Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 13

Notability of Northern Irish clubs
Does anyone have any opinions on the level at which clubs become notable in Northern Ireland? I am unsure about the notability of clubs in the NAFL Division 1A (the 5th tier) and dubious about that of the following: If no-one has any opinions to the contrary, I am minded to nominate all clubs from below the 5th tier for deletion. Number  5  7  16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Northern Amateur Football league Division 1B (sixth tier) Orangefield OB F.C.
 * Mid-Ulster Intermediate League: Laurelvale F.C., Tandragee Rovers F.C.
 * Derry and District League: Don Bosco's F.C., Top of the Hill Celtic F.C., Trojans F.C. (Premier Division), Culmore F.C. Downey's F.C., Lisahally F.C. (First Division), Ballymoor F.C., Foyle Harps Y.F.C., Tristar Boys F.C. (Youth teams)
 * Fermanagh & Western League: Enniskillen Town United F.C., Enniskillen Rangers
 * I would think they could probably stay, but maybe no new ones should be created? matt91486 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening ceremony
In football match articles is info about the opening ceremony required? Buc 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. The only opening ceremony I can remember that might be considered notable is the one from USA 94 when Diana Ross missed a goal from about 6 inches, which received (and continues to receive) coverage.  Other than that, I don't think they're notable at all.... ChrisTheDude 07:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham City F.C. seasons FLC
I've just put Birmingham City F.C. seasons up as a featured list candidate. If anyone can spare the time to have a quick look and leave their comments, it would be much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 | Talk 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Portsmouth 7 Reading 4 is it notable?
Is the Portsmouth 7 Reading 4 artcle notable enough to merit an article or should it or prodded? Kingjamie 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prod/AfD it.  WATP   (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a blatant example of recentism. I can't think of a single example where a run-of-the-mill league match should pass the bar of notability. - fchd 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Prod it, it's just a domestic league match with some unusual result. I don't really want an article for each match ended in a 7-x result, unfortunately the subject is not eligible for speedy deletion, so PROD and traditional AFD are the only ways to request the article to be removed. --Angelo 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, AFD i think. You could try and put some of the info in the Premier League 2007-08 article. Don't think that there is much info that can be moved though. Woodym555 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not a sports magazine. Recentism and all. AfD IMO. Alexf (Talk/Contribs) 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cruft in my view - an extraordinary match but it needs nothing more than a mention in Football records in England - its not a deciding match like a cup final or season finale. Qwghlm 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To AfD with it. Ref (chew) (do) 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is currently under PROD process, and will be hopefully deleted in five days. --Angelo 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * btw the guy that created the article (Materu) also removed the delete prod. Govvy 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Now it's listed at AFD, have your say there. --Angelo 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks in squad lists
Non-notable player's shouldn't have wikilinks in the "Current squad" section on club articles, should they? Just wondering, as the links for non-notable player's are being re-added on Halifax Town A.F.C., and wanted to know if this was definetley right. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say no, they shouldn't, because if they're not notable then they'll never have an article anyway, so will forever remain as a redlink, which is pointless ChrisTheDude 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be left unlinked (on squad templates too), otherwise it looks like an invitation to create. ArtVandelay13 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about people on the rosters who have never played?? Once they've played in a professional league, they are notable enough for an article, per WP:BIO, and I see nothing wrong with the red links.  Invitation to create articles is not a bad thing. Neier 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we're talking, as far as I am aware, about non-league (semi-pro) clubs where some players may have played at a pro level but others not (and are by definition not going to while they're at a non-league club)..... ChrisTheDude 10:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok–Thanks for the clarification. My knowledge of the various leagues in England is pretty sparse, so if there are non-professional teams listed, I agree about removal of the red links from their rosters. Neier 10:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that no active link should be given to a roster member of a club, unless he has played in a full professional league/cup game. Govvy 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Salomon Kalou
Someone keeps reverting me to use an uncropped image of Kalou with a stranger in the article. Perhaps others can keep an eye on it too. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-10-4 11:01
 * I just reverted and left a note to the IP user who reverted you. In case he keeps on changing, I would semiprotect the article for a handful of hours. --Angelo 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Danny Brown
I came across an article about a lower league footballer called Danny Brown, which had been vandalised (now fixed). He seems to have spent most of his playing career with non-league clubs except possibly with Barnet before they lost their Football League status in 2001. However, there were no sources to confirm any of the information in the article and Soccerbase does not have much on him. Does anyone know of some sources to verify the information given? Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just come across what appears to be a duplicated entry at Daniel Brown. One or the other (or both!) will need to be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) There are some official profiles such as and  that may help. Also,  and  should give you all you need. Nanonic 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nanonic. I have prodded one of the articles and we'll see where we go with the other. --Malcolmxl5 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No real point prodding one, just redirect one to the other and copy info over. Looking at the What links here they're both linked to from other pages, so a redir will result in the smoothest solution. Oh and checking out the Wanneroo's statement in the article, the club website does have a Danny Brown playing for them in their history but no indication of if it's the same one (so it's probably balls). Nanonic 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The soccerbase entry was clearly added without them realising he was the same bloke as they already had . Also, this Leyton Orient page gives some more info. Struway2 | Talk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Football in England table cells
This template appears to have hit a slight hitch. I can't see why myself. Any chance anyone else can fix it? Peanut4 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just came across it myself, it's a problem caused by adding templates (specifically the flagicon) to the tnavbar-header section of the template. Removing the  will fix it for the moment, but it's probably just someone fiddling somewhere. Nanonic 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it - a User:Carioca added an unnecessary | to the header between the title and flagicon which broke the code (bizarrely his edit summary was "fixed template"). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. For some unknown reason, the template was displaying wrong in my computer before I edited. Anyway, thanks for reverting my edits, as this fixed the problem. --Carioca 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Roosterrulez
I recently by pure coincidence stumbled across edits by this user. I was looking at the tag for one of the Leeds United history pictures and noticed it on the Sport in Leeds page. I went here to see how it was being used and noticed that this user has been copying and pasting the content of articles from one page to another. They have done this with all of the Leeds United A.F.C. History page, along with information from many other clubs in the Leeds area's pages to this page. I have reverted the edits to Sport in Leeds but I was looking through their edit history and noticed that they have been doing this with a few other pages as well. One easily noticeable edit is the page created History of Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. This is an exact copy of the history on Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. I was wondering what other users view on these edits were? Also in my opinion all of the Leeds City Vixens articles should probably be merged into the main article. It is unlikely that a large amount of information will be obtained soon to expand these articles from how they stand and the one page would suffice to hold all of the current information stored on all of these pages and be easily readable. Chappy TC 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The user does actually have a ton of good edits, but as you stated above, he has made very bad edits. Maybe leave a message on his talkpage about this matter? EDIT: This user has sockpuppets, see here for evidence. Davnel03 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy if you dot know what im talking about check by the way you can do the work because I have started them you can finish them!mattypc 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI Chappy84, if you have problems with another user, take it there. As to copy and pasting, of course they do, we all do, it's how a lot of child articles are created - and also a lot of articles are only a copy and paste job from another article, especially history of pages, it's called content forking. Nanonic 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest a look at WP:SUMMARY as well. Many articles do this, although it should be a summary and not an exact copy. As a start though, it is very common. Woodym555 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Copying from parent articles to kick-start child articles is pretty common and all fine (as long as correct attribution is given in the edit summary). Copying back from the child article to the main one (as Roosterrulez has been doing, e.g. here) goes against common sense and WP:SUMMARY and should be actively discouraged. As for the existence of the articles in the first place, that's a separate matter but I'm not terribly fussed about it to be totally honest (except the mascot one, which is ridiculous). Qwghlm 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I partially take that back - the seasons article should be merged into the history one and the academy & reserve team are not notable enough for a page in my view. Qwghlm 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Football club seasons MoS
This discussion has started up again at Talk:Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08. Just to overview, my position is that the article should conform to the standard laid down by the other Manchester United F.C. seasons articles, while ClaudioMB thinks we should stick to the style the article was originally started in. Andre666 believes that the current style is better for while the season is ongoing, but prefers the style of the other Man Utd season articles overall. - PeeJay 09:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for a discussion in yet another place. You'd better discuss the issue right here on this page, possibly with a voting process, as it's now absolutely clear ClaudioMB will always defend his own version against any other differing one. --Angelo 09:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the vote has already been started at Talk:Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 (not my fault!). I've splintered this bit of the discusssion to the bottom of the page to reignite interest. Please, everyone vote on this topic so we can finally put it to bet. - PeeJay 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Manchester United ones look OK to me, except for their use of small text throughout, and the dependence on colour to show wins/draws/losses. - fchd 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not about MoS, but the structure and layout that page should use. The discussion is place there because it matters more to those who contribute to the page.--ClaudioMB 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating player articles
I created a stub called William Robertson (footballer), which User:PeeJay2K3 moved to William Robertson (footballer born 1873) to disamb from a Man Utd player of the same name who was on his list of things to do. Now User:Roman Spinner has moved it to William Robertson (Welsh footballer), with edit summary "the primary Wikipedia characterization is by profession or occupation, sub-characterized by nationality" diff

