with English Peasant. There have been (at the last count) 3 seperate instances of "Consensus required" related to the infobox, but as yet no consensus. All you've got are one group of people saying F.C.+ and the other half saying F.C.- and if anyone makes any considerable effort to standardise then they're instantly being obstructive and/or peristent vandalising or going against an as yet not defined consensus.

I'm entirely on the side of no F.C. unless it's on the badge or otherwise dropped into conversation. Seeing as the F.C. and Football Club are often referenced over a half dozen times within the space of a few lines at the top of an article, I see no logic in repeating itself. I have made numerous points as to why you shouldn't repeat yourself so often within an article, but apparently people are determined to leave in F.C. for no real reason other than to match the article title despite no real justification for matching one, either or all. For instance in Rugby League see my hometown club St. Helens RFC or even Castleford Tigers which chooses not even to include RFC in the title. Similarly Leicester Tigers and Saracens F.C.? Why doesn't A.C. Milan have SpA after its name? What about AFC Ajax? I'm sure there are examples to the contrary of FC's inclusion Bayern Munich probably being an obvious one.

People who are currently going through re-inserting the F.C.'s "without consensus" are, in my estimation, as troublesome as Sarumio ever was. Who incidentally was punished told off for first removing F.C., then replacing F.C., then replacing it with Football Club....yet whoever went through and initially put in the F.C. and or replaced it has avoided censure despite there being no consensus.--Koncorde (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can see, all I'd asked for from Samurio was a consensus to be reached before he continued editing 100s of pages, many of which were reverted by different editors. He abjectly refused to do so. Sorry if this block has offended a few but what's the point of people continually adding then removing then adding then removing then adding then removing FC? It's called edit warring and it is to be discouraged. Moreover, continuing to edit war after being warned (many many times) warrants a block. It's really that simple. But I will recuse myself from further discussion here. Should the community decide I have overstepped the mark (despite Samurio's request for unblock being rejected by another admin) then so be it. I am happy to be contacted directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the ban or defednig Samurio, I was questioning why the edits were being continued by dudesleeper when as can be seen there appears to be no consensus. I definitely think it's at the stage where a simple poll is needed. I will pose one on the template page. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My issue is not with the block - but with the pointlessness of the original warnings and lack of resolution since. Blocking Sarumio doesn't solve the issue, nor does Sleeper Dude going back through and re-FC'ing without consensus. If there is no "right" answer, then surely everybody is in the wrong until an answer is reached. So either all FC/non-FC stay static until a decision is reached or leave it as an open ended free-for all, but you can't then punish Sarumio for making edits any more than you can Sleeper Dude for his (I don't by the way blame SD for anything beyond scrupulous adherence to what he thinks is right, but I have the same opinion for Sarumio).

In my humble opinion - I think the football MOS has various issues, and the templates and dogged adherence to interpretation of particular "rules" gets in the way of creating good articles in the same way arguing over the wording of legislation prevents activity in government. There needs to be a once and for all Pro and Nay decision, and until then all edits are fair and valid, or unscrupulously edit warring - depending on your stance.--Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The man does actually speaks sense. Well done! I have to admit I was beginning to doubt you after reading your navigation-box talk here. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A shiny new poll Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Norwich City F.C.

Please drop by the FAC and give your opinion... the FAC is a rather sad and lonely place right now. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look later on. I was going to do last night. But I can't see it being too far off given my comments at PR were dealt with. Peanut4 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Transfer speculation

I get so sick of removing transfer speculation from articles every day. Perhaps a template looking like this might be in order for the talkpages of transfer speculators.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but unreferenced speculation about potential footballer transfers is not considered to be encyclopaedic material. If you would like to know more about how to make a constructive contribution to football related articles feel free to visit Wikiproject football. Thank you

Any comments? English peasant 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My only change would be to do away with the second "welcome". - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to suggest it at WP:UW. I'm not sure if it will get through, it's a little specific. John Hayes^talk 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If I could provide a list of say 50 or 100 diffs where it could have been used in the last week or two, do you think that might help. English peasant 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, all I know is that they look after all the user warnings, so if you want to create a new one you'll have to run it past them. I've tried before, but had them quickly rejected (for different reasons though). My thoughts would be that could probably just hit the users in question with a Template:Uw-unsourced and escalate that up as needs be, leaving custom comments, but give it a go. John Hayes^talk 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario1987

He's just been let off the leash, so I moved his backlog here User:English peasant/Mario1987 mess since he looks keen to disrupt efforts to clean up his mess. I'm sure that we'll soon be experiencing a new flood of inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, poorly researched, badly categorised, improperly indexed, borderline notable football articles that he never intends to update. I cant believe he got away with such blatant sockpuppetry and got unblocked despite his history of being uncooperative and disruptive. English peasant 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently this is going to be his last chance to finally fix his behaviour. If he confirms his history of disruption and refusal of policy, common sense and consensus, just knock at my wikidoor and I'll deal with him. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone fancies helping myself and Jogurney clean up the mess, the link is above, (we've only got a few hundred more inaccurate sub-stubs to clean up) English peasant 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've clean up some players who are currently playing in France.Joslain Leonel Mayebi is non notable:He has no appearance in ligue 1.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PsOV

There seems to be a lot of "impressive", not to mention "outstanding", examples of PsOV in football articles these days. Perhaps a clean-up during the forthcoming close season wouldn't go amiss. I'll try to do my part. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Too many superlatives. I chip in when I come across them. Wiggy! (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A total lack of references in a whole host of articles, including club entries, player entries and season entries. The worst of the lot are the latter ones. They need a complete overhaul IMO (POV there too!!) Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AEK Athens F.C.

Hey guys, I know you all probably have WP:FOOTY on your watchlists, so you'll know that I've put AEK Athens F.C. up for a requested move. Still, I'd like to put the message out here that this particular RM could use a bit of attention, similar to the Dynamo Kyiv and Red Star Belgrade RMs from a few months ago. So basically, if you could all lend your opinions to this RM, that would be fantastic. Cheers. – PeeJay 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Four Nations

If you don't know what I'm talking about, see this BBC article. If you do, good. Surely this tournament is notable enough for an article, (and certainly more notable than the Rugby tournament of the same name, which has two amateur teams competing)...GiantSnowman (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an aborted tournament idea is notable. Surely, it will be. --necronudist (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The major difference is that the Rugby tournament actually happened. When/If the football tournament becomes more than a wish or proposal, then it will merit an article. - fchd (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article about this tournament located at Celtic Cup (football). – PeeJay 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Belmont soccer club

Would someone have a look at this please - Belmont soccer club? No idea what country it is in so no idea what level the club is at, I am presuming it isn't notable but there isn't even mention of what country they play in. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is it's an Aussie junior football team, but it's only a wild guess. Looks very, very unnotable though. Peanut4 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly an Australian club (from New South Wales), check the bottom of this page (also check the web address, .au). --Carioca (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of managers

We all know what makes a player notable, but what makes a manager notable - is it the same as players i.e. managed in a fully professional league? GiantSnowman (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would count, not forgetting how many news publication sources are about that manager on independent sources. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaps, we really must pull together our notability criteria properly at WP:FOOTYN. Including the leagues conversation above. Any volunteer/s to get it going? --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't think of any but presumably managers who haven't managed a professional league but have managed a national side would also qualify? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy Roxburgh? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Roxburgh was notable as a player, what I was getting at was manager who maybe only played non-professional football, or not at all. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I would imagine that there are managers of some of the more obscure national teams who didn't make it. So I think the criteria should at least include managers of national teams. FIFA ones. Probably not VIVA ones! But then again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that until we have WP:FOOTYN accepted by the wider community it only counts as an essay, and can pretty much be ignored by anyone who chooses to do so. John Hayes^talk 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say notability for managers should be the same as players, generally speaking. However, I would say that coaching an international U-21s could confer notability for coaches despite not doing so for players. matt91486 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kieran McKenna

I noticed the bio-article has a prod on it, but it also has McKenna as playing Under-21 games for his country. Does that not pass WP:Bio Athlete? Govvy (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The consesus seens to be that only full international caps give notability. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Template

I came across the template Template:Fulham .F.C. and noticed there already was a for Fulham. I tried reading through the TfD guide lines but I found it hard to follow, can someone help and nominate said template...Jimbo^[online] 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets speedy criteria for dupicating a template. I tshould be deleted after being listed for seven days. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

List of England football commentators

There was probably some order to this article at one time (it was created in 2005) but right now it is an arbitrary list of British sportswriters and presenters. Is it salvageable? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the name is ambiguous - is it English commentators? Commentators who played for England? Commentators on English football? Not much encyclopedic value IMO. •Oranje•·Talk 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish footballers

The :Category:Irish footballers has featured the 7 sub categories listed below for a while now.