Does WP:WPF have a guideline of any sort as to birth year being the method of choice for disamb'ing? or for that matter, is there as Roman Spinner said, a general guideline on disamb'ing by occupation then nationality? Struway2 | Talk 09:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't found a policy on that during my travels around the wiki. Personally I use the following -
 * Joe Bloggs - when there are no conflicts
 * Joe Bloggs (footballer) - when there are conflicts with other Joe Bloggs (none of whom played football)
 * Joe Bloggs (association footballer) - when there are conflicts with other Joe Bloggs who play a different code of football
 * Joe Bloggs (English footballer) - only when there are two or three Joe Bloggs and they are all of a different nationality
 * Joe Bloggs (born XXXX)/(footballer born XXXX) - if two or more Joe Bloggs share the same nationality (or their nationality isn't something that necessarily identifies them)
 * Joe Bloggs (English footballer born XXXX) - if there are two or more and you can't think of another way to differentiate them
 * Joe Bloggs (defender) - if they can be differentiated purely by which position they played in (such as George Hunt) or share birth years (such as Mark Howard)
 * I avoid the use of (Nationality footballer) though for non-victorian players, as the use of the grandmother card to swap nationalities can make the title ambiguous. Also, although we are told not to disambig for future articles, there is a (to me) higher chance of there being another footballer of the same nationality than anything else. I prefer the use of (born XXXX)/(footballer born XXXX) as these are sometimes the most unique, but also like to keep the information in parentheses as short and snappy as possible. Again, these are just my personal preferences as I've never seen a hard and fast rule, someone can feel free to correct me if there is. Nanonic 11:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to use position wherever possible, as that is the most immediate thing I think of when I trying to tell apart two footballers with a common name (e.g. Paul Robinson the goalkeeper v. Paul Robinson the defender). Nationality is another useful differentiator but position is my preferred one. Years of birth are my least favourite - who here knows the years of birth of players from their team off the top of their head? Qwghlm 11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Position is annoying to use when a player can play in more that one position, which is quite common. I prefer to use DOB. It's long-winded, but I'd say it's the most neutral and less likely to have other player's with the same title. Mattythewhite 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to use DOB, if (footballer) isn't enough, for the same reasons as Matty, though if there was a guideline I'd happily follow it. I agree entirely that you can't be expected to know a player's date of birth, but equally you can't be expected to guess what any individual editor has chosen to differentiate by. So long as the disambiguation page (at Paul Robinson, or Paul Robinson (footballer)) is created and updated, you don't need to. Struway2 | Talk 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that disambiguating by position is a good idea because, with the exception of goalkeepers, it is common for footballers to play in different positions over the course of their career. For example, Gareth Taylor began as a defender and was converted into a striker and Marcus Stewart has also played in defence. I think it's ok in most cases to use (goalkeeper) as a disambiguation, with the exception of people like Jorge Campos, but these are very rare exceptions. I tend to use (footballer born 19xx) when (footballer) isn't good enough. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most players tend to stay in one position, or are known primarily for their work in one position (e.g. Dion Dublin, Chris Sutton are both better known as strikers despite being also used in defence). It becomes a right pain when trying to write articles, having to search for a player's date of birth in order to link to them, when I can name off the top of my head what position they usually play in. Qwghlm 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that football isn't the only sport that has, for instance, a playing position called "goalkeeper", so someone with minimal sporting knowledge might look at a link such as Paul Robinson (goalkeeper) and not be any the wiser...... ChrisTheDude 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this someone has today changed the two Andrew Taylors to Andrew Taylor (footballer born in Hartlepool) and Andy Taylor (footballer born in Blackburn). It does seem long-winded but both were born in 1986 and both defenders though the latter is known as Andy Taylor. Peanut4 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Football mascots
Surely most of the articles in Category:Football (soccer) mascots fail the notability test? With the exception of Cyril the Swan and H'Angus (who both enjoy a degree of notoriety) I don't think any need articles about them. Qwghlm 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, competely agree. - fchd 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say I wondered this too. What is the notability test for mascots? Peanut4 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any real guideline, WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - while the two I've mentioned have received appropriate press coverage, the rest have not. Qwghlm 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that most of them aren't notable, as in most circumstances a couple of sentences suffices, so a mention in the main club article seems fine. As you say, a separate article is only necessary if the mascot has distinguished itself in some way. If there are no objections, I'll start merging some of the small stub mascot articles into the main club article concerned (I'll give notice on the relevant talk page and try to contact the editors concerned in case there is further info to be added). Anything that has much more than a paragraph (assuming it's not just waffle) I'll leave alone for now. --Jameboy 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, shouldn't the MoS template for clubs have a heading for mascots then? Da-rb 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I think they can go in the "Supporters" section though, as for mascots which only merit one or two sentences there's probably no point having a separate heading. --Jameboy 16:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions on use of years in text
This may have been sorted/asked before, but what is the suggested use for links in football clubs', or footballers' entries? For example 2007, could be 2007, 2007 or even 2007. You could even have 2007 or many more. The last example obviously ought to be used at the right time, but is there a more specific case for particularly the first three?

Peanut4 01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest linking to the page that the page you are linking from is most likely to be linked to from. For example, if you were doing an article on a footballer and you were writing his/her year of birth, then you would most likely link to the year 2007. On the other hand, if you were doing an article on a club, and you were writing about an event in that club's history, you would more likely link to 2007 if it was a general event, or 2007 if it was an event such as winning a major trophy. - PeeJay 01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of winning a title I'd suggest linking to the appropriate season of the respective competition. I've done that most recently at Borussia Mönchengladbach. -- Madcynic 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. You've both replied exactly what I thought. But there must be hundreds, probably thousands of entries out there incorrectly linked then? Peanut4 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You do realize you just volunteered to change those hundreds of entires? ;-) -- Madcynic 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been changing the many I've seen but not sure I've changed them all correctly. Normally it's been changing 2007 to 2007. Some ought to be 2007. As for doing them all, I'll see if I get chance ;-) Peanut4 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I usually take out links to individual years when I can be bothered. They usually don't add anything as navagational aids. Over-linking is something to be avoided, in my opinion. - fchd 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the Wikipedia MOS regarding dates says that years should be linked when used in conjunction with the day and/or the month. Otherwise, I would agree with you. - PeeJay 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree about overlinking. You can almost link every word. I thought the cyan link on the photo caption on Defender (football) page was a prime example. I'm not sure why in an entry about the intricacies of our beautiful game, you need a link to a secondary colour? But I digress. Peanut4 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite... the MoS states that years should only be linked when used in conjunction with the day and the month. For example, 1 January 2008 would be linked, but January 2008 wouldn't. robwingfield «T•C» 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's what I meant about taking out links to individual years - where the day and the month is also stated, for instance the date of a match, that should stay according to the MOS. - fchd 06:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that linking to the season of a competition in case of a title win or somesuch has a beneficial side effect: You tend to create the page if it still is missing, to avoid the red link ;), at least I tend to do that. Madcynic 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If more than one date from the same year is mentioned in the same section, should the first one take the form 1 January, 2007 and the second one 2 February, 2007? Or should the year be linked both times? --Jameboy 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say both linked. It doesn't quite look right otherwise. Peanut4 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK:Archive
Do we have any archive of football related DYK's. If so, where. Please let me know, it's important. Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have one. Oldelpaso 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just started one at WikiProject Football/Did you know, though at the moment it is very incomplete. Oldelpaso 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've substantially added to the above, so it should be close to complete now. My method was fairly unscientific, namely trawling through the DYK archives searching for the word 'football', which probably won't have caught every article but should be very close. I have also added a link to the new subpage from the main WPFOOTY project page, under the Showcase section: please feel free to expand this link or move it around as you see fit. Many of the early DYKs don't have the template on their talk page that states when they were a featured DYK, hence I was unable to add the dates for these. Can someone let me know how I find these out? Also if there are any facts which have since been overtaken by events or disproved (and I haven't yet checked if there are) it might be good to have footnotes for them. --Jameboy 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody. Really good work ;) We've started a DYK section in [Bengali Wikipedia. Now we can easily create Football related DYK's from the archive. Ole everybody--[User:Tarif Ezaz|Tarif from Bangladesh]] 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Slow learner strikes again
Moleman1870 still hasn't learned that domestic stats in infoboxes relate to league games only. There are more than a couple of reverts to plod through. I'm leaving this here as a reminder to myself, unless someone else has the time to do it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that several people have left comments on his talkpage - but he has not yet replied. Maybe he doesn't know how to communicate with other users on Wiki through talkpages, or for some reason doesn't get the "You have new messages" bar. It might mean he thinks he's done nothing wrong if he can't see the messages. Anyway, I've left a "welcome" template on his talkpage, along with a new discussion linking it to this discussion here. Hopefully that'll solve this matter. Thanks, Davnel03 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User:MolemanR1870. Sockpuppet? Rettetast 10:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock. Reported to ANI, so tey can be blocked. Leave a note on the ANI topic or here if anymore socks show up. Thanks, Davnel03 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Davnel03 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been through his edits as MolemanR1870. He has also added a couple of tables to the Rotherham United F.C. article and it might be worth checking the numbers! --Malcolmxl5 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now gone through all the Moleman1870 edits. The Man Utd players were less of a problem as quite a few people seem to watch those. Where I've made an edit, I've also left a (hidden) message to sat league apps & goals only. We now await another sock! --Malcolmxl5 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Player categories
Should a player be included in a list of a club's players if he didn't actually play for them, e.g. was either a trainee, a loan player who returned without playing, etc, etc. Strictly I suppose he was a member of the club and therefore a player but he never made it onto the field for the club. Peanut4 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been debated a few times (see archives), and the consensus is yes, other than trialists* and wartime guest players. I tend to also leave out players who left a club before they were 16. (* Unless they actually play, as in some countries). ArtVandelay13 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, except for Leeds United for a reason I've never understood. WikiGull 11:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Images of match programmes / tickets
Are we allowed to use images of a match programme or ticket in an article about a particular match? Can we also use an image of a club's programme if the programme is described in the club article? If so, seeing as these images would be non-free, which fair use rationale(s) would be applied? I'm guessing possibly a magazine cover for the programme, but no idea about the ticket stub. --Jameboy 23:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the fair use rules is that a programme cover can only be used in an article about the programme itself, not the match in question, but I don't see any problem with using an image of a ticket in this way. As for what rationale to use, I'm not too sure about that. It might be a good idea to try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AFC team names
The default sorting of all team names in the form AFC (placename) has just been changed so that they're sorted under AFC rather than under the placename as they were before - which approach is correct? ChrisTheDude 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Placename. ArtVandelay13 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorting under AFC is correct. That's how the FA sorts them, all the county FAs, and any books that list clubs in alphabetical order (e.g. Cherry Red Records Non-league Newsdesk Annual). - fchd 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How are A.F.C. Bournemouth listed? --Dweller 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As Richard Rundle says, sorting under AFC is correct. From what I know, AFC Sudbury and AFC Bournemouth are usually sorted in this way (e.g. in pre-season league tables). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AFC Bournemouth are listed, as I would expect, under "A" - see Entries for 2006-07 FA Cup. When the draw for the first round is done, they should be ball number two - after Accrington Stanley. - fchd 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, if a placename is present - and it usually is - then that should normally take precedence, so F.C. United of Manchester should appear under M, near to Manchester United F.C.. AFC and FC should not be considered part of the sort key. e.g. A.F.C. Telford United should appear under T, just as they did when they were Telford United F.C.. To have one under A and one under T seems illogical. --Jameboy 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It might often be dropped in the case of Bournemouth, but several clubs are always referred to as AFC - Sudbury and Wimbledon being examples - to differentiate themselves from former clubs. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AFC Wimbledon consider themselves "Wimbledon", though, and that usage is growing. ArtVandelay13 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? The AFC Wimbledon fans I've talked to mainly refer to their club as "AFC" (as the FC United fans talk about going to see "FC" rather than United or Manchester) - fchd 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AFC shouldn't be dropped from AFC Bournemouth, because strictly speaking Bournemouth is Bournemouth F.C. - although of course it's usually obvious from the context which Bournemouth team is being referred to. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They might consider themselves Wimbledon, but I am yet to hear any non-AFC fan refer to them without the AFC prefix. The same goes for Hornchurch, Emley and the former AFC Barnsley. Also, FC United of Manchester really should be at F, especially as their preferred name (FC United) doesn't include the M word. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Birmingham F.C. players
Some months ago, User:Footballhead, who seems to be no longer active on Wikipedia, at least under that name, hived off the Notable former players section from article Birmingham City F.C. to article List of Birmingham F.C. players. It looks like he/she intended to tidy it up, because they gave it a lead para similar to that used in many other clubs' player lists, but nothing much has been done to it since other than the addition of a few recent or current players.