Category:Republic of Ireland footballers

Category:Northern Irish footballers

Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers

Category:Northern Ireland international footballers

Category:Pre-1950 IFA international footballers

Category:Dual Irish international footballers

Category:Republic of Ireland female footballers

It has also featured a tag to help editors place articles in the most appropriate categories. Every Irish footballer could in theory be placed in the main category which would then include nearly two thousand articles. However because of the complex history of football in Ireland, the subcategories were created to assist readers. The first two feature all players who were born and/ or represented these nations regardless of when they were born. The next four contain internationals. However recently User:One Night In Hackney has started to remove Northern Irish players from the second category and just place them in the main category. I believe he is wrong to this. Any comments Djln --Djln (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My edits are backed up by guideline. The people I removed were not from Northern Ireland, they were not born there. If they are placed in any other (even a new one) category I have no objection, but "Northern Irish" isn't acceptable for people born pre-partition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The people I removed were not from Northern Ireland. Absolute rubbish. All these players were born in the 6 counties just decades before Northern Ireland was formed and, with the odd acception, spent much of their adult in Northern Ireland. So therefore it is accurate to describe them as Northern Irish. To be absolutely accurate they born in the UK. So they don’t belong to Irish category anyway !Djln--Djln (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just your POV. The fact is they weren't born in Northern Ireland, so they don't get described as Northern Irish. That's what the guideline says, so this discussion here is pointless as it doesn't change the guideline. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves was not born in England, but is in the category English footballers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• • These players were all born in Northern Ireland. ONIH is deliberately misleading other editors by saying they were not.Djln--Djln (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• These footballers spent the majority of their adult life in Northern Ireland not just a few years. It has not been decided at all. For example Sir John Boyd, 1st Baronet, Samuel Cunningham, Terence O'Neill, John Miller Andrews, Sir Ronald Ross, 2nd Baronet and Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet George William Russell Joseph Campbell (poet) are all categorised as Northern Irish but were born before 1920. These are just a few I came across in a quick search. I suspect their are many others. Do you plan to remove all these articles from Northern Irish categories ? Djln--Djln (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You could argue that the national team they played for would also be a clue to identifying as Northern Irish versus Irish. Most of these chaps appeared to have played for Ireland's national team, not the UK's. All of these blokes in question - including Archie Goodall, Bobby Browne, and Olphert Stanfield - played on Ireland's national team!! ~Eliz81^(C) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• There has never been a regular UK team to play for, so thats a mute point. They all played for the Ireland team that eventually became Northern Ireland and like the people I have listed above they were all born in what is now Northern Ireland. None of the players were born in the 26 Counties. I notice that ONIH has only removed Northern Irish players and has NOT removed any players from the Republic of Ireland category who were born before 1946. Could he explain why. I suspect there is a political agenda going on. Djln--Djln (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think what ever is decided it is going to be messy, I think with Irish soccer the MOS has to be thrown out the window, there really isnt anything comperable to it. If a player hasn't played an International game, then their nationality really isn't that important, perhaps the categories "Irish league footballers" and "League of Ireland footballers" may be better alternative to the NI/RoI cats, they are certainly easier to define. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's the policy with the Pays Basque region? Maybe there is already a precedent. Also what about West Germany/East Germany? Or Slovakia/Czech/Croatia etc? Sardinians and Corsicans? I think there will already have been a similar issue to this resolved somehow.--Koncorde (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Ireland is that the partition(in football terms) did not happen overnight, like Germany or Czechoslovakia. The domestic game gradually split over the 1920s, and the international sides split over a period of thirty years (you can even legitimately argue that Ireland never split). There is reasonable discusssion of the international situation at Ireland national football team (1882-1950)#The_End_of_an_Era, but it doesnt cover how the domestic game split, and I havent seen much on it. The Category:Irish rugby union footballers doesn't distinguish between political entities, but to define either NI/RoI in historical footballing terms is a tricky task. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Irish situation (to me) is no different to the partition of East and West German national team and soviet/non soviet leagues, or the amalgamation and division of the Czechoslovakian leagues...the length of time may. I think probably it's lack of coverage means there's fewer arguments about it on the English Wikipedia, but chances are there's a similar argument to the Irish on here regarding Croatia.--Koncorde (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the key difference is the parallell Ireland teams,

There was an Ireland team

Then there was an Ireland and Irish free state team, one drawing from the whole of Ireland, the other drawing from the modern RoI

Then there was an Ireland team and another Ireland team, both drawing players from the same pool, both competing in the same competitions (I dont think that happened in USSR)

Then there was a Republic of Ireland, a Northern Ireland and an Ireland team, which is what we currently have

How many Estonians played for Estonia at the same time as they played for USSR? How long after West Germany made their international debut did it take for the old Germany to stop fielding a team, ten twenty, thirty years?

And I think Djln will agree there have been plenty of arguments over this subject! To place a nationality on an Irish soccer player (esp one born in the RoI) in the pre WWII years is not straight forward Fasach Nua (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Northern Irish footballers is already placed in both :Category:Irish footballers and :Category:British footballers so there is no need to place any individual player in these other categories. The situation is complex as most people here seem to understand. ONIH is being two simplistic. Ireland unlike Wales, England and Scotland does not have a united national team. These players are Northern Irish and anybody that tries to deny it is a fool. Djln--Djln (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need an admin to tell us the answer here. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of administrators do not carry any additional weight in content disputes. Questions of national identity involving the island of Ireland are absolute hornet's nests, so I'm reluctant to get involved, but to me the least controversial thing to do would be to use the x international footballers categories only wherever possible. While I don't do much work with categories, it is my understanding that an article should not be placed in a category if a more specific one exists i.e. articles in Category:Northern Ireland international footballers do not need to be in Category:Northern Irish footballers too. For non-internationals things are not so simple. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I have made a request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) concerning the definition of Northern Irish. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen O'Donnell footballers

There are two footballers names Stephen O'Donnell: an Irish player at Stephen O'Donnell (footballer) and a Scottish player at Stephen O'Donnell (footballer born 1983). I'd imagine both should follow the same convention, i.e., either Scottish/Irish distinction or year of birth distinction. Which would be more appropriate? I presume the (footballer) link should just become a dab link back to the main O'Donnell dab page. •Oranje•·Talk 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to dab them by nationality. And yes, the "....(footballer)" link should then redirect to Stephen O'Donnell ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done •Oranje•·Talk 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David Beharall importance

Shouldn't David Beharall's importance by mid as he meets the cirteria for the mid group, as he has played 6 games in the Premier League, which last time I checked was a "top-level league". Kingjamie (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different subject, i noticed that the GA review given a year ago was very brief. I found the article was poorly written and although i have made some changes, i was wondering if it merited being a good article. Comments? Eddie6705 (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Caretaker Managers

Should caretaker managers be added to manager lists on club pages and to a club's manager template? Ck12 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say article yes, template no. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries

There seem to be too many "rivalries" on that page. If you escpecially look the International Rivalries... Englands rivalries include, Germany, Scotland France, Russia, Spain, Nortern Ireland, Ireland, Croatia, Portugal, Japan, Australia, Argentina, USA... Ok, Argentina.. sure, Germany, yea.. Ire, N.Ire, Sco and Wales (which isnt on there) I could agree on. But the others? Really? Croatia has probably just been added because of them being in the same Euro Q group. USA has Canada, Mexico, Iran, Italy, China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany... Are these football rivalries or (old and current) political rivalries? I at least think it should be shortened and maybe bring in some sort of reference need. Chandler ♠ TALK 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I do think England - Portugal qualifies, though. Is the Portugal - Greece one based solely on Euro 2004? One game does not a rivalry make. matt91486 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They met two times in Euro 04 ;) though ofc that doesnt count as a rivalry... About ENG-POR, I've never really heard any special rivalry of those countries (though it could easily have slipped me by, I'm no expert on rivalries) Chandler ♠ TALK 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "rivalry" thing isn't that big of deal in England anyway. I can see some notability about rivalries with Scotland, Argentina and Germany, but that's about it. - fchd (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to add also (even though I havent looked through these articles totally) Local derby and Major football rivalries somewhat seem to be about all the same things, with at lot of the same info, escpecially on Local derby and List of association football rivalries. Chandler ♠ TALK 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• England v Japan???!?!?!?! Where on earth did someone dream that up from? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed all the England rivalries except Scotland, Germany and Argentina. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm French and I'm happy to learn that there is a rivalry between my country and Russia and Romania...Spain barely, Italy and Germany OK. Definitely need to be sourced.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeag, it definitely has some dodgy rivalries, needs referencing badly. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the USA national team has a strong rivarly with any nation other than Mexico. Certainly Iran, China, Russia, Japan and France must be removed (the teams have only played rarely). I think I understand why Germany, Italy and England are listed, but one or two matches don't make a rivarly and they should be removed. Also, while the USA and Canada do face each other occasionally, I don't think it's often enough to constitute a rivarly (probably the women's teams should be listed as having a rivarly, but not the men's teams). Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian Mawhinney

I have asked for protection at WP:RPP for the Brian Mawhinney, Chairman of The Football League, article as it has been heavily vandalised today[22] by (presumably) Leed United supporters. The main concerns are abusive comments, some libellous comments and the addition of some text about being depised by Leeds supporters, which is irrelevant to Brian Mawhinney's notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected until 12:00, 1 May 2008. I would be grateful if someone would review the text about "Mawhinney is deeply unpopular with fans of Leeds United..." for relevancy to Mawhinney's notability, which ranges far more widely than being chairman of the Football League, undue weight (or not) and whether the source is reliable or not, and take what action they think appropriate. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it completely. It was sourced to a forum, which is far from a WP:RS, and one which you had to log onto anyway, which doesn't meet WP:EL. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd removed it or similar a few times but the editor posted a note on my talk tonight saying it should stand and I thought best for someone uninvolved to have a look at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup Notability

If a player has played in the first few rounds of the FA Cup, does it make them notable, in the same way playing in the premiership does? Eddie6705 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's for a fully professional club, I don't see why not. In this case, I would ask myself "if this was a league match, would the player be notable?" If the answer is yes, then the same applies for the cup. – PeeJay 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation of European Competition qualification highlighting colours

I've recently been looking around a lot of league table pages in Europe, and I noticed the colours used vary quite a bit (base colours, not just shades). Red for relegation seems universal but people use different colours to show qualification for the 3 European competions (shortly to become 2). I was thinking this could be something worth coming to a consensus on. It'd make it easier to recognise when going between different leagues and just make wiki more co-ordinated. Aheyfromhome (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need colours for European qualification but they are useful for highlighting promotion and relegation in a league table, particularly where a playoff team might get promoted over higher-placed teams. Gold for champions, green for promotion and red for relegation? Would be need to fairly light to avoid intruding too much, I'd say. •Oranje•·Talk 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be standardization, escpecially on old seasons. My suggestion would be

  Winner

  Play-off

  Relegated

Some other colors might be "needed" for other things, If you look for example at the current Premiership table. Chandlertalk 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, if the colour could simply be the background of the league placing, rather than the whole row, it would look neater. •Oranje•·Talk 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the colour choice. I don't think there's anything wrong with shading across the row either as long as the info can be clearly read.

I don't want be all dramatic, but maybe this discussion will naturally/should grow a bit wider. There's a host of table formats out there. Like Oranje says, some highlight numbers and not rows. Some have letters (eg (P)/(R) on them etc. Maybe there's room for some standard European footy table format to be established in the English wiki. It's not exactly a major problem but it's still worth considering. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need reminding, but I'm going to do it anyway :) Please, when choosing colours, have a look at WP:COLOUR with regard to accessibility. Out of consideration for those of us with defective vision or using a monochrome display, colours used should have an adequate level of contrast, and colour shouldn't be the only method used to convey meaning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While generally in favour of uniformity, even the shades above seem far too dark for me. Keep them to the palest pastel shades you can, and you'd have my vote. - fchd (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Red and greens are usually the primary colours effected by colour blindness.--Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say red and green somewhat is universal for "bad and good" like traffic signs etc. And I think it would look weired for everyone else if its like purple for winning and orange for losing. Or something like that сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While colors for promotion/relegation are usually the only ones used on lower division leagues, I think we still should have a standardized set of colors indicating European qualification for the highest league levels.  ARTYOM  11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I looked around at many of the articles for leagues, the worst i found was Eredivisie which looks really messy. This would be my extended proposal with the colors I liked most from league articles, found here in my sandbox. And plus that I would suggest adding a Comment or Note column to the far right on all tables where it actually also say "UEFA Champions League Group stage" or "UEFA Intertoto Cup third round" etc. сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like this proposal. But, before I start my further comments, I want to point out - highlight colors of Premier League and Liga I (of Romania) in your sandbox show up in black on my browser (which is Internet Explorer 7). Am I the only one seeing this?