What I want to do is move it to List of Birmingham City F.C. players, which obviously is what it should have been called in the first place, and then convert it to a format similar to that used in other clubs' lists and populate it with players meeting some stated criteria, for instance 100 games played plus the odd special case. Should I just be bold (or not very bold seeing as I'm asking here first) and get on and do it, or does it need to be listed for page move for any reason? Struway2 | Talk 16:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not being bold, you're just being correct, as the club's article name is Birmingham City F.C. Just do it, don't worry. --Angelo 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done it for you! I will leave you to build the table!... Woodym555 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Struway2 | Talk 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most_wanted_articles
Most_wanted_articles has been updated using the 2007-09-08 data dump. --Sapphic 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Norwich City player of the year
Hi. I'm moving this list article toward WP:FL status (just waiting on RS for the list itself and for the "missing" most recent Hall of Fame inductees). A few questions for you all:


 * 1) Should I move the article name to a plural version (ie "players")
 * 2) Should it become "List of..."?
 * 3) Is the photo of Gary Holt worthless?

Thanks for your time!

--Dweller 13:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd title it List of Norwich City F.C. Player of the Year winners..... ChrisTheDude 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest combining it with List of Norwich City F.C. players, until I realised it doesn't yet exist. Oldelpaso 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice suggestion. Well, I'd just create it and merge the content in an apposite paragraph. About Holt's picture, it could make sense to include it since he won the trophy once. --Angelo 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... no, there's enough material there for its own article. Doesn't need to be merged with a general players article. There's already a cat for NCFC players, but a list article may be useful. If created, it would have a small section on POTY with a link. --Dweller 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Angelo 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the title really matters; this is a page people will only come to by following links from either the main NCFC article or the player bios (no sane person will ever enter either "Norwich City player of the year" or "List of Norwich City F.C. Player of the Year winners" in the search box on the off-chance that it exists). I'd be strongly against merging it with any future "List of NCFC players"; for a yo-yo club with a relatively high player-turnover and a 100+ year history that will be a long list. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, its the approach I took for List of Manchester City F.C. players. Most lists of the Lists of x F.C. players format use 100+ appearances as their inclusion criteria. Using 100+ apps or former player of the year extends it by a mere one or two players. Oldelpaso 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto for my List of Gillingham F.C. players. Articles in the form List of x F.C. players don't list all players who ever played for the club.... ChrisTheDude 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For FA quality, there needs to be no POV whatsoever involved in who's listed and who isn't. --Dweller 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<- back here. There's no strong reason to merge these distinct issues into one article. This topic has notability, there's enough to be said about it to make a good list article and there's as much to be gained as lost in terms of user convenience by merging. I'm happy to leave it as a stand-alone. Any comments about the quality and content of the article? Head on over to PR please - useful if we can centralise any debate. --Dweller 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. I have renamed the article to List of Norwich City F.C. players of the year. Please also note it's now listed at Peer review/List of Norwich City F.C. players of the year. Your expert input will be greatly appreciated. --Dweller 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Stirling Albion F.C. recent changes
I have just noticed the changes made by ip user 82.6.10.163 od the Stirling Albion pages, I feel that these changes are not impartial I would like some one elses opinion regarding this before I go and edit them to be impartial. Also some of the informationn added is not easy to referance. Gorillamusic 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Some might be right, but there's a underlying current to some of his additions. Peanut4 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will edit the changes to make it more impartial and just watch to see if he returns thanksGorillamusic 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludovic Quistin
Some assistance, please? User:Stew_jones seems intent to apply his own Manual of Style to the article Ludovic Quistin... and has been similarly stubborn in the past. I've pointed out his error on his talk page, but he is unwilling to concede he's in the wrong. Could someone else please revert his edits so that I don't fall foul of 3RR? And any advice on how to proceed would be valued! Thanks. robwingfield «T•C» 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't see any particular problem. Although I don't add them myself, flags are OK in the infobox, as long as they're not in the club list. There's nothing I can see that seems particularly outlandish. ArtVandelay13 10:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Cup Winners' Cup categories
We've got a Category:UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Finals (created in January 2007) and a Category:UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals (created in June 2007). The latter is empty. But which one meets the naming convention, and which one should be deleted? A ecis Brievenbus 07:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles are named (rightly or wrongly) with a capital F. ArtVandelay13 08:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. My bad. I can't even remember why I created that category. There must have been an article in there at some point though. - PeeJay 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting question. If 'final' is part of the name of the match it should begin with a capital F, however, if 'final' is a description of which match it is within the tournament then it should be in lower case. I think I'd lean towards a lower-case f for category and articles because it is the final of the Cup Winners Cup tournament rather than a stand-alone match called the 'Cup Winners Cup Final'. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 10:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article importance ratings
Please could you all have a look at a couple of recent comments (one by me) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Assessment regarding the current article importance ratings for this project. Posting the link here as the afforementioned page seems very quiet so I wasn't sure who would see it. Cheers. --Jameboy 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Amateur players in the Football League
I've found references to players as recent as the mid-1960s turning out for Football League clubs but being registered as amateurs - how would the potential creation of articles on them fit in with the oft-quoted guideline of "having played in a fully-professional league".....? ChrisTheDude 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They really ought to qualify. Football League appearances are enough. ArtVandelay13 08:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're playing for a top-flight side then I think it's fine. Besides, most amateur players eventually turned professional anyway, you probably have to go as far back to the likes of Bernard Joy and Kevin O'Flanagan to find players who never turned professional - and both of those were internationals in any case. Qwghlm 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't follow that players in this position necessarily turned pro or were internationals. According to allfootballers.com, Neil Brown's site, and the Football League Players' Records book, Paul Ogden for instance, played as an amateur in the Football League (in 1965, decades after Joy and O'Flanagan) and never turned pro, and I also found six players listed in the archive for my club, Gillingham, who made league appearances but never held professional status...... ChrisTheDude 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did say most :) - even before the abolishment of the maximum wage amateurism was done by a minority of players. I might take exception at an amateur playing one single game in 1890 or whatever but in the modern era any substantial number of League appearances would qualify them as notable in my opinion. Qwghlm 11:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations and ISBNs
The article Eddy Brown and some 50 other pages cite Birmingham City: A Complete Record (1995) with a bad ISBN 1-85983-101-2. The correct one should be ISBN 1-85983-010-2. I could go through and correct the ISBN, but perhaps something else needs to be checked as well? Is this a good book and edition to cite? How do you typically handle errors of this kind in this WikiProject? Do you maintain a list of standard literature, and would this book be on that list? After all, it's cited in 50 articles. --LA2 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

for those who want it. Woodym555 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Stadium names
Hello. Number 57 moved the KitKat Cresent article to Bootham Crescent and has made various other changes to Bootham. Despite KitKat being the sponsored name, I believe it is the official name. Even per WP:COMMONNAME, I would go by KitKat. I hardly see anyone saying Bootham nowadays. I find this quite worrying to be quite frank. And this is totally different from league's with sponsored titles. This is what the stadium is called. As much as I don't like it, the word Bootham is dead. Mattythewhite 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I moved Priestfield Stadium to krbs Priestfield Stadium, which is now its official name, it was reverted, quoting WP:COMMONNAME, but the case of the York ground seems to be different as the sponsored name has completely replaced the old name rather than just being tacked on the front, which means that people only ever use the sponsored name....... ChrisTheDude 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Two previous discussions seemed to come to the conclusion that sponsors' names shouldn't be used for stadiums. Trying to prove WP:COMMONNAME is difficult and google is not ideal, but "Bootham Crescent" still gets more hits than the variations "KitKat Crescent" and "Kit Kat Crescent" combined almost three years after it was renamed.  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But clearly it is upto the situation. I mean, for York, it simply is never known as Bootham anymore. It's not referred to as that and it's not officially called that. See here. It says "The club's home is therefore to be re-named KitKat Crescent". It's not known as KitKat for a silly sponsorship deal, but it has been renamed to that. Mattythewhite 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the club would say that - it's exactly what the sponsor's want them to say - but I don't see how this is any different to the Saunders Honda Stadium situation. Also note the sentence in the link you provided - the club "offered Nestlé Rowntree the naming rights for the ground for the calendar years 2005 and 2006". Although they've renewed it, it's obviously not a permanent thing. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC said it, not the club. And the Deva Stadium is actually referred to as that, like on this BBC match report. But, look at a recent BBC match report, which says KitKat and not Bootham. Mattythewhite 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what about stadiums from new that have 'sponsored' names as such. Like Emirates Stadium and BMO Field etc. It's been renamed, and that's it's official title. Same with Glassworld Stadium etc. Jimbo online 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For stadiums that have never had non-sponsorship names (such as the Emirates or the Ricoh Arena) we have no choice but to use the sponsored name, but in cases where a name was there before, we should keep it. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this matter, really? At the end of the day, that is the stadiums name, regardless of a previous name! Mattythewhite 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But is it? Note this BBC article from earlier this year - Nestle renewed their sponsorship which "includes naming rights for Bootham Crescent" - the underlying name is still there. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I must say. But I think a clear concensus (not just us two squabbling) should be gained here before the edit war turns absolutely barmy. Mattythewhite 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't refer to it under it's sponsored name. Someone also recently moved Bescot Stadium to a sponsored name, I believe. - fchd 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just moved that back - it was a cut & paste job too. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a very good reason not to move it back again. Yes, I shouldn't have used cut and paste (I know that now); but the name of the stadium is now Banks's Stadium.  That's the name on tickets, that's the name used by visiting clubs, and that's the name used by the media.  Using Google hits to determine common name is irrelevant - Google will include old articles written when the name was different.  What matters is what the name is NOW.  If it changes in the future it can change again.  Nobody visiting Banks's Stadium in the coming months and trying to find out about it will search for Bescot Stadium because it is not now called Bescot Stadium.  It is called Banks's Stadium.  Rather than petty stupid articles about what we think stadiums should be called we should do the verifiable thing and call them what they are called.  B1atv 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BBC were calling it Bescot when reporting on the women's international on Saturday. - fchd 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the BBC were wrong - not the first time they've been wrong about all things Walsall and it won't be the last. B1atv 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Valley Parade has had several sponsorship names over the years but will always be called Valley Parade to Bradford City fans. And Darlington's new ground keeps changing its sponsorship and hence name but seems to have a consistency of Darlington Arena in their somewhere. Peanut4 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page I have been told that Google has only 16 sources for "Banks' Stadium", compared to hundreds for "Bescot Stadium". Firstly, Google is not an accepted source on Wikipedia. And, as I have said above, Google includes all the pages created when the stadium was the Bescot Stadium as well as those now it is the Banks's Stadium - and besides, I get 727 hits for "Banks's Stadium". It helps if people spell the name of the stadium correctly when trying to prove a point. Secondly, I was told that "The ground has been known for years by its proper name" (my emphasis). This is a wrong claim - the The proper name, as of today, is the Banks's Stadium. It is not for you or I or anybody on here to decide what it is called. The people who own the stadium have decided that as of today it is the Banks's Stadium (See Walsall Council's list of approved venues for civil partnerships, or the same council's news story about a climate change conference.  You can argue all you like, the FACT is, the VERIFIABLE FACT, is that the stadium is now called the Banks's Stadium, whether you like it or not. And to say that Bradford's ground "will always be called Valley Parade to Bradford City fans" is a serious POV issue - it matters not what people's opinions are, it matters what the facts are.  And in this case Walsall's stadium is called the Banks's Stadium.  Somebody above mentioned the BBC claiming the England Women's match against Belarus at the Weekend was at the "Bescot Stadium" - not according to this report at BBC News Online. B1atv 06:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the issue is also WP:COMMONNAME. Yes I did spell the name wrong, but 727 is still a pretty poor result compared to 40,000+ for Bescot Stadium. Whilst clubs are forced to refer to their own stadiums by the sponsorship names as part of the deal, fans aren't, and I personally don't know any fan who uses the names Matchroom Stadium, Fraser Eagle Stadium or the Fitness First Stadium. Also, using bold caps is quite rude, please stay WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be rude, I'm merely trying to get the emphasis across. It doesn't matter what fans call it; unless you take the fan's pov, which means you are not approaching it from a neutral point of view.  The name is the name is the name regardless of what you want it to be.  Buy a football club and call the stadium what you want.  Until you do you'll just have to accept the official name which the official owners officially give.  B1atv 11:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:COMMONNAME. "Use the most common name of a person or thing". Bescot Stadium is quite clearly the common name, regardless of what the sponsors want, and is quite clearly not a contradiction of WP:NPOV. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:COMMONNAME again - it clearly states that articles should be named about the thing people will search for. Again, people going to matches at Walsall will read on their club website that the match is at the "Banks's Stadium"; they will read in the media that the match is at the "Banks's Stadium".  They will read on their tickets that the match is at "Banks's Stadium", so if they are searching for information on the club, what makes you think they will search for "Bescot Stadium"? The Common Name policy dictates that the article should be called "Banks's Stadium" because right now the stadium is called "Banks's Stadium" and that is it's legal name, it's official name and it's common name.  The Common Name policy should be read in association with other Wikipedia policies, including Naming conventions (precision).  I'm not going to keep arguing here.  We're going around in circles and we are not going to reach agreement because of what appears to be your personal distaste of corporate sponsors.  I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure where or how, but I will research the best place and method to do this and will seek wider Wikipedia comment.  I do not understand (and nobody has put any reason here other than a fallacious argument about Google Hits) why you are so determined to ensure that stadium articles are incorrectly titled.  B1atv 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Almost no-one would buy a Walsall ticket without knowing the name of the ground. The vast majority of home fans have probably been going there for years and will know the Stadium as the Bescot, and I would be very surprised if it is any different for away fans. Your usage of Naming conventions (precision) is also completely misleading. That policy concerns ambiguuity: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise". There is no ambiguity issue here - there is no other Bescot Stadium. As for me being "so determined to ensure that stadium articles are incorrectly titled", I am following well-established policy. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a slight aside, are we going to change every stadium / league / competition when it changes name? E.g. the FA Cup or the Championship are still FA Cup and Football League Championship. No-one other than the club is forced to call it the Banks's Stadium. To be honest, this was the first I knew it was no longer called the Bescot. Peanut4 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that the "Corporate name" of the stadium can be given a redirect to the common (historical) name of the stadium. Anyone searching for the stadium name by its corporate name would find themselves at the right article. As corporate names are usually of a transitory nature, I think they should be avoided when at all possible. King of the North East  (T/C) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Peanut4 - an interesting point. Why do you call it by the transitory name of the Football League Championship.  It's common name is the English 2nd Division ;-) B1atv 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment - What concerns me about this debate is phrases like: "No-one other than the club is forced to call it..." What force? If the stadium has changed its name it's changed its name.  What appears to be the argument here is a reluctance to use a name simply because the changed name has come about because of a sponsorship deal.  What name do you suggest we call Coventry City's ground?  or Arsenal's stadium?  What should we do there?  And what do we do in 10 years time when it changes? If Arsenal's ground becomes the "Mars Bowl" does Wikipedia insist on calling it Emirates because they got their first?  There needs to be a consistent approach and the only consistent approach that makes sense in all circumstances is to use the official name of the stadium. B1atv 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The approach is consistent - traditional names are used in all cases where they exist. In cases where they don't exist (Emirates, Ricoh Arena), the sponsor name is the default. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what happens in 10 years time if the Ricoh Arena or Emirates Stadium has another sponsor? Are you saying that Wikipedia would still refer to these as Ricoh/Emirates?  B1atv 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Those that began as sponsored names (e.g. McAlpine Stadium) stay as sponsored names and change with them (Galpharm Stadium) - if it's never had a traditional name, then there is no barrier to change. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why your policy is inconsistent. It means some articles about stadiums will change names if the sponsor changes and other articles about stadiums won't change names if the sponsor changes.  The only consistent option - which means all stadiums are treated the same - is to use the current legal name for each stadium.  B1atv 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regretfully yes. I would have the Emirates stadium as Ashburton Grove, but I don't have a solution for Coventry or Huddersfield. I still think this is better than changing traditional names to sponsors names which may only last a season or two. I prefer to keep all sponsors names out of article titles in much the same way as for league articles. - fchd 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have begun the process of seeking wider opinion and consensus by flagging the Bescot Stadium article with npov concerns over the article name. B1atv 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. This is not a WP:NPOV issue, it is a WP:COMMONNAME issue; you are making it into something it is not. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Is there a mention in the Lead appropriately bolded for the alternative name?
 * 2) Are there redirects set up so that users who type in an alternative name get to right article?
 * 3) Is there a section or sentence that mentions the use of both names and the reasons for this?
 * If there are - who really cares what the url/article title says? 86.21.74.40 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and don't forget, from WP:IAR - "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." 86.21.74.40 18:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I tend to agree with 86.21.74.40 here, if redirects are set up then who really cares? We ought to be spending all this energy and vitriol and channelling it into improving the articles.  Funnily enough, Bescot Stadium needs some work if anyone is interested!  The Rambling Man 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Number57, I am not making it something it is not. You do not like sponsor names because you have a point of view which states the clubs are sponsors can't "force" us to call this something.  That is a pov.  You are pushing that pov in your unilateral reversion of article moves; and you claim there is a Wikipedia policy on this as decided here.  There is a process for deciding article name conventions and it hasn't been followed.  The Wikipedia naming convention pages have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to suggest that you are right on this issue; in the meantime you ignore completely Wikipedia's rules about verifiability and facts.  Why does this matter?  It matters because I want people to be able to find the article they are looking for.  I would ordinarily agree with the Rambling Man's point, but the difficulty in doing that here is that the name is used in more than simply the search box.  For example, in the List of stadiums in England you will not find the Banks's Stadium.  Instead you will find a stadium which does not exist.  Likewise, people looking at [Category:Football_venues_in_England] will also be unable to find the stadium.  That's why it matters.  B1atv 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not (a) pushing my "POV" or (b) ignoring Wikipedia policy, and saying that "Wikipedia naming convention pages have nothing whatsoever to suggest that I am right on this issue is just a lie. WP:COMMONNAME states: "Use the most common name of a person or thing". Google is not the best way of determining the answer, but it provides very clear evidence to suggest what is correct (i.e. Bescot Stadium = 35,500 hits, Banks's Stadium = 696). And as I said before, please stop shouting. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. You can't get much more of a common name than the name it is called.  Look at the photo on the page - what do those big letters at the front of the stadium commonly say?  I'm trying to establish the method of getting wider Wikipedia community consensus, I've started the process on the article page and all the response I've had so far is you continuing to badger with the self-same points you've been making since you unilaterally reverted my page move on the basis that a wikipedia consensus already existed on the names of football stadiums.  Please butt out for a while and stop repeating yourself lets see if we can get wider consensus.  Wider consensus doesn't mean you keep coming back at every post I make with an identical position.  I know what your position is. I'm trying to find out what other people's views are.  And, once again, there is a difference between shouting and emphasis.  B1atv 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason I have to repeatedly reply to you is that you repeatedly misrepresent my actions and Wikipedia policy. Once you stop doing that, then there is no reason for me to rebutt your statements. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I favour using "traditional" names where they exist, as sponsored names are ephemeral in nature. Take an example of an expired sponsored stadium name; that of the Riverside Stadium. Cellnet Riverside Stadium was transient, Riverside Stadium is not. Even when talking about a match from 1996, one would not use Cellnet Riverside'. Likewise League Cup vs Milk/Rumbelows/Littlewoods/Coca-Cola/Worthington/Carling Cup. Oldelpaso 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If there's a traditional name, we should use it, with the sponsored name mentioned in the lead in bold. With stadiums with sponsored names since creation, we should simply move them on as deals change. HornetMike 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded! Definitely use the traditional names, Bootham Crescent is strongest example of why! Petepetepetepete 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm a bit torn now. I will certainly follow the standard which has been set here, don't worry about that. In a way, I find the use of Bootham as incorrect and looking at the past. But, looking at several reports from the BBC on the ground, it does seem as if Bootham is still the official name. Mattythewhite 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub appearances
Are sub appearances counted in a player's infobox? I always thought so but I was reverted by User:ChristalPalace for including a sub appearance in the infobox total. Thanks. Dave101 →talk  14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They have to be, otherwise goalscoring substitute debutantes would end up with (0)1 for games(goals). A sub appearance is still an appearance. In my opinion, it should not have been reverted (I just use Soccerbase figures which include sub games). Fedgin | Talk 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, a sub appearance is an appearance. Some conventions separate starts and subs - e.g. 3+1 (2) for two goals in three starts & one sub appearance, but this may be too tedious to implement as a WP-wide standard. Qwghlm 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Winger disambiguation
I'm unconvinced that most people searching for "Winger" mean the band, and the "what links here" for that page seems to agree with me. The hatnotes are good, but it seems to contravene guideline. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Winger. --Dweller 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrexham
Should the page for Wrexham be moved? The page is currently at Wrexham F.C. but both the crest and the former player's category say Wrexham A.F.C. GiantSnowman 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When the club Wrexham AFC went bust in 2006, the new company that took over the assets of the club called themselves something like Wrexham Football Club (2006), so the club is now called Wrexham F.C. If you look at their official website, you'll see they've changed the crest to get rid of the 'A', the one on the Wrexham F.C. article is now out of date. Struway2 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What happens to the categories in this case? I notice the category for managers is Wrexham A.F.C. managers. Should that stay as it is or should a new category be made? Peanut4 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup
What do you guys think of this article at the minute? Personally, I think it has the perfect balance of prose and data, with all the necessary facts where they should be. However, User:Gethomas3 seems to think that there is a lot of superfluous info in there that needs deleting. I have so far reverted his edits, but I would like the opinions of the other WP:FOOTY members before hitting my third revert. - PeeJay 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong at all with how it is now. And I certainly don't understand this comment to a recent change "This world has been over for over a year. It is time to bring useless info out and converted to a regular info format as the past world cups. Let us start working on 2010 and 2014.)" Why do we need to convert it into the same format as the previous World Cups when there's nothing wrong with the article as it is. Peanut4 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm too concerned with the end of the world, to work on 2010 and 2014. I dont know how I missed it. King of the North East  (T/C) 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. I mean, there have been comments about the neutrality of the Route to the Final section (which I just restored to the article, having discovered that it had previously been removed), but I believe that this could be easily remedied, if it even needs it. - PeeJay 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Football club manager templates
Hi. I've created a semi-automated way of generating these templates so I'm going through from Premier League (now finished) to League Two (at least) creating templates. What my system doesn't do is check each manager is pointed to correctly. I will get round to this but any help would be great. Also, inserting the new templates on the relevant manager pages and removing any redundant succession boxes would be very useful as well. The Rambling Man 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Championship clubs now all have a manager template. The Rambling Man 11:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the template for Gillingham, it won't allow Mick Docherty's spell to be shown as simply "2007", it keeps inserting the endash, irrespective of whether the "to" variable is set as "2007", "07" or omitted altogether......? ChrisTheDude 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Peanut4 12:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - midway through League 1 clubs. Thanks to those of you who have helped fix some of the dodgy links.  The Rambling Man 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - League 1 complete. The Rambling Man 08:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - all English league clubs complete. The Rambling Man 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TRM is an extraordinary Wikipedian. Thank you from all of us. --Dweller 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - Scottish Premier League complete. The Rambling Man 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Scott (footballer)
I just created an article about this player, but was surprised to find that one didn't already exist, given that he played for so many clubs.