Other than that, I like the colors you chose. The only problem I see is that on my 5-year-old LCD screen it's hard to differentiate between the different shades of green, and even between the light green and light blue. So I would suggest making the shades of the same color differ more than they do now. Regarding the Comment/Note column - I personally don't like it because the class of tables usually used for league standings is wikitable sortable. If the reader actually tries to "sort" the columns by clicking on the arrows, this last column with comments usually messes up. Try to do so at La Liga 2007-08, for example, and you will see what I mean. For this reason I would just prefer a key defining colors beneath the standings table.  ARTYOM  11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Chandler) Regarding the colours, I can't tell many of the top ones apart, but then I wouldn't expect to; however the red(?) at the bottom is too dark so the blue print is hardly visible against that background. WP:COLOR specifically warns against that combination, though probably a paler red(?) wouldn't cause a problem. Adding a note column on the right would be a perfectly acceptable alternative for those of us that can't use the colour-coding.

(To Artyom) the reason the notes column on La Liga 2007-08 messes up the sorting is because it uses rowspan for when one note applies to more than one row; if each row has its own note it'd be repetitive but it wouldn't break the sorting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Artyom), Hmm why it's black I suspect might be because i use the 3 digit code for the colors #cfc instead of #ccffcc for example... IE maybe can't read them? (I updated all to be 6 digits at least). Well I know it might be hard to see the difference between the colors but, for this if you have lets say 5 different colors for CL either the lightest one gets to light, or the darkest one gets to dark. One thing you could do (though you'd lose the "universal standardization") is to have same colors, but as most countries at the top only send teams to two different stages in the tournaments you'd only use the top "highest" greens yellows or blue for example. So you'd only need 2 (or maybe 3) instead of 5(4/3) shades of every color.

(To Struway) Hmm, weird that the red is to dark for you... For me it's really easy to disambiguate them.

What you could do (which i restrained myself from in the beginning because i think the darker shaders become to overpowering) is to have "two" jumps between the colors, or what you'd call them, instead of going from "afa > bfb > cfc > dfd > efe" you go "afa > cfc > efe>" though here if you need 5 colors you'd have to start at 80ff80 or how it counts the darknessChandler ♠ TALK 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that 3 digit codes are displayed incorrectly in IE only with bgcolor=#xxx parameter, but are fine if put into style="background:#xxx;".  ARTYOM  13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes in another sandbox here with more difference between the colors, made both reds lighter etc. The big problem I have with this one though, is that the colors seem to be overpowering Chandler ♠ TALK 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the colour choices you've made, but in my opinion, the colours used for the Champions League First qualifying round, UEFA Cup First qualifying round, and Relegation playoff are way too light. I find it hard to differentiate between them and the default background colour. – PeeJay 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Overpowering colors shouldn't be a problem, IMO, because right now some league tables use even more overpowering colors.  ARTYOM  13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, what's required of coloured things is 1) some alternative way for people who can't do colours to tell what the colour-coding is supposed to mean, like a Notes column; and 2) there being enough contrast between the print and the colour chosen, so that the print (in this case, the team names and any wording in a Notes column, if that's going to be coloured as well) can be read clearly. Depending on the relative intensity of the shades used, blue on red can be problematic even for people with "normal" colour vision. Your lighter red works much better for me. cheers, your friendly neighbourhood colour-blindness correspondent, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's necessary place an invitation for this discussion on all articles that could be affected by this. Without the cooperation of those that are editing those articles, it could lead to serious discussions when trying to implement any change.--ClaudioMB 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably true... though I would guess most heavy editors of football leagues are participants here?... But before we post on the leagues it might be better to have some more, and working for everyone (or at least as many as possible). CHANDLER 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be afraid that dozens of editors will come here and make this discussion too long. I've done such invitation before, probably only few that really care about the subject will show up. But, exactly those few ones have a good expediency to share and could get really unhappy finding out only when this is done. Don't keep only here, like a close club, invite people, they will appreciate. Regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the colors: UEFA Champions League First qualifying round and UEFA Cup First qualifying round are way too light, can't see them. Another thing, Promotion and Relegation is better than Promoted and Relegated because some tables are for current seasons. Just one more thing, to meet Wikipedia:Accessibility only colors are not enough, it's necessary some text.--ClaudioMB (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I'll take some time to put messages on leagues, but which article to post on Premier League or Premier League 2007-08 or both? chandler 05:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And just have to ask, to make it easier, is there a way to "mass" edit all articles under a certain category Category:2007-08 domestic football (soccer) leagues for example, because there's a lot of them ;) chandler 05:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am of the different opinion to ClaudioMB in that the paler colours are fine, it is the darker ones for the later entry stages I have a problem with when text is overlaid on them. However, I do agree with his point about accessibility and that explanatory text is needed as well. - fchd (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta in the same corner, I have no problem seeing the pale colors, but think that darker colors can become really overpowered. One place I think this is clear at right now is Eredivisie 2007-08 chandler 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree now that a separate comments column should be added to the tables. But we have to make sure not to use rowspans, for the reason discussed above.  ARTYOM  09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. Rowspan really screws sortable... There's no way to work around it, because without rowspan I can look bad with "Champions League group stage" twice ← chandler 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fifa rules regarding national leagues vs. national teams

Quite a long title, eh? :)

Not exactly Wiki talk... but I hope it's ok.

I recently discussed the All Ireland League issue on Xtratime (please take the time to read it). One fellow said there is some sort of FIFA/UEFA rule that every member nation has to have an own league to keep its national team (with Liechtenstein the ONLY exception) and said this was the key reason why the Welsh FA finally established a national league in 1992.

Is this true? I searched through some of the official documents available from FIFA and UEFA, but no luck.--Edgar (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the League of Wales was established because UEFA ruled that teams could only qualify for European competition by winning a domestic league (whereas previously Welsh teams had qualified by winning the not-exactly-challenging Welsh Cup) rather than anything to do with the national team but I might be wrong........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The home nations are different, they are regulated by the IFB, not FIFA, so I wouldn't read to much into those associations (that statement is a gross over simplification). The US didnt have a league, and setting one up was a condition of them hosting the 94 world cup, but had an international team. (I concur with Chris on the Welsh situation) Fasach Nua (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The IFAB is a seperate organization that develops the Laws of the Game (rules for matches), as per a very old agreement with FIFA, and have nothing to do with how the game is actually organized (FIFA regulations). It is older than FIFA and consists of the FA, the Scottish FA, the Welsh FA, and the Irish FA (N. Ireland). All of those FAs are members of FIFA, and, I assure you, they are regulated by FIFA.

AFAIK there is no such rule requiring a nation to have a league in order to have a national team. The reason they created it, was so that Wales would be allowed to have a team in the UEFA Champions League, which was founded in 1992, without requiring Cardiff City and the other Welsh teams that play in the English league system from qualifying through the also newly created Premier League. Winning the Welsh Cup had previously earned these England-based Welsh clubs a virtually guaranteed spot in the UEFA Cup or Cup Winners' Cup, and it was decided that clubs could not compete in both the FA Cup and Welsh Cup, which has partly lead to the latest controversey over Cardiff's reaching the FA Cup Final.

Liechtenstein has its own national cup competition, but not its own league (they play in the Swiss Super League, but not in the Swiss Cup), so they only have a guaranteed berth in the UEFA Cup, like Wales once did, whereas they have to compete with Switzerland for Champions League spots. Hope that helps. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein teams can not qualify for the CL spots through the Swiss league, as the Swiss FA will not nominate them. Liechtenstein teams are not members of the Swiss FA. --Edgar (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That provides even more of an incentive for Wales to have its own league so as not to suffer the same fate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that Liechtenstein teams can't get into the CL through the Swiss Super League? That seems completely wrong to me, as it would mean Liechtenstein teams have no possibility at all of getting to the UEFA Champions League. - MTC (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it :) But it makes sense. Liechtenstein teams do not play in the Swiss Cup. LI teams are not members of the Swiss FA. There are two separate entries in the UEFA coefficient table for Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Let's say FC Vaduz does win the SSL. Do their coefficient points count for Liechtenstein or for Switzerland? I think I'll send an e-mail to the Swiss and Liechtenstein FAs to get an official statement. I still don't have an answer regarding the one league - one national team issue.--Edgar (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have it now. Sort of. I wrote an e-mail to FC Vaduz and Axel Bernhardt (their press officer) confirmed - Liechtenstein teams can't qualify for European football through the Swiss league system.--Edgar (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is why the Welsh Premier League was created -> "The Welsh Premier League was born out of political necessity in 1992. Welsh football had lost a (British) championship and not yet found a role. This situation was being exploited in FIFA circles by African and Asian nations who resented the independent status of the four British associations, and who saw the participation of the senior Welsh clubs in English football as a contradiction of that status. The problems set by local geography and the economy, together with the presence of its powerful English neighbour, had prevented Wales forming its own national championship until the F.A. of Wales took the initiative twelve years ago and founded the League of Wales." A brief history of the league--Edgar (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

Am i right in thinking that the edits of this user 84.71.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are nothing more than subtle vandalism. I think they are, but can't be sure--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to assume good faith. Looks to me like the editor is trying to improve the articles, but has little understanding of how footballer articles are constructed in terms of wiki markup, template usage etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2, seems like honest attempt. Checked a few of the stats against official sources, can't fault them. Just the one edit inappropriate, but seems to have got a hand slap for it and been OK since. (BTW, wich users posting vandalism warnings would add the page parameter so we can know which edit they are being admonished for.--ClubOranje^(Talk) 10:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Football club season}}

There's a field in this template called "Manager", but it displays as "First team coach" - could someone have a look at this........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added mgrtitle and chrtitle parameters similar to the {{Infobox Football club}} template in order to allow different job titles to be entered. – PeeJay 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Club season articles - cut-off level....?