Did my inexpert searching miss an already existing article? --Dweller 12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you missed anything. There's loads of players missing, especially ones that retired before about 2000. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I checked the index and couldn't find any other Kevin Scott (except the speed skater). I tried spelling variations as well but couldn't find anything there either. I had the same sense of amazement when i was going through some of the Villa players. There are quite a few gaps for the older footballers. Woodym555 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think an automated script could be devised to scour Soccerbase for players with 1 or more professional appearances, and dump out the results somewhere, perhaps in order of # of appearances? We could then work through the list and turn the redlinks blue. --Dweller 12:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Soccerbase links
Has anyone else had problems with the soccerbase links? I was editing Peter Taylor's page and noticed after his soccerbase link the }} symbols kept showing up. I tried to fix it but the problem kept occuring, anyone know why or how to fix it? Jimbo online 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * looks like it had been left in the middle of the succession boxes when some were removed, I've removed it. Struway2 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Negeri Sembilan FA
A newbie keep on cut and paste move for Negeri Sembilan FA (NS NAZA), but I cannot find a best name to put to put it on Requested moves. Matthew_hk  t  c  15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercantile Credit Classic
While looking at Steve Bruce's detailed stats on allfootballers.com, I noticed he's listed as having played for Man U in the "Mercantile Credit Classic". I've got a hazy recollection this was one of the events that took place during the Football League's cack-handed centenary season, but I forget the details - can anyone elaborate....? ChrisTheDude 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Football League Centenary Tournament 86.21.74.40 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:La Liga seasons
Has anyone seen the icons used in this template? Are they really necessary? - PeeJay 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And are they allowed in the first place? AFAIK the club logos and crests are copyrighted, and derivatives of copyrighted material fall under that copyright as well. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, the template doesn't seem to be in use, having been superceded by Template:Primera División de España. - PeeJay 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case I suggest TfD'ing it as an orphaned template with copyright issues. A  ecis Brievenbus 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See TFD nomination. Woodym555 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request for Klaas-Jan Huntelaar
I'm trying to take the Huntelaar article to GA, but the nomination is currently on hold (see the talk page for details). The reviewer has requested a good copyedit of the article, and I'd like to have someone else take a look, since I'm not the greatest writer myself. Any help would be much appreciated! JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-3 22:52
 * Thanks User:Oldelpaso :) JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-5 08:50

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)
At long last I have completed the task of turning this list into a (rather large) table. Subject to a bit of checking & cross-checking (any help will be gratefully received), I plan to merge this with the main List of England international footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to merge List of England players with only one cap as well. This seems to be redundant given the sortable nature of the new table. I cannot see any extra information in that article that needs to be kept. Woodym555 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - you're right. That will need to be merged too. Some of the margin notes re red-linked players might still be useful. Pending the creation of the players' articles, I guess these could be incorporated into the footnotes on the main article. I'll be away for a few days. I'll look at it on my return. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged the three articles into List of England international footballers, with re-directs from the others, keeping some of the footnotes for red-linked articles. My only concern now is the sheer size of the article (over 260k) which may cause problems with some users.