Did we ever decide on what level clubs are permitted to have Footown F.C. season 200xx-xx type articles? I've got one for a non-league club which I'd like to work on and am 100% confident I can make as good as Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07 (a GA), but I'll nip it in the bud if it would only wind up getting AfD'ed........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think these articles should be admitted only for clubs who play in a fully professional league, and whose content can be reasonably (and somewhat easily) verified and sourced. --Angelo (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All the content in the one I plan to work on can be reasonably verified and sourced, even though they don't play in a fully pro league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For a non-professional non-league club I would question how notable the season may be. Havant&Waterlooville have arguably had a notable season, but I'd prefer to see that included in their main article page.(not Belmont is it?)--ClubOranje^Talk 10:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll knock it on the head then........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Transfer window

Does the summer transfer window only apply to players, or does it apply to managers as well? I'm busy drafting a list of Dutch football transfers in the summer of 2008‎ in my userspace, and I'm not sure whether or not to include managers (Van Basten to Ajax, Verbeek to Feyenoord, Stevens to PSV). Aecis^Brievenbus 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to players, managers can move clubs whenever they want (as long as the new team can afford compensation etc.), but you could still mention the manager's moves in the article. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An ample demonstration. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike SSerumaga

If you look into the page histories of Mike SSerumaga and Mike Sserumaga, you will find a lot of very similar edits: IPs copypasting the content from one article to the article, and turning one article into a redirect to the other. This violates GFDL, since it makes it very hard to establish who wrote what; for that reason, any move should be done with the move tab. To prevent this from continuing, we need some clarity on the name of this player: is it Mike SSerumaga or Mike Sserumaga? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the latter according to Google and that's what I'd expect to be honest. And according to his team too. Peanut4 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New league table

Excuse me, I found a lot of league table does not use a new table format. Is that table difficult for use? Raymond Giggs 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't find either table difficult to use, tbh. – PeeJay 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. However, when I edit the table to the new version on the articles Fußball-Bundesliga 2007-08 and Serie A 2007-08, it always be reverted. I cannot get the meaning. Raymond Giggs 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You should first discuss the issue with the related article's main editors in the corresponding talk pages. That's why your edits are probably always reverted. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so should first make a proposal, and then make it real if a consensus is reached in its support. --Angelo (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the related article is too wide. It is not only include for two leagues only, but various leagues that may include Argentina, Japan, etc. So I cannot make the discussion only there. Raymond Giggs 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not like the new table, but I will no longer revert the Serie A one (to KyleRGiggs' relief) and wait for consesus one way or the other. We don't need a sortable table and the points column has been moved over to the right again, which does not conform to the Serie A tables for all the other years. To me, this is just an example of someone who designed his own template wanting to push it on to everyone else.Juve2000 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone But United

A total mess of a POV essay currently stands at Anyone But United. I was going to nominate for deletion (prod had been contested) but before I do I was wondering if anybody felt it might be worth their while trying to salvage it? Qwghlm (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject is probably notable enough for an article, but the state of the article at the moment is truly laughable. Unfortunately, I can't possibly devote the amount of time it would take to revamp the article. Anyone else care to step up to the plate? – PeeJay 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the point of it myself. Belongs on someones blog page.--ClubOranje^Talk 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the tone of the article, I want to have a big laugh. Oh my goodness. It seems to be an article about opinions! But that's right. This article is notable enough. Raymond Giggs 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It may well have a place on here, because it does have some notoriety. But anyone would be perfectly able to remove any POV from the article. And I bet you're not left with much afterwards. Peanut4 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion I know but....I'm not even sure this ABU stuff even exists anymore. It might have had some basis in fact in the days of Roy Keane, Steve Bruce and Gary Pallister snarling at referees but now alot I think of fans have an unspoken admiration for Man United in their style and ability to entertain (which, lest we forget, should be one of the aims of football). Even the newspaper ref quoted is 4 years old and from a reporters blog!

If it this article (which reads more like a rant) belongs anywhere then perhaps as an example of Envy(Envy in Sport?) or Jealousy?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Going off topic) I wouldn't say envy or jealousy is necessarily right - I can't stand Man Utd, but not because of their success, but because they led the way in the rampant commercialisation of the game and its subsequent damage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) it's a word-for-word copy of the first half of this from BBC h2g2, dating from 2000. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, well that settles it. Deleted under CSD G12; anyone recreating please do so with an original, neutral and verifiable work. Qwghlm (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarumio once more

Okay, I'm tired of this now. Despite a debate which User:MickMacNee instigated at Template talk:Infobox Football club, Sarumio last night made around 25 edits in his usual style, simply removing FC/AFC without no justification or consensus. This is the fourth time I've brought this to the attention of the project and it appears I'm right back at square one. I can't do this any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway we can get him permanently banned for repeated disruptive edits? GiantSnowman (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful if one or fifty people added to this request [23], they seem to be ignoring it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who has been involved in the debate should desist from adding or removing FC from the infobox. The issue is trivial, but people who keep making these edits in full awareness of the fact that the issue is currently under discussion are clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I would support blocks on anyone adding or removing FC (without talkpage consensus) before consensus is eventually reached on the FC or no FC issue. I would also suggest that asking an admin like Alexf or Angelo to close the case might be an idea, as most admins wont have a clue what the hell everyone is going on about and would baulk at the amount of debate on the subject, so politely inviting a particular admin who is familiar with the football infobox might get things moving along a bit quicker English peasant 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Belay that suggestion, it's dropped into the archives without a single reply. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

Why is it that YouTube is frowned upon as a reference? Just enquiring as Albert Streit has had it listed previously - just want to know why incase anybody reverts it...Jimbo^[online] 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because links on YouTube tend to fall under two categories, copyright violations and primary sources. Wikipedia is prohibited from linking to copyright violations because of a US District Court ruling (see WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material for more info) and discourages people from relying upon primary sources solely for sourcing (see WP:PRIMARY for more info). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Change football navboxes to full width?

I've started a discussion at Template talk:National squad on changing the widths of navbox templates {{Football squad}}, {{National squad}}, and {{Football manager history}} to be 100% from the current 80%. I'd appreciate comments and discussion there. Thanks, --CapitalR (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this? It would bring us into line with the rest of Wikipedia pretty much. I have never quite understood why they weren't full length in the first place. Example below Woody (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Aston Villa F.C. squad}} or {{User:Woody/Aston Villa Sandbox}}

I really don't mind 80% or 100% so you can have my "vote" for 100% ← chandler 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They have all been moved to 100%. Woody (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am against this. We had a template that worked on both on a technical and aesthetic level, I would have the box returned to 80% width, the agreed standard within the community.Londo06 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:FL-Class football articles

I notice that the category Category:FL-Class football articles is empty, even though we have several featured lists. Should these be re-rated as FL rather than FA? --Jameboy (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The cat is empty as the assessment wasn't supported when it was created so to record them FL's were placed in FA-Class football articles so WP1.0bot would count them. If FL-class is now supported, then a simple change to {{football}} will populate the category. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we know if it is supported or not? --Jameboy (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, pretty quiet here, so I'll change the featured lists to FL, and if it doesn't work the next time the bot runs, I'll happily change them back. --Jameboy (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Having changed a few, I can see what you mean now - even when rated as FL it is classed as FA. I'll submit a request to get the Football template changed. --Jameboy (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All footy featured lists now rated as FL (though still classed as FA for categorisation, apparently due to the bot not yet making the distinction). Unfortunately I think I broke some of the templates of other projects, as on closer inspection these are showing as "unassessed", implying that FL is not even partially supported by their project. I will go back and fix these individually. --Jameboy (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Derek Acorah

Aparently the TV psychic had a professional football career with Liverpool, Wrexham, Glentoran and in Australia...anyone know if he made a first-team league appearance for any of those teams, years at said clubs etc.? I smell an infobox...GiantSnowman (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No record of anyone called Derek Johnson (his real name) having ever played for the first team of Liverpool or Wrexham. Can't speak for Glentoran or any other non-English team though...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the article - the references used did not back up some of the claims made, and I've added {{cn}} to a few others. Qwghlm (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I ruled out tv.com as RS and therefore removed the whole section per WP:BLP --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Smith (Manager)

I don't agree with this page move, as it doesn't seem to fit in with the conventions of Wikipedia and WP:FOOTY. Am I right in thinking that the article should have remained as Jim Smith (footballer) for the reasons I mentioned on the article's talk page? I don't want to move it back without being clear on the reasons why. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd back it to be moved back, he isn't even a manager these days...Jimbo^[online] 11:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He was better known as a manager. Why change it to footballer when he stopped playing years ago? Just do whatever you feel is best. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Manager is too generic, though - it should be football manager. But I'd agree with 'footballer' to remain consistent. •Oranje•·Talk 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are we to say he is better known as a manager? Perhaps to us younger people, he might be better known as a manager, but to older football fans, they may remember him best as a player. It's all subjective, so in the interests of NPOV, "footballer" would be the most appropriate disambiguator. – PeeJay 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Hoffner

I wonder if this article is a hoax. Informations in infobox looks untrue and I found nothing on him on the internet...Any opinion?--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it - the French and German articles don't exist and the external links are for Erich Maas. I'd slap a prod on it if I were you. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And the guy's other contribution is to make a copy of Amazon Kingfisher under the name Hermoso Flieger (which I've just deleted as a test page). Bizarre. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would reckon it was just a copy of Erich Maas with a made-up name added. Maas' details look remarkably similar!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed this article was based on Erich Maas' article, this is strange. Thanks for the PROD, by the way.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian football club logos

Are the 39 templates in Category:Italian football club logos needed? None are being used, and the only incoming links to them are redirect pages... Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not redirects as such, they're templates which contain the team name and the kit colours, and something which is used in player infoboxes on the Italian-language Wikipedia. However, if they're not used on the English one then there's no real reason to have them...GiantSnowman (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be safe to speedily delete these under the "routine housekeeping" criterion (WP:CSD#G6) or would a TfD nomination be more appropriate? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in using them on my List of foreign Serie A players. --necronudist (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think they are necessary. If we allow using them for that list, then we should allow them for all football articles around, and I don't believe it's a good idea. --Angelo (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated a group deletion nomination for the templates here. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Swansea and League One

As things presently stand, Swansea City A.F.C. are the champions of the Football League One. However, this has not been placed on the FL1 article, most likely because of the Leeds United arbitrition hearing. What I want to know is should we put them in as champions, even though there is still a chance they won't be. --OZOO 09:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should. As things exist at present, Swansea are champions. We don't know whether Leeds will get the points back, so IMO it's WP:CRYSTAL balling to say that Swansea might not be. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if it's relevant, but the league are holding off on presenting the trophy to Swansea until such time as the Leeds thing is resolved..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They have been "crowned League One champions" according to the BBC, which I think we can class an an WP:RS. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only authority who can declare them League Champions are the Football League. They have not done so, and have pointedly refused to allow them the trophy to parade around the ground this coming weekend. To declare that they are champions, when it is clear public knowledge that there is a case in progress that jeopardises that declaration, is to Crystal Ball the decision, something that the FL is clearly not in a position to do, that Wikipedia has a clear policy against doing, and that much of the UK media might yet regret doing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Manager/Player navigation box colour discussion

Interested editors might want to join this discussion about the colours of the navboxes for player and managers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MLS team infobox

I was just looking at Toronto FC's article, and I wondered why MLS teams have a different infobox to football clubs from other countries. I mean {{Infobox football club}} is good enough for everyone else, so why is the MLS different? – PeeJay 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm surprised the image of the team kits isn't violating the fair use policy - surely this should be the standard basic Template:Football kit? I can see no indication on the image source site (btw, this seems to be used on all MLS team pages) that the images are free to be used elsewhere. •Oranje•·Talk 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. All images from that website should be deleted, and MLS teams' infoboxes should be replaced by {{Infobox football club}}. – PeeJay 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me that there's two infoboxes (one a template, one raw code) for season articles. Naturally, I didn't realise this before I recently created around a hundred of the blessed things using the latter one. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, the MLS template needs to go, to be replaced with the normal template that EVERY other club article uses...GiantSnowman (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've dealt with the Toronto FC infobox. Now for the other 17 past, present and future MLS teams. – PeeJay 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a big job to be sure, but as you do it please take care to transfer over all information that has a corresponding home in the standard infobox. I had to restore the team logo to the DC United page (having double-checked against Columbus Crew to ensure that logos were permitted adornments). Also, are you taking any measures to re-integrate non-standard information, or simply removing it? JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I missed out the DC United logo. Thanks for putting it back in for me. – PeeJay 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in late here, but I just found this discussion. I object to using the standard football template since that template currently doesn't use American English for the American teams. If there is an objection to the current MLS team alt template I'd prefer to see them reverted to the previous MLS Infobox template {{MLS team}} that didn't utilize the pictures in question but did utilize American English. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The San Jose Earthquakes article currently shows the template I'm referring to. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment about the US English, but does the infobox really need all that extra guff like "Supports' groups", which no other clubs in the world have in their infobox.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Supporters groups sanctioned by a team are a very unique thing to soccer. If anything maybe adding it to the other Soccer infobox should be considered. Frankly I consider the infobox being added to be too sparse. Lacks basic info like founding date, owner, etc... About the only thing I wouldn't mind being removed from MLS team template is the largest win and worst defeat. That's beyond basic info. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of foundation is in the standard football/soccer infobox. In fact, other than the things you say could be dispensed with, the only things in {{MLS team}} but not in the standard box are "first game" (generally lost in the mists of time for teams outside the US), "supporters' groups", "all-time leading scorer" and the trophies...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well those and the American English. But if no one objects to MLS teams using the MLS infobox minus the "Worst defeat" and "Biggest win" I'd suggest we modify the MLS infobox to remove those two and utilize that box. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the people that want to remove the MLS team infoboxes are not the ones that normaly edit MLS pages. Also a discussion should take more than a couple hours before action is taken. The MLS team infoboxes have been around for years and no one has objected to thm until now. They provide more basic information than the "standard" football infoboxes and should be kept. KitHutch (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; infoboxes for the same subject should be standardised, and any minority versions depreciated. From WP:IBX, the point of infoboxes is for "similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". {{Infobox Football club}} is listed as a primary template, and should be used wherever appropriate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument simply begs the question - the very matter at issue is whether the standard infobox is "appropriate"; and as others have noted above, MLS does have characteristics that aren't shared by the larger, international football community. JohnInDC (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also should mention that if anyone is unhappy that certain parameters are not present in {{Infobox Football club}}, then the thing to do is to argue for their inclusion on the template's talk page, rather than create a whole new infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The MLS teams should use the same info box as everybody else... The teams aren't special in anyway. And as ppl have said WP:IBX Chandler ♠ TALK 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the current box Soccer box doesn't have all the fields the MLS boxes do and doesn't feature an American English option. Code those in, THEN make the change. Until then the MLS box is needed if for the American English if nothing else. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me which items need translating into American English? I can't see any at the minute. – PeeJay 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "colour" needs to be "color". Also an option for "Ground" to be made "Stadium" needs to be made since there are no grounds in the US. Also additions for "First Game", "Owner", "Supporter's Groups", and the three major awards categories would need to be added. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the need to change "Ground" to "Stadium". Variations in the spelling of "colour" can be dealt with by using a simple boolean parameter (american = yes/no, for example). Owner can be implemented by using the chrtitle parameter to change the displayed title of that parameter in the infobox, as I have done for Seattle Sounders FC. As for First game and Supporters groups parameters, why on earth are they necessary for an infobox? Infoboxes should only contain vital information about the club, and neither of those fall in that category. – PeeJay 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters groups are a unique and interesting property of MLS in the US which is why they should be included. No other sports league has sanctioned supporters groups like this. As for first game I suppose it could be moved to the article, but it should be retained in some way as MLS does have definitive first games that are important information for each team. As for those other parameters if you'd like to add them feel free but please do so before adding the football infobox to the American soccer teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how to make the changes, but I agree 100% with everything User:PeeJay2K3 says. Consistency and some compromise between the two different infobox styles is the best way to go about this. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're taking suggestions for changes. I'd concede first game from the box, but would request an option to put in "division" since the MLS teams are in two seperate divisions "east" or "west". Yet another MLS oddity that while odd is very basic infobox material such as the MLB or NFL infoboxes have. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There isnt even a conference section on the MLS info box right now... Chandler ♠ TALK 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could probably | league = Major League Soccer<br />Western Conference it otherwise Chandler ♠ TALK 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any attempts to ignore soccer in the United States' unique strattling of two sporting traditions (the conventions of both North American major sports leagues and International soccer leagues) should be seen and dealt with as anti-American bias. Soccer in America is unique. American English has its own variations that are not shared by the rest of the English speaking world, and they should be respected. Unilateral action to change more than a dozen articles to remove valid content irregardless of these conventions is vandalism. Please refrain from acting in a similar fashion without first building consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than the kit pictures, which have their own legal issues, there is no pressing need to remove valid content from these articles, and the unilateral actions of one editor to circumvent the conventions of an entire series of articles without consensus to do so is highly untoward, disruptive, and disrespectful to the process of WP. This is a collaborative project, PeeJay, please remember that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing underscores that there are two issues here, both of which need to be addressed in discussions here. One is the form of the infobox and whether the current "standard" is wholly (or at least sufficiently) suitable for MLS; the other is ensuring that information that has heretofore existed in most or all of the MLS infoboxes is retained and suitably presented within the articles, should consensus be that such information is not suitable for infoboxes. As I consider this, I realize that I don't care about the willy-nilly "standardization" of the infoboxes as much as I do about the rather cavalier way in which that additional information was discarded in the process. JohnInDC (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I think the way in which a small group took it upon themselves to wholly bypass the process by which we've built WP into the great thing that it is, and then condescendingly leave a note after they had done so as though it was an afterthought should be condemned, and the perpetrators warned. I don't have any particular attatchment to the inclusion of the "first game" played by MLS teams in the infobox, and the issues with kit pictures is a seperate legal issue entirely, but the whole way this was done is really shocking. The people responsible should really review some WP policy. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

More and more, I'm starting to think MLS and all related pages (while we're at it, all of American soccer) should break from WikiProject Football. There are just too many distinctions and too many differences to try to conform under an umbrella policy that Europhiles and Anglophiles are hell-bent on unconditionally imposing on this part of WP without their even trying to build consensus among American editors. I'm just tired of all the condescension and patronizing from the European wing of this community, and we should just figure out a way to make a clean break.