There are a large number of red links on this list. in the Category:England international footballers there are 782 articles, whereas there are 1151 players who have played for England; that leaves 369 (still nearly 1 in 3) players without articles. So it's time to get researching/writing guys! As I've said before, who can resist the opportunity to create an article about players whose names resonate like Percy de Paravicini or Pelham von Donop, or even James "Tadger" Stewart!. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Football season naming convention
I recently came across the move log of, who has moved hundreds of articles about football seasons from the year/year format (e.g. 2006/2007) to the year-ar format (e.g. 2006-07). The reasons given were along the lines of "accurate title", "correct title name" and "consistent title." Is there any convention or guideline regarding the naming of articles about football seasons, or has there been any prior discussion about this? A ecis Brievenbus 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did attempt to get a discussion going about this before [see here] but it received little response. As you can see, I prefer the year-ar format (e.g. 2006-07) which seems prevalent in English articles but not everywhere else. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I too prefer the year-ar format (e.g.2007-08) as it is used widely in the English football articles. To change to any other format would require a lot of work to standardize the naming of these articles! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the YYYY-YY format, except in the case of 1899-00 and 1999-00, when I believe the YYYY-YYYY format should be used. I know you would have to be a simpleton not to realise that 1899-00 means 1899-1900, and 1999-00 means 1999-2000, but some people might get confused. - PeeJay 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with YYYY-YY, but there should be YYYY-YYYY redirects set up just in case. King of the North East  (T/C) 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even in cases where 1899-00 and 1999-00 seasons, YYYY-YY format should be used for consistency sake. I do not think that it would be confusing to the readers or editors about this. Redirects should also be set up, just in case as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. Merger proposal
I was just wondering if a few other Wikiproject Football participants could contribute their view on the Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. Merger proposal. It would be helpful for a better concensus on the matter. Thanks. ChappyTC 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes and succession boxes
Hello. Since I'm in the mood to kill all succession boxes, would anyone object to captain navboxes? Like this one:

The Rambling Man 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could add a parameter into the existing manager navbox if needs be, so that you could have Captains turn up instead of Managers, if it is needed. You would need to have some sort of guideline regarding length of time of being captain as well. Woodym555 12:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a nice idea, but... How do you define captain? officially appointed club captain, on-the-pitch-for-xx-games-a-season team captain, ... A navbox like the example is very nice, it looks complete and there's no overlap. All the lists of captains I've looked at have had overlap, missing bits, vague definitions and not much in the way of definitive referencing. It's not the sort of thing that can be reliably and definitively sourced throughout the history of most clubs in the way managers can. Struway2 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say i am ambiguous about how useful they would be. I keep the AVFC one going, but i am slightly dubious as to it's usefulness. Just my opinion, and i agree with Struway that it is hard to keep for the majority of clubs. Woodym555 12:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a step too far. Too loosely defined and too much potential for over-navboxing. ArtVandelay13 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If their stint at captain was notable enough, then it should be mentioned in their biographies and then you can explain it more. I think we run the risk of having 9 or 10 navboxes at the bottom, each in their own contrasting colours. As you can tell, i am swinging to opposing these templates (including Villas). Woodym555 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also oppose such templates as unnecessary and ambiguous. It's not like captain is a contracted job role like manager.  In the Man U example above, it shows that Bryan Robson was captain for 12 years, but given the amount of time he used to spend injured, other players must have been "on the pitch" captain on many, many occasions during that period.... ChrisTheDude 12:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'd only be able to do this for a handful of (well-referenced) clubs. As for 9 or 10 in contrasting colours, we already have that. Just check out Lennie Lawrence and Tommy Docherty for a start. Given how long some of these managers are lasting these days, they'll be multiplying by the day soon. Peanut4 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you differentiate between club and team captains? Some clubs have one on-field captain and another club captain. Good idea but impractical for captains; perhaps this could, however, be brought into use for other areas, such as top goalscorer for a league or something? Fedgin | Talk 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)
 * Nice idea but it would be unbelievably long for leagues that have been going 100 years. Peanut4 12:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also say they are not worth having for all the reasons above. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to listing captains in succession boxes or templates, purely because of (as already mentioned above) the difficulty in defining who the captain is. IIRC, at the start of one season (possibly 2004–05) West Bromwich Albion changed their team captain on a game-by-game basis... I don't see such info adding much value from a navigational point of view. I would support removing captains succession boxes rather than converting them. Agree that golden boot or other award winners could potentaially be navboxed. --Jameboy 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

←Cool, good debate. So, the consensus says no (I think!) to the nav box, so do we all still tolerate the succession boxes which contain the same information? The Rambling Man 13:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of succession boxes generally, I think they look untidy. I think having it in the player's article and in an article relating to the club is enough. ArtVandelay13 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would remove all the captaincy succession boxes as well. --Angelo 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be in favour of deleting them too. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that a mention in the text of the player article would be enough. Captaincy of the team is extremely transitionary, I'm sure I saw a Man-U game a couple of years ago where they had 3 or 4 players wearing the captains armband in the same game. Remove all the captaincy succession boxes and navboxes, I wont complain. King of the North East  (T/C) 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would be happy for captaincy succession boxes to be removed, assuming the relevant information appeared somewhere in the prose of the article. Struway2 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like most contributors, I would happily see the captain succession boxes removed. My own club is as well documented as any, and better than most, and I have never seen a definitive list of captains. As there is now a club captain (which is long-term) and a team captain (often more than one in the same game) it would be an impossible task to reliably identify them all. --Daemonic Kangaroo 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also in favour of its removal from articles. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, agree that the template is problematic and agree that equally succession boxes are problematic for exactly the same reason... (as well as being ugly). --Dweller 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, well if I've understood the consensus of us lot here, it's destroy captain suc boxes on sight as long as comment is made in the relevant article to said position with team. How do we all feel about suc boxes for things like "FA Cup winning Coach"...(for a good/bad example, head for Alex Ferguson?  Is this (a) ok (b) in need of navbox (c) just in need of a category or (d) something else? The Rambling Man 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely a no. Succession boxes are for jobs, elections etc, not FA Cup winning coaches. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User adding incorrect statistics
Keep an eye on Special:Contributions/89.216.188.69, they're adding incorrect statistics to articles. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-5 22:52
 * I'm guessing he's adding cup data etc. I've sent him a message that the infoboxes include league data only. Peanut4 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New editor
Another user similar to User:AlexWilkes' is about - has been adding in a load of POV recentist commentary to Premier League club articles - e.g.. I've started rolling back some of the edits but I haven't time for all of them - can someone help me out? Qwghlm 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is Alex Wilkes, he confirmed it a while ago when i confronted him. Woodym555 16:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some users who are so troublesome they make me feel like creating a Facebook group to celebrate them and their intransigence. --Dweller 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is, there have been numerous attempts to communicate with him that have gone completely unanswered. He can actually write rather well, he just does it with an inherent POV bias. I will try again now. Woodym555 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate here a bit, I can't see anything POV about the edit to the Man U page, although it is extremely recentist.... ChrisTheDude 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right - I think I copied the wrong link - I meant to do it for Liverpool. Regardless he has a history of bad edits - if he is still not responding to talk page messages then it might be worth pursuing an RfC & possible block. Qwghlm 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the main problem, he can write well and occasionally does write well, but when he does this (I think "Sundireland" is a classic), it is clearly problematic. If he doesn't answer my latest request then other dispute resolution channels might have to be started. Woodym555 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe nobody's reverted the stupid subheadings he's used in Sunderland. It's not just "Sundireland" that's the problem, it's the whole thing. People like him are the problem with wikipedia being a free-for-all. Robotforaday 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gone, King of the North East  (T/C) 03:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bit more: Most isn't point of view, it is just incredibly recentist. It would have to be updated every week and would swell disproportionately to the history section. Woodym555 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

notable article?
Someone should have a look at this template. Looks like not notable at the mo. . 12.144.211.2 09:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already been deleted ChrisTheDude 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Daemonic Kangaroo edits faster than lightning. 12.144.211.2 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