If you don't want or welcome our input, that's fine. I'd be happy to take the time to start looking for consensus to form a new WikiProject (not the task force from which I haven't heard hide nor hair in any of these disputes) and we can take our business elsewhere. Just say the word. Either way, these petty, nitpicky, downright selfish disputes have got to stop, because I have lost all patience with European editors who are anything but productive when it comes to American soccer and who have taken their prejudices and narrow-minded thinking onto Wikipedia. It is a complete shame. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's worth discussing. Indeed I am immediately reminded of another kind of clumsy application of WikiProject Football standards to MLS, about - I don't know - three months ago when the "changes from last season" sections of a few MLS pages were summarily removed, as not in keeping with project standards. I kind of miss the information that was there; it was handy, generally well maintained (at least on the DC United pages), and there's no other place to put it. (It's not like anyone is going to the trouble of making year-by-year recap pages for the various MLS teams!) JohnInDC (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay's and Peanut's suggestion that we attempt to add extra parameters to the existing infobox to allow for an American English display. This has worked well for the 'birth date and age' and 'height' templates, and there is no reason it shouldn't be possible here. I'm a US-based, MLS-supporting WP editor but I concur that having multiple templates which accomplish the same objective is confusing and unnecessary. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On a completely similar and equally absurd request, could someone please help with deprecating Template:Infobox japan station under Template:Infobox Station? I mean, for consistency's sake, since that is ostensibly the concern among editors here. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny man.. take it with WP:TWP instead. chandler 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but it seems to have been ignored/overlooked: If anyone is unhappy that certain parameters are not present in {{Infobox Football club}}, then the thing to do is to argue for their inclusion on the template's talk page, not create a whole new infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I see no problem in adding all the optional parameters requested, including first game and supporters group, to the main infobox, and an american=yes flag or something similar. Other articles can simply ignore those. John Hayes^talk 07:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish to sound patronising, Anglophilic or otherwise, simply WP-centric, but let's add the new parameters in. Can a template wizard create a temporary version which will suit both our MLS chums and us old schoolers? Since we can add as many optional parameters as required, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at {{Infobox Football club2}}. You can see its output at User:Number 57/Toronto FC. The only thing I can't work out how to do is the Ground/Stadium thing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If standardization was of utmost importance, then long ago WP would have decided on American or Commonwealth English as a standard language. As we have not yet done so and both dialects are accepted on WP, a corollary to that is that regional variations in style are acceptable in other aspects of the encyclopedia. As this is such, I see no need to conform the MLS team infoboxes with any other infobox's standards, due to the unique nature of the MLS as both a Major North American sports league and a soccer league, both of which have their own unique conventions and traditions both on and off of WP. Legal issues pertaining to the kit images should be resolved ASAP, as there is no wiggle room on that subject (and truth be told most of them are outdated), but the rest of the content is within the conventions of both camps, both of which MLS has a foot in. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is highly unnecessary. It is unfortunate that this matter and other issues have been handled in such a condescending, paternalistic manner, as it has likely prevented any sort of consensus or compromise from developing, and I think I agree with Roehl that there needs to be seperation into a new American Soccer project. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The MLS is not as unique as some people seem to think. Half of Latin America has a different league format to Europe, whilst the Australian and New Zealand leagues are formed by franchises, yet I don't recall any complaints from people editing those particular articles.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on the new infobox? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that people don't seem to be as condescending with people around the Commonwealth as they are with Americans when it comes to football. Secondly, soccer is a much more minority game in Australia/New Zealand than it is even in the US, where it is the most common youth game, despite the lowly status of MLS. Australia/New Zealand are firmly part of the Commonwealth sporting culture with Rugby and Cricket taking the cake in those countries. Third, there is no other major sporting tradition in Latin America (besides baseball in the Caribbean, which is a different cultural block entirely) that even compares to the MLB/NBA/NFL/NASCAR/NHL/NCAA sports culture of North America. MLS is a part of both, and each group has its own quirks. There is simply no answer to the question of why consistency is something we absolutely must be seeking above all else. You've created a false crisis. Answer why consistency is of pressing concern, first, then work from there. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I already answered this above - from WP:IBX, the point of infoboxes is that "similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". Can we move on now? :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I say a couple of things? I don't really see the need for two distinct infoboxes. Someone argued about the differences between American and British English, but this is simply not a issue. Just compare the field labels, and you'll easily realize there's only a couple of significant differences, that is "ground" vs "venue" and "coach" vs "manager", with the latter potentially being set up explicitly using the "mgrtitle" field. In case someone can provide more significant language differences, we can instead discuss to use a boolean "use_american" field. People arguing MLS is unique probably forgets it's just football. Or soccer, whatever you prefer, but the game and the rules are quite the same. --Angelo (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what makes MLS unique in the slightest. Every single league in the world has its own traditions. A couple of nomenclature differences is really all that's at stake here, everything else can be easily catered for in optional parameters, as Number 57 has demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to you support in changing the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A articles to use Template:Infobox Sports league. I mean after all they're all sports leagues, why shouldn't we hold consistency above all else in those cases as well? When I have your support on that measure I will gladly support yours. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you just seem to be stalling to avoid reaching an agreement. Those templates are not the issue here and you can bring them up below or later if you want to change them (to answer your demand for support, I have no problem with standardising the templates you mention). Please make a contribution regarding the new infobox. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd want to take the Premier league, La Liga and Serie A of infobox football leauge, MLS should really go of its own (almost identical) infobox (Infobox major league soccer) chandler 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea.. I don't see why the MLS would be unique in any way... And seriously (trying to sound as little patronising as possible) its not the most notable league in the world, so why should it get "its own rules" here? chandler 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS springs to mind. We can't solve all of WP's inconsistencies in one go, let's just focus on this one shall we? And let's be clear, the football infobox is very specifically about football (or soccer if you will). The sports league infobox has a very much broader scope. You're comparing apples and oranges. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists relates only to AfD. No, everything must be consistent. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the fact that just because something's broken elsewhere, it doesn't affect the current argument. I see you've started making your point. At least resize the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this discussion is about one template, not all footy-related infoboxes. Can we get back on track and stick to {{Infobox Football club2}} please? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry did losing specific pieces of relevant information, or changing key terms in the article to a foreign dialect upset some people? Sorry I didn't try to build consensus before making the change. I sure am inconsiderate. QED -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point. Now we have a prototype infobox that includes all the information in the MLS one. Can we move on and be productive now please? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone for (finally) trying to understand this from our point of view. Sorry for breaking WP:POINT, but it was only for a few mins, and I think it really helped me make my point. If the MLS info (first game, etc.) is moved under the kit template like it was in the original, I would give preliminary support for such a change, pending further review and input from other American contributors. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - how is it now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To make it a bit more "universal", couldn't we change the variables for MLS Cup and Supporters' Shield to something like "league_title" and "cup", with the option to set the titles to something appropriate for the country in question.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to point out before it gets "accepted" that the | MLScup = None | supportersshield = None really should be changed to something that would shot "how many domestic cup wins" "name of domestic cup" and "how many domestic league wins" "name of domestic league", and maybe be able to change which comes first, and have maybe at least the alternative of "domestic leage1/2" and "domestic cup1/2"... If that was implemented, it could also be used by non-MLS teams chandler 09:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea, but MLS cup is not the "league cup" of MLS, it is in fact the MLS championship proper

I know that, but this is to make it universally usable, that's why i didnt call it the league cup, but the domestic cup. chandler 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A few changes. 1) manager seems to be the term MLS is moving toward, so that doesn't need its own American term, where stadium really needs to be available instead of ground. 2) make sure that when you add the largest win/defeat you use the home-away format, as we've been trying to build (I can't believe I'm saying this) consistency on this in the American Soccer articles 3) add a section for domestic cups and another for international honors. Other than that I see no reason not to support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the variables could be something generic like "honour1" and "honour2", with the option to set the titles to whatever you choose (eg "honour1title=MLS Cup".......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the trophy changes - now you can input |trophy1name = and |trophy1 = . I've only added 2 so far, but it could be extended. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, well done. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also done the stadium/ground thing: User:Number 57/Toronto FC. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a doc to that page (I think I got all things) chandler 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add a section for international honors because in MLS we have the SuperLiga, CONCACAF Champions' Cup (soon to be Champions League), and Copa Sudamericana. Whereas other places have regional/international competitions. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the problem with using Toronto as the example is that Canada doesn't have a notable "FA Cup" where the US has the US Open Cup that Toronto aren't allowed into. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't that be done under |trophy3, |trophy4 etc? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at User:Number 57/DC United. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or see User:Number 57/DC United2 for a second format which doesn't use up quite so much room. Which one is preferable? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed another issue: we typically show what the finish was last season, and in MLS this can be confusing. I think we need to be able to put finish in the regular season, the playoffs, or both. If we can do that then that's fine.

I think whatever version of the box that doesn't bunch things up into 2 rows unless absolutely necessary, should be used. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want under the |position parameter. I've had a go at combining regular season and playoffs here. I'd also prefer this version for the honours list, if indeed it is required. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing I don't like about that honours thing is when clubs become more successful it will mess it up chandler 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, why does the Premier League have its own template for its season articles? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know... looks like it is 2 years old... If {{Infobox Football league season}} does have the required parameters, I don't see any reason for not using it. chandler 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed now a rather big inconsistency there, one season used {{Infobox sports season}} some season doesnt have a infobox... I think all should be made to either {{Infobox Football league season}} or {{Infobox sports season}} chandler 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to ster up more emotions, but about MLS using {{Infobox major league soccer}}, here in my sandbox I drew up how it would look with the "normal" {{Infobox football league}}. The only two differences are, Most title and SS winner disapears. Now I motivate this how? I read SS was like the the thing they game out in the NHL, and on the NHL article under most recent champion, it doesnt mention it (in the infobox). Most titles disapears I motivate by saying, I havn't found any other league article with has it (though there probably is).. Now most titles is something that really could be usefull on the football league infobox imo, but that would have to be discussed also. chandler 10:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New parameters

So, given the changes made in the prototype infobox, is there agreement to include the new parameters in {{Infobox Football club}} and to use it on MLS club pages? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it would have to be disscussed over at the Template talk first? chandler 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume not, as all the people commenting there are the same people as work here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small thing, could you list the new parameters etc... and, how many trophy are you including? (I'm thinking if European team articles would start using this, we'd have to count, for at least english teams, League, FA cup, League cup, Community shield (maybe not needed there), Champions League, Cup Winners Cup, UEFA Cup, UEFA Super Cup (maybe not needed there), hmm probably forgotten some one) chandler 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The new ones are: | venuetitle = | owner | firstgame = | largestwin = | worstdefeat = | topscorer = | fansgroup = | trophy1 = | trophy1name = | trophy2 = | trophy2name =

We don't have to use the trophy thing for European clubs, but it was something in the MLS template which editors seem keen on retaining. Perhaps it be easier to have Honours in the left hand column, and then list them in the right, e.g. User:Number 57/DC United2. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only thing about that is, if euro clubs used it it would look something like this... well 100 rows :) Maybe something similar to the thing used for players club apearences and goals can be used? on the left hand you have Cup1<br>Cup2<br>Cup3<br>Cup4 and on the otherside How many times they've won it, instead of the years... The years should be under a Honours section, right? chandler 10:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, European clubs don't have to use it. Is it something which is really needed for MLS clubs? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could do like they've done on it:D.C. United for example, and yes ofc euro clubs dont have to use them.. but really, neither does the MLS clubs chandler 10:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, they don't have to use it, but this is how the Rangers might look Honours chandler 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think MLS needs it because the other North American teams list their championships in their infobox. Also, I really like the "goalscorer" idea. I don't think we need the years in the infobox (if more than a 1 or 2), just the number of titles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this someone has made (though for the NHL) User:Jeff3000/Sandbox1 The two at the bottom, I like that way of showing honours at least. chandler 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a larger issue, if each team can customize what they include and the terms they use, why do we have to use the same infobox? I mean what are we really doing here that's different from letting MLS use their own infobox? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because even if different parameters are required, we should all be working from the same base. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? If they're all going to look slightly different, what difference does it make how they got that way? If I don't get a good answer to this, I'm withdrawing my support for the switch. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you your view here, If they look slightly different, but it's easy to confide it in one template, why would you need to make other template? The differences wont be other that some parameters not being filled chandler 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, they will look the same beacuse the shape, style and order will remain the same - even if there are a few extra rows, I don't see how it is much different. Not all articles using {{Infobox Football club}}, or indeed any other major designated template (such as {{Infobox Officeholder}} have all the parameters filled in.

Plus the part of WP:IBX I quoted above remains the same. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the benefit? Is there something wrong with the way the current infobox is set up? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that we shouldn't have two separate infoboxes to do the same thing. The benefit is that if there is a consensus that the way something is presented needs to change, then only one edit is required. If we end up for different infoboxes for each league (some people might come along and argue that if MLS clubs have a separate template, then so should Serie A clubs), then it would be a nightmare. I don't understand how there can be opposition to a superficial change (such as the one proposed here) that leaves the MLS articles looking pretty much exactly the same, but get rid of template duplication in line with policy.

So my question remains, why should the Soccer Leagues have different infobox templates than other professional sports? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Biggest and most popular sport in the world is one factor chandler 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Why shouldn't the Premier League article use the template I change it to before? Just for argument's sake answer that question. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Premier League should use the standard infobox, but it may need the addition of parameters (e.g. confederation) in order for it to display the same information. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we have a template specially for football clubs, used by all football clubs (except that one league who wants to be different) chandler 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that its is the best template to convey the information required in that article, the same answer applies for the MLS teams. The current template allows for the easiest display of information, I don't see any reason to change them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the new template includes all the information, why not use it if unlike the existing one it (a) conforms to policy, and (b) keeps everyone on the project happy? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found a solution! Let's have every article use the same template and we can include every perameter so that everything is consistent. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I that's why this talk section was started... To get MLS to use the normal one... ← chandler 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like there are multiple templates that could be used on the Premier League article, there are multiple templates that could work on the MLS articles. We should use the infobox that works best for both, and leave it at that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But the question then still remains, "I mean {{Infobox football club}} is good enough for everyone else, so why is the MLS different?" There's really no reason why it wouldn't work. chandler 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that more important than whether soccer leagues should use different infoboxes than other sports? Why is this the exception? Is it because each sport has different needs, and because MLS falls into two categegories why shouldn't we choose a third way? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why MLS should be treated specially... Its absolutely not one of the most notable leagues in the world. ← chandler 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ofc it has... If ppl from all minor football leagues started coming here and wanting own templates for the Croatia, Cyprus, Sweden, Slovenia, Bosnia leagues etc... We would not allow it. I'm not sure ppl would allow one of the big tree leagues having own... So why should this league have its way and override (what ive read from this whole discussion) what most ppl think is wrong ← chandler 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to turn that around - suppose the Swedish football editors had a template in place, containing all sort of information not found in the standard template, and then one day someone for the sake of "uniformity" swept in and edited all the Swedish league pages to conform to the basic template, removing all of that extra information in the process. How would you expect the Swedes to react? I think this discussion is warranted, and healthy. I *also* think - again - that whatever the outcome, editors take care to preserve, in some responsible fashion, whatever non-standard information now contained in the MLS template. JohnInDC (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Swede, I would welcome it... And if you look at the history of Allsvenskan you'll see that the latest edits is me screwing some other template in favor for the standard one. :O ← chandler 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly something to be said for uniformity. There is also something to be said for examining the various things that, for one reason or another, MLS editors wound up including in their alternative infobox, and considering the reasons they might have done so - rather than simply chalking it up to cussedness or idiosyncrasy. And, please, try to work *with* the MLS editors to find a solution rather than simply imposing one upon them. (MLS fans really do get it from both ends - from 'major sports' fans in the US who disparage the sport they love as too Euro, too girly, or whatever; and from fans of more established leagues elsewhere who disparage MLS as a second rate sports backwater - no *wonder* they / we have thin skins sometimes.) And finally, again, whatever the final resolution, let's be careful not to simply sweep away non-conforming infobox material like so much dust. JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, we seem to be drifting off into circular arguments again here. Anyway, as I said before, given that it

1. includes all the information required by editors working on MLS articles
2. gets rid of duplication, and
3. has the advantage of adhereing to WP:IBX,

what are the objections to the newly modified infobox beyond a general resistance to change? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fashionably late to the discussion, I prefer the use of one infobox with fields that fit everyone. You could even go to the extent of adding MLS=yes as a variable which will then use if statements to alter the display (ie. if MLS=yes then show 'stadium' instead of 'ground' etc etc). As long as it has all the fields and the old infobox can be redirected without buggering too much up then go for it. Keeping everything similar and to a MOS is better in the long run, especially for WP1.0 and FA/PR etc, as we can instantly see if something needs work. Once eveything's sorted, just redirect the MLS one to the footy one and then think about giving the infobox a better name so people aren't confused by which sport it's for. Oh and the new one looks fine to me. 90.240.211.189 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to change the name of the template(s), all other sports have templates named differently anyway. {{Infobox australian football club}} {{AFL team}} {{NFL team}} {{Rugby team}} {{Infobox rugby league club}} ← chandler 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as all the information currently available in both the MLS and generic infobox is available in the new infobox, then I support the change to the new infobox. I think we should move to a consensus on how to include honors (if at all) on the infobox. I think every team should try to include the information available in the MLS infobox like first game, etc., but I understand that for the oldest teams those pieces of information are long since lost to history. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the big significance of 'first game'?--ClubOranje^Talk 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

True those sports all have different infoboxes, but they're also completely different sports. Soccer tends to be soccer world wide. Gateman1997 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, football tends to be football world wide... football tends to be soccer in upper north america ← chandler 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Lends support to the argument that North American soccer should have a separate infobox as it's a different sport ;) Gateman1997 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is a very common term in Australia and New Zealand. Whatever the most common form of football in a country is will be called simply football. American/Canadian football in the US and Canada and Rugby/Aussie Rules in New Zealand and Australia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand officially calls it Football, and has in recent times gone to lengths to 'convert' the public in line with international conventions.--ClubOranje^Talk 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the NZ association now calls itself a 'football' association instead of soccer, and in a similar way Soccer Australia has changed its name to football. But the point is the common usage of 'soccer' in Aus/NZ English. Some other countries often use soccer, frequently despite the association officially calling the sport football, e.g. South Africa (rugby union-playing) and Ireland (Gaelic football). Football is definitely the most common term for the game if you take all countries with English as one of their official languages, but the point is that North America is not the only place where 'soccer' is in widespread use Tameamseo (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Page break

All I think we need to look at what User:Number 57 is doing with his modifications to the standard Footy template. If those are implemented everyone wins. The MLS users will have American English, and the additional information from the current MLS template maintained, while everyone will be unified under a single template. Everyone wins. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except us haters who think MLS should fall in line :<< *note half joking* ;) ← chandler 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have consensus for change. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm what style for the honours should be though? I like User:Number_57/DC_United better than User:Number_57/DC_United2... Though the thing to consider is if the years are appropriate, because the list can get pretty long in some years for some teams (and could be pretty long right know with Euro teams) ← chandler 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick poll

Yes, I know !voting is evil, but which is the best way of displaying honours:

1. User:Number 57/DC United
2. User:Number 57/DC United2
3. Honours don't need to be displayed

• 3, but if the consensus is yes, then 2 as it avoids having to put long titles in the left hand column (which results in either having to split them over two lines, or having very wide infoboxes (try not splitting CONCACAF Champions Cup over two lines, and the infobox is half the page width)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 1, I would use it like I played with it here User:Xhandler/Sandbox/LFC_IB (to not split long titles like CONCACAF Champions Cup, just Champions Cup it.) ← chandler 08:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That box for Rangers looks like it would take up half the article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know its long... But I just don't like 2 at all. And the NHL articles uses a similar (to 1) "honours" showing in their infoboxes Montreal Canadiens ← chandler 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In ice hockey, though, there's only three potential honours a team can win, but if we went down that road for football I can envisage people trying to include stuff like this or even this, which would make the infobox longer than the article!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd obviously have to set up rules, for example only the top league, the national cup (2 for those who have), and the 3 big UEFA tournaments for UEFA teams ← chandler 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

have a look in my sandbox at your Rangers infobox, with the start of the Rangers F.C. article present as well. I've added in a placeholder picture where the logo would be to make it realistic. Even with an immensely long table of contents such as the Rangers article has, the infobox goes down way into the history section. It unbalances the whole thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3, but 2 if consensus demands that honours be presented. To be honest, I don't see the need for listing a club's honours in the infobox. As shown by the examples in chandler's sandbox, they take up almost as much space as the rest of the infobox (hyperbole), and in a lot of article's I've seen, they are often listed in the lead, as well as in a separate section further down the article. – PeeJay 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 per WP:IBX#General advice. I don't really think honours are relevant enough to stay in an infobox, they can be a potentially huge list which is better being featured in a separate section, as suggested by the Football (soccer) clubs MoS. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a mix of 1 and 2? With the tournament name on the left and "x titles" on the right side? ← chandler 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• honors and years, but the way struway2 has it works best. I really don't think people are going to start putting youth titles up, if they even begin putting honors up at all. Also, runner-up should not, strictly speaking, be considered an "honor." -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 - I think it can appear just as easily in the body of the article. I prefer that an infobox contain relatively static information, like founding date and stadium. If not static then I think the items should be ones that will not expand over time. So, I llike the biggest win / worst loss in these infoboxes (they will always be just a single entry), leading scorer (likewise); and supporter's group(s); but honors etc. can make the box unwieldly, and are easily put elsewhere. JohnInDC (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a version (I forget which option) that has the name of the cup/championship and then the number of times won with a link to the honors section of the article, to let people know what years they were won if they want to know. That way the box stays a relatively static size, but has just as much useful information. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section needs to remain intact, largely because we agree that everything in the MLS infoboxes has to stay in the new footy infobox, so "3" isn't even a valid option. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone wants 3, than its not agreed that all those things have to stay. ← chandler 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I only support the change to the new infobox if the MLS infoboxes stay the same content wise (order and format is not as important). The only valid reason for putting the MLS teams on the standard infobox is so that we can quickly and uniformly address problems that develop. Removing content that is in keeping with MLS teams role as both football clubs and North American sports franchises, these honors need to remain viable options for MLS team articles, regardless of whether the rest of the world takes advantage of them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case then including '3' as an option may have been a mistake, because that option appears to be gaining at least a plurality! (As for me, I appreciate the opportunity to tweak the infobox to include things that seem to have gained popularity on the MLS pages; however, I regard the same as also an opportunity to figure out what really *should* go in the info box, and I think there's a good case to be made for assigning the potential clutter of honors etc. to the main body of the article.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something that people outside the US don't seem to understand, I'm afraid. My point all along is that WP:FOOTY has as much jurisdiction over MLS as a (yet uncreated, as far as I know) WP:North American Sports, because there is as much need for uniformity in those articles as there is on the football articles. Not acknowledging this is simply not an option, and I (and I assume other American editors) will oppose any such action to the fullest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might have been a bad idea to include option 3, but JohnInDC (an American editor) actually supports it. As I said above, I'm willing to include the honours (largely to stop you destroying any hope of solving this issue through a blanket refusal to compromise on any parameter), but in turn, you should also take note of the views of a significant number of others on what is the same sport worldwide. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3, per Angelo and per JohnInDC. IMO, honours should go in an Honours section in the article, or a sentence or two in the lead for anything really significant to the club. Though it's funny how differently people see things; I included the start of the Rangers article with Chandler's infobox as an illustration of how excessively over the top that approach would look applied to a real article, even when restricted to recognised major honours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 2. While 1 is actually better for the MLS in particular I can see how 2 could be useful for almost any team worldwide. Just needs to have the American English for "Honors" and "Colors" added. Gateman1997 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 - Infoboxes are already taking over wikipedia, some articles you can't even write a long enough lead to go beyond the thing, and heaven forbid getting an actual photo on the first view of the page. Scrap them all imo, not just football. But specifically, for clubs like Liverpool, this would be daft. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Every article doesn't have to use every parameter. A change including an option for an honors section doesn't mean every club's article instantly has this info in the infobox. Making it impossible for the MLS articles to include information that all the other North American sports franchises have, however, is unworkable, as it removes information that is in keeping with other relavent conventions on WP. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that most US sports have a pretty straightforward and (comparatively) unchanging list of honors and championships that *can* be won (division championship, league championship) - contrast MLS, and soccer generally, where they threaten to multiply like rabbits. In the same way that international conventions aren't appropriately applied in all cases to MLS, I fear that US conventions likewise aren't always appropriate either. (Again the opportunity here is to figure out what actually makes sense and do *that*, not argue about which convention is worse.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it's far more important that DC United's infobox matches that of Cruz Azul than the Washington Redskins', because they'll never play the Redskins, and they have nothing in common beyond being from the same city; on the other hand, there's a good chance they'll one day play Cruz Azul in some continental tournament. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Why does everyone completely dismiss the fact that there is a unique sports culture in the US!? We have franchises, rather than clubs (though baseball started out that way), sponsorship of teams is much less commonplace, we have playoffs, etc. This independent tradition is part of why MLS has struggled to gain a foothold in the US, so its far from irrelevant to this discussion. Again, my point is that there is as good an argument for making MLS comply with WP:FOOTY's guidelines as there is for making the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A comply with the Sport's League infobox, which I used to make my point earlier. As John pointed out, American Soccer fans get shit on by two different and powerful communities, so the more you work with us, the better you will do. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to completely dismiss the fact that all countries have unique sports cultures. And why the US should be treated differently has still not been explained. ← chandler 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