El Zamalek and Zamalek
These are duplicate articles for the same football team - which one should we keep and which one should become the redirect? Also, the article needs a MASSIVE clean-up, so volunteers would be appreciated...GiantSnowman 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would say the El Zamalek should redirect to Zamalek. The english language sources seem to use Zamalek and the name is Zamalek sporting club so this should be the main page. It does not a serious cleanup though. I will have a go now. Woodym555 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I only know the club as Zamalek. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am half way through editing it and it is the most POV and BLP ridden article i have come across. Shocking. Woodym555 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. You need to go to Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo‎ for a real POVfest ... Wiggy! 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Requested transfers suggested by Zamalek fans" LOL! Sebisthlm 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that section has been, umm, nuked :) Woodym555 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed El Zamalek into a redirect. GiantSnowman 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all the double redirects now. I have gone through it a couple of times and cleaned it out. Some of the WP:BLP stuff in their was quite shocking. If a newspaper printed it they would be sued for libel. It needs references, the external link farm needs cleaning up, the usual WP:MOS problems need fixing, but at least it is slightly respectable now. Woodym555 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks miles better now, well done! GiantSnowman 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given it another run through and sorted the references and see also section. The Honours section has been reformatted and i have columnised the Presidents section. Would anyone with any knowledge of the club, try and sort out the managers section. It seems a bit strange at the moment, is it including coaches as well. (10 managers in a season is a tad excessive, that coming from a Villain). Also someone with some knowledge of Egyptian football needs to have a look at the notable players section. Right, next one... Woodym555 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "Villan"? I'd be a bit worried if we had an actual villain up for adminship. Congrats on that, btw :-) - PeeJay 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed a typo once in a while!! ;) Woodym555 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That managers section is a bit of a mess. Do we really need every change in other coaches? Peanut4 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted that above, it seemed a mess, but i don't have the sources to work out who was the manager. Woodym555 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've just re-read that and worked out what you meant now. I think some managers are probably more obvious than others, e.g. Henri Michel, Ruud Krol, but it would still be too much like guessing rather than definitely sure. Peanut4 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am i that incomprehensible? ;) Woodym555 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Usual starting line-ups
Please see here - what is the general thoughts of having a 'usual starting line-up' in a club article? GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove on sight. Mattythewhite 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto - almost no clubs have a usual starting line up these days given squad rotation etc. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, delete on sight. It is WP:OR and cannot be cited. Woodym555 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrghhhh runs away screaming... No, kill on sight. And I mean kill. Almost as bad as succession boxes.... The Rambling Man 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, what I suspected, but just wanted clarification. GiantSnowman 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Has now been removed from the Roma article. GiantSnowman 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, i just saw that as i popped over to delete it! ;) Woodym555 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm just waiting for someone to try and add a "usual starting lineup" to the Liverpool F.C. article! Robotforaday 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Numberless squads
For squads which employ no squad numbers, e.g. Confernence North/South, how should the players be sorted? Should it be by alphabetical order, or by position and then alphabetical order? And should it be the same for squad templates? Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say by position, then alphabetically (for both squad sections and templates). --Angelo 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My recommendation would be the same as Angelo's. What I always do (see for instance FC Zwolle and Ter Leede) is to sort by position first, and within position alphabetically. So first all the goalkeepers, then the defenders, then the midfielders and then the forwards. A  ecis Brievenbus 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds very sensible. Peanut4 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Angelo (as always). I actually thougt of the same question when I looked at Danubio's template a couple of minutes ago.Sebisthlm 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Or rather their homepage as they don't have squad numbers in the Uruguayan league. I'm guessing the template is from an old Libertadores squad or something. Sebisthlm 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Managers in transfer lists
Should they be included or not? I'm currently updating the La Liga list, and removed the manager transfers from Deportivo, but Schuster is also listed as incoming transfer for Real. I don't think they should be listed, at least not among the players. I suppose they could be listed under a separate sub-paragraph (in/out/manager in/manager out). What do y'all think? Sebisthlm 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, managers shouldn't be included. Manager changes for the Premier League are listed in the Premier League's season articles, so I would suggest following that model for other countries. Either that, or put it in the 2007-08 in Spanish football article. - PeeJay 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with PeeJay. I started some time ago a managers list section in both Serie A 2007-08 and Serie B 2007-08 to cover the issue above. Obviously, it can be improved. --Angelo 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What the *@?! is this?
Ttoggel League, King of the North East  (T/C) 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I might support that AfD ;-). The most bizarre thing is it's been around for three months. Peanut4 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it fixing links to Winger, someone had already fixed the link to Defender. King of the North East (T/C) 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I though I had seen it all...GiantSnowman 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to go to Ttoggel Park, but unfortunately the article doesn't seem to include an address. King of the North  East  14:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to meet Nala and congratulate him on his awesome feat of playing 1,119 matches so far this year, despite preumably being nearly 60 years old ChrisTheDude 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)/
 * I wonder what he was doing between 1970 and 2007. I bet he was training hard for his glorious comeback. Seems that he has to cover a lot of positions too, maybe the Zamalek fans could suggest some reinforcements? Sebisthlm 00:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Kram is English. If so, we'd better tell Steve McLaren. Look at that strike ratio. And doing so while playing for six different clubs. Impressive. Very impressive. Peanut4 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Kram means 'hug' in swedish, so he's definetly Swedish, and with Johan Elmander out of next weekend's clash with Spain, we need a good goalscorer. At 60 years of age he might just suit coach Lagerbäck's preference of 'experience' over promising talent... Sebisthlm 10:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you all will like to check this guy's contribution while at it, esp this--Xaiver0510 10:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Qwghlm is a respected editor, and his prod of that article is fully justified. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  11:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Xaiver0510, I think you have made some sort of mistake. Qwghlm is almost as experienced and productive as this Kram fellow. Sebisthlm 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * my apologies to all, made a mistake in checking the names. strike out the portion also. --Xaiver0510 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability test
Does this club meet notability requirements? - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not. I'm not sure what level of the football pyramid that league is but given it's a red link I doubt it's high enough up the pyramid. Peanut4 16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion here. Max S em(Han shot first!) 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The North Lancashire & District League is mentioned on the talk page of the English football league system as not being an official part of the pyramid. If it was, it would probably feed into the West Lancashire League. Therefore, this club are a long, long way from being notable unless they are "special" in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

West Bromwich Albion F.C. up for peer review
I've listed West Bromwich Albion F.C. for peer review, with a view to GA (and, eventually I hope, FA). Please feel free to add your comments. This is the first article I've put up for peer review so please let me know if I'm not following the process correctly. Cheers. --Jameboy 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May as well put it up for GA now, would pass easily. Mattythewhite 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. I've put it up as a GA nominee. Therefore I'll keep the peer review open for advice and comments for getting it up to FA. Cheers. --Jameboy 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Things tend to dwell at GA for a while. Let me know if you'd like me to take it and review it.  I'll usually give advice based on getting it to FA so that may be of some help.  The Rambling Man 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Luke Freeman
This young lad made his debut for Gillingham on Saturday and is now the youngest player to play for the first team in the club's 114 year history (see here), but if I start an article on him, is he likely to get AfD'ed on the grounds he hasn't played in the league.....? ChrisTheDude 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's an FA Cup game then it should count. Plus if he's the club's youngest player surely that meets notability criteria anyway. Peanut4 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I mean, it's quite likely that someone will take it to AfD for the reason you state, but I can assure you that you have one Keep vote here. - PeeJay 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the proposed new criteria he would be kept....... King of the North  East  10:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now created the article, as I'd failed to notice the other salient fact, which is that he's the youngest player ever to play in an FA Cup match. There's no way that can be disputed as a "keeper" claim to notability...... ChrisTheDude 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much of a coincidence this is. ArtVandelay13 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with the footballer, check the deletion log. Oldelpaso 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If enough material can be found to get the article over 1500 characters, it'll be a shoe-in for Did you know? Oldelpaso 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How close is it now.....? ChrisTheDude 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably needs another paragraph. Maybe a couple of the nationals will pick up the story in the next day or two. Oldelpaso 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He came on as a 75th minute sub. I am not keen on notability for players who haven't started but since we have articles now for squad players who have never got on I am sure he must qualify. TerriersFan 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can be too rigid with rules simply abiding by that mentality. He's the youngest footballer in the oldest football competition in the world. 15 minutes or not it's pretty notable. Peanut4 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming of article currently at football (soccer) part 438549
Would have put this on the "list of requested moves", but its not technically a requested move. Talk:Football_%28soccer%29 Oldelpaso 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox help
In the infobox, when should a player's club career move from 'Youth' to 'Senior' - when he gets a squad number? When he makes a first-team appearance? When he signs a professional contract? GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say when he signs a pro contract, or when he makes a first-team appearance if the specific date he signed a contract can't be tracked down (or he makes a first team appearance before signing a pro contract)..... ChrisTheDude 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Either when he signs a professional contract, or gets a squad number, or makes his debut, whichever comes first, and whichever is easier to track down. A lot of players' infoboxes make the mistake of listing a player's signing date (from Soccerbase) as the beginning of his youthyears, when the player has most likely been there for several years before that. ArtVandelay13 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At smaller clubs, members of the youth team are often drafted into the first team squad, but more often than not only for the experience and to avoid the embarrassment of not having a full quota of players on the bench. League regulations might mean that he therefore is issued a squad number.  Even if they play, it is very much a case of a member of the youth team being with the senior squad for one day.  The reality of these lads' situation is that they remain part of the youth squad, playing with them, training with them and in many cases, leaving like most of them without ever signing a professional contract.  IMHO it is premature (Wiki is not a crystal ball) to list them as members of the senior squad.  Kevin McE 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. A player can be in the youth, reserve and 1st teams at the same time, these stages of a player's career often overlap. A player's first involvement in senior football is the beginning of their senior career. Crystal balls have nothing to do with it. ArtVandelay13 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with ArtVandelay13. I'd say his youth career is the period while he has a junior / trainee or other appropriate contract. And his first-team career starts when either he's drafted into the first team squad, makes his debut or given a full contract, basically whichever is first. Going to the thread above, the 15-year-old Gillingham player's first team career started yesterday, but he is still a youth. Peanut4 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it make sense in reality to say that he is in two squads at once? Even for the lad who eats, trains, travels, is invited to Christmas dinner etc. only with the youth team but went on what amounts to a work experience jaunt with the first team once?   Is there a danger that we are distorting reality for the benefit of having everyone who has played for the team in one template box?  Kevin McE 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if a youth player is simply training for the seniors for a few days (or vice-versa), then they shouldn't be included, but players who have been involved in the matchday squad, or the numbered squad list, should be in the first-team squad. Of course players can be in youth/reserve/senior squads simultaneously, otherwise the system wouldn't work. ArtVandelay13 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a similar note - when does a player's career end? - when he makes his last appearance, or when he leaves the club? GiantSnowman 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say when he leaves the club. Many players have clubs in their infobox despite not making an appearance. If it was when he makes his last appearance, these entries shouldn't be in there. Peanut4 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A player's career ends when he leaves his last club. ArtVandelay13 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