North America has the only sports culture that is markedly different from the one that developed out of the UK. Everyone else's is transplanted out of that one (through either the British Empire/Commonwealth) or the almost universal popularity of football. This unique culture is part of why MLS has struggled to get a foothold in the US. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3 I think it is unnecessary to include these in the infobox. It will use too much space (for successful clubs) and is not crucial information that needs to go in the infobox. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are misinterpreting these changes as "Include a bunch of information in every club article" instead of what it is "Keep important information in a dozen or so MLS articles." Nobody is suggesting we make the Liverpool or Rangers infobox 3 pages long, instead we're suggesting we not summarily delete content from the MLS team articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember folks, these changes aren't meant to be used on most soccer infoboxes. They're primarily going to be restricted to MLS boxes only. Liverpool for instance wouldn't change from what's displayed there now. By making this change so too the MLS boxes wouldn't change. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between "info in MLS infoboxes that isn't even mentioned in Euro-football articles" (like "worst defeat") and "info in MLS infoboxes that most Euro-football articles get around to mentioning in the article text" (e.g., honors and trophies). Including the former in the infobox and making it optional for non-US clubs makes sense in the former case, where the information risks being lost from MLS pages if it's not in the infobox. In the latter case, making it optional in the infobox risks presenting it in one place on MLS pages and in other on non-US football pages, which strikes me as the least welcome outcome. JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in both places, first of all. The important thing is that we have to respect what the other American franchises do in addition to what soccer teams around the world do. Deleting information from the infobox that NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams put in their infoboxes would be ignoring this distinction. That would be the least welcome outcome. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any content be removed from the articles, just from the infobox. The infobox could in theory contain a summary of the entire article, but that is not its purpose. My view is that club honors are not crucial information that needs to appear there. Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that it is crucial that it appear in the infobox to conform to the conventions for the other North American sports franchises. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 2 - I think it's a good idea to include honors in infoboxes for all clubs. It also doesn't appear that anyone's noticed that honors/honours is spelled differently in American and British English, that will need to be changeable in the template, just like other differences that have been pointed out (color/colour for example). - MTC (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I had noticed that, but trying (with User:PeeJay2K3) to get the colours thing fixed first. If anyone else knows how to, feel free to edit {{tl:Infobox Football club2}}. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    It is simple to do this, I have just made the edit to the template. It will change colours to colors if you add "American = true" ("true" can be replaced with any text, even false) to the template parameters. Here is an example using the DC United template from your subpage. - MTC (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks for that - I've applied it to {{Infobox Football club3}} too (and used it as a simpler way of getting the stadium/ground thing), so the Hono(u)rs thing works too - see User:Number 57/DC United2. Counting from above, it looks like this is the preferred option (I could 2 votes for 1 and 5 for 2). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Guys keep up the good work. It looks great. I'd be all for applying it now. We can debate content til our heads fall off, but implementing this would at the very least solve the base issue of getting all soccer teams/clubs under the same template. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I tend to get a little impatient, so I've made the change. Just done D.C. United. Can anyone else help out with the changes? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • • I've applied it to all the teams in the Eastern Conference (except Toronto), but that's enough work for one night... пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Outstanding work. It looks spot on. Great compromise all around. Keeps what MLS writers want, and we're all unified under one box. Well done. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Help Can anyone work out why the modifications to the template are causing the large amount of whitespace to appear at the top of a few articles (e.g. User:Number 57/Bury Town F.C.). I can't work out why the optional parameters seem to be doing it... пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Hmmm. It seems to be caused by having more parameters below the pictures of the kit. As a quick fix I'll move them above it (so the articles won't look funny overnight, and it won't remove info from the MLS boxes I've already done), but if anyone can work out how to do it long term, please do. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • The problematic template is at {{Infobox Football club3}} and an example of its effect at User:Number 57/Bury Town F.C. in case anyone wants to have a go. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • Actually, is it even a problem in what order the parameters appear in the box? No other US sports actually display the kit, so does it matter that it's at the bottom? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• It may. MLB lists their "kits" about mid box similar to where most soccer boxes have previously. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Damn - that was the only sport I forgot to check (I did look at NBA, NHL and NFL...). But then again, the baseball teams lists its nicknames, stadium, names etc below the kit, and the manager and coach at the end so there's a fair old mix anyway. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • True enough. I'm game to see what your change does. So far your changes have been spot on. I've already applied them to the San Jose Earthquakes article. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: :::::I think from a North American perspective however what we also have to consider is that MLS should conform to a point with the other major North American sports leagues, like the MLB and NFL. Both of which list championships in their respective infoboxes. See that's the pickle. MLS as Grant points out does have alot more in common with the NFL or NBA as a league then it does the Premier League or La Liga. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3: No honours. No first game. No top goalscorer. All the information is incidental and isn't relevant enough to the backbone of the club. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And every club outside the MLS will likely not include them. MLS teams, however, need to be able to comply with the conventions of both football clubs and North American sports franchises. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be plenty of non US editors that will positively sieze the chance of being able to include the worst defeat of a team in the infobox of a rival, be it in 1995 or 1905. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that that info is largely unknown for the world's oldest clubs. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that?? Most decent football annuals list that info for every pro club in England - see List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, but the point is the information doesn't have to be added if people don't wish it to be so. MLS articles should have it for the reasons I've mentioned like a dozen times before. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it can be added, by virtue of there being a parameter, then sure as dammit someone will eventually add it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee, in that I do believe that these parameters would be open to use/abuse by fans of non-American teams. However, I do not believe that we should remove a parameter just because someone might misuse it. That goes against everything Wiki stands for. – PeeJay 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. You could make the same argument about every article or section on WP. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the documentation, I have listed them as MLS-specific parameters, so hopefully this will stop people using it for non-MLS teams (and gives a pretext for removing it where it has been). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1 For most teams this will be quite small, and even in the case of Rangers or Liverpool I don't see why it matters much if the infobox is quite long, the article is still longer. John Hayes^talk 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the template on the MLS teams... I was gonna try and update some teams infoboxes, but get stuck on the Season (Eastern Conference: 2nd, Overall: 4th, Playoffs: MLS Cup) is what New England has... But what are you forexample gonna set for Huston, who won the MLS Cup, if the second placers have "MLS Cup" as Playoffs. ← chandler 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And maybe , should be used instead of : after the competition to go with the rest of the clubs around the world ← chandler 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and forgot, if the MLS is considered the most important (in between Conference placing and Overall placing after the league, shouldn't it be at the top?) ← chandler 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I made those changes, I was going to put MLS Cup Winners for Houston. I did it in that order, conference, overall, playoffs, because that's the order they happen in. First conference order determines if you get an automatic spot (since 07 at least) then overall determines wild card, then playoffs happens after that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I though think second place should be under "Runner up" ← chandler 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated Houston now, don't think i missed anything ← chandler 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That opens another "can of worms" regarding honours themselves. Can you count runners-up as an honour? You see plenty of player articles, having runners-up, promotion, play-offs wins as honours. I'd simply go for actual titles themselves as an honour. Though I admit runners-up in cup finals normally comes with a medal for the players. Peanut4 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, we're talking about the "last season" section in the infobox. Specifically because MLS uses a playoff system to determine its champion. I think we're pretty much agreed that only actual wins will count as honors for the infobox's purposes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutly nothing more than Wins in the infobox, in a honours section runner up is suitable imo. ← chandler 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, use the : rather than the , in the last season section, unless you are going to fix all the one's I did last night. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that , is used on all other clubs (who write out for example, La Liga, 2nd) ← chandler 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, so if you want to use the comma you can change them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm a little late to this debate, sorry about that. I wanted to wait until the technical debate was done to just see the results! 2 is definitely the cleaner look, so it might be preferable. matt91486 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)