TourneyCentral.com
Would anyone care to tell me what this article was doing in Category:Football (soccer)?- PeeJay 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's original creator added that cat in this edit ChrisTheDude 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am of the opinion, though, that the article should be deleted as non-notable. Glad to see Angelo's prodded it already :-D. - PeeJay 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gabriele Sandri
I have proposed/suggested that the article Gabriele Sandri be moved to November 2007 Italian football violence. Please join the discussion at Talk:Gabriele Sandri. A ecis Brievenbus 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Taskforces again
I think it's time for a consensus about the taskforces issue, a matter we already starting discussing earlier. I am proposing here to allow football-related taskforces only after having been proposed at WP:COUNCIL/P with a support of at least 4 users. I am also proposing to turn off all taskforces which have been inactive for at least 4 months (namely, the US-Canadian one, whose talkpage is still red-linked as you can see from the navbox above). Please tell me your opinion on it. --Angelo 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to the 4 supporting users proposal, but turning off the US/Can task force would not be right under your 4 month rule, because it was only turned into a taskforce in July, less than 4 months ago, and the talk page of the still existing wikiproject was last used in September, it's latest member joining up in August, the same guy joined the taskforce in August too, the last person to sign as a participant of the taskforce did so in September, you cannot judge whether a project is "in use" by its talk page alone. As far as I can see the reason the taskforce talkpage is unused, is that the members of the wikiproject/taskforce have been confused by the move. Infact, why not shut down the taskforce and reinstate the wikiproject or do it the other way round, rather than having the two running in parallel? King of the North East  (T/C) 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that, thanks for the information. Well, the best thing to do in this case is to make WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada a redirect to the current taskforce, as I already did with the former Italian football WP. --Angelo 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What we have to ask ourselves is, are these taskforces providing us with anything? Do they help with colloborative effort? Are they affecting the quality and organisation of the articles within their scope? For task forces with no talk page, it is clearly not the case. Are these articles actually improving. I could see how a participant might remember that they are part of the taskforce and then try to improve some of these articles. Are we seeing much change in quality? Woodym555 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I think taskforces have a great potential, but they are not used at all. Unfortunately, many people starts taskforces just to give some kind of recognization to their effort on local football articles, and then just forget about them. People should instead understand taskforces have to be managed and actually used for significative issues. The Italian one is a mostly silent place, for instance, despite the fact over twenty people are "registered" in it. (P.S. The North-American WikiProject is officially dead by now, I have just boldly permitted myself to move all their information in the taskforce, given the fact they claimed the WikiProject was "superceded by the WP Football:USA and Canada taskforce.") --Angelo 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, when used correctly, taskforces can be a huge help. The Milhist project has proven that. Many pieces of featured content and lots of structural changes (cats, naming, etc) are regularly discussed on some of them. It is all about how much time editors invest in them. At the moment, little seems to be coming out of our current set of taskforces. Perhaps we ought to add something like, "please put this page in your watchlists" on all the pages. Woodym555 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With the current rules, anyone can potentially start his own taskforce just by creating a WP:WPF subpage and all the stuff around. This is obviously excessive, and we need more strict rules, allowing only taskforces which are actually useful and potentially functional to this WikiProject. In my opinion, what we should do first is to shut off inactive taskforces and push for stricter rules for potentially new ones. --Angelo 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell you for a fact that the FC Bayern and Taiwan taskforces are pretty dead. Furthermore, the Real Madrid Wikiproject hasn't seen any action on its talk page for nearly a month now. - PeeJay 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be in favour of dumping taskforces for specific teams, when extremely important footballing countries like Brazil and Germany have not got them yet. I still disagree that a taskforce's use cannot be judged by edits to its talkpage alone. Other factors include; edits to the project/taskforce main page (especially people signing up as new participants), additions to the new articles page (if existant), notable increases in the number of articles in tagged as part of the project. I don't think that dormant projects are doing any harm, maybe the WP:football infobox could be amended to have a link to a page like "list of WP:Football sub-projects and taskforces" so that we don't have to look at links to the whole random selection every time we open the WP:Football page King of the North East  (T/C) 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of them are failing purely through lack of (dare I say it) advertising that the task force exists or that one is proposed. They do seem to spring up unannounced every now and then with few initial members, get their fields added to football go on a tagging spree and lay dormant. As a project we have over 350 members now (as noted on the new Project milestones page, which has also just appeared with no warning) so maybe a bit of poking might get people to either help out with these taskforces or just re-arrange them into more logical groups. 86.21.74.40 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reiterating the proposals. Let me know if you support them: These proposal do not regard separate WikiProjects, which are in any case suggested to turn into project taskforces in order to create a stricter relationship between them and reduce their bureaucratic overheads (see WP:TASKFORCE for details). --Angelo 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Future taskforce proposals must be first discussed at WP:COUNCIL/P, and supported by at least N users (I would say N = 4) in order to be fully accepted here;
 * 2) Existing taskforces which do not feature any active discussion for at least M months can be switched off unilaterally by any user (I'd say M = either 3 or 4);
 * 3) Other existing taskforces of debatable usefulness can be switched off as well, but only in case a consensus for closing them is reached in this WikiProject;


 * Look, use of the talk page is not the only determining factor here, edits to the main taskforce page, people signing up as new members and people adding links to new pages must be taken into consideration. I have no problem with switching them off after 4 months if they're not in use, but you can't just judge their usage by edits to the talk page. King of the North East  (T/C) 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People signing up as new members is unimportant if they don't actually become part of the project. Taskforces are supposed to be a support to improve football-related articles associated to something in particular (e.g. a nation, a club...). --Angelo 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I would love to start up a Man Utd taskforce, in the same vain as the Liverpool one, just to get a bit of extra help with all the seasons articles that need creating, and also to clamp down on vandalism of certain players' articles. And then there's the issue of getting the club's main article to FA status! But looking at the state of some of the taskforces at the minute, I can't really say it would do much good to start a Man Utd one. - PeeJay 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have opinions on this modification to the wikiproject football navbox. I think it looks a lot tidier without links to the whole random selection of sub projects and taskforces. Someone with a better sense of design could have a go at making the list of taskforces and subprojects a bit nicer looking. The talkpage of the list could be used to request new taskforces & discuss deleting unused ones. Any comments? King of the North East  (T/C) 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Outsider comment regarding task forces: Personally, as said on the Proposals page, I prefer five members for a task force. Like I'm really going to quibble over a single member though. Secondly, perhaps more important, these task forces are really intended to be functional in the long term. I'm from the US, so I don't know how many UK editors there are, but my personal choice would be to create task forces at no more specific than the national level initially. That would allow for generally greater ease of management of task forces. Then, if a given task force has enough members interested in a particular team, it might make sense to create team-specific groups. But given the changes to the banner, categories, and whatever else involved, I think that the task forces should only ever be scrapped if they're truly dead. It would be comparatively easy to revive them, and they shouldn't really be even considered to be just short term groups, but sustained efforts to focus attention on their content. John Carter 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bit late to the table! I put together a lot of task force infrastructure as one of the ways of tying together child Wikiprojects like USA&Canada, different talkpage infoboxes....some of them, like Real Madrid Wikiproject and Women's football started independently of WPF, but have since come under the umbrella of WPF.

My personal view is that club Taskforces is a bit much, I believe there's also Sheffield Weds Wikiproject and Sheff Utd Wikiproject languishing somewhere.

The main thing for me is to have something a bit more manageable - I use the assessment grids as a starting point for articles nearly ready for GA/FA, or for important articles that are still at stub level. It's much easier for me when the assessment grid is of 2000-odd English articles, rather than 18000 world-wide articles. I don't need to post on the WP talk page - some people can use it, I don't tend to, so lack of action on it should not be taken as a dormant/closed Task Force.

Also, once the list of Taskforces is cut down a little I'd also prefer to see each individual task force in the Navbox(ref 86.21.74.40s comments about advertising!) Paulbrock 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

has disappeared
May be a temporary glitch, but the spacing template seems to have disappeared. It is thus showing as in the football infoboxes instead of acting as a spacer. Is this just me? --Jameboy 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that too ChrisTheDude 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strange...  WATP   (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Think we need some help with this before 'helpful' IPs start removing the s from the infoboxes... Any idea where we take this? --Jameboy 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some have already started to be removed. I have seen it happen in at least one article in my watchlist. It needs to be fixed. I will see if there is a bug filed. Woodym555 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone reported this glitch / bug? Peanut4 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it too. Has the template been deleted? --Malcolmxl5 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have posted a request for info at the Village Pump (technical), looking at it - it may be due to a new wiki version or a bugfix (or someone fiddling) as Naming conventions (technical restrictions) doesn't say anything about single character articles. 86.21.74.40 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The developers are aware of the problem apparently and if it's not fixed by tomorrow, bug them again... --Malcolmxl5 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now been fixed in the source (r27448) and should be updating soon. 86.21.74.40 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed now, cheers. --Jameboy 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

England stats
I'm sure this ain't the greatest find in the world, but I've always used englandstats.com as linked on List of England international footballers for England players. However I've just come across this list too which looks really useful too. Peanut4 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the several alternative references listed at List_of_England_international_footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Priestfield Stadium
Anyone care to chip in? It's quieter than the spectators in the Gordon Road Stand at the moment :-) ChrisTheDude 12:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All-time Serie A table
Do we need this page? It seems like a load of OR to me. Davnel03 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was me who inserted the "notability doubt" template, so I agree with you. Go for AFD? --Angelo 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD'd. Davnel03 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It must be merged with Serie A.-- Ahonc  ( Talk ) [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|25px|]] 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should the same thing not be happening with the other pages in the Category:All-Time Football League Tables ? - fchd 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Argentinians who have played in FA Cup Finals
What kind of joke is this article? -Lemmy- 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've just created the first link to the page (other than the redirect from its poor-grammar origin) in its six-month existence. I think that says it all. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it, ASAP. - PeeJay 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:J. League Club Templates
All the templates in the Category:J._League_Club_Templates appear to be single line entries which place the club badge to the left of the club name, with the template then being placed in articles such as J. League 2007. Am I correct in assuming this is a mis-use of non-free images? - fchd 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be correct in that assumption. TfD immediately. - PeeJay 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Under my interpretation, yes. Completely breaches it. Woodym555 18:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I've recently put Bradford City A.F.C. seasons and List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers both up for peer review. I've had some decent feedback on the former but very little on the latter. I hoped someone else might give me some pointers before I put either up for WP:FLC. Peanut4 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback on List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers - I reckon I've a bit of work to do there but that hasn't entirely surprised me. The peer review of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons has been archived so I've put it up for FLC if anyone can take a look. Peanut4 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Max Noble
Hi, came across this on WP:CSD binge. Could someone investigate it, should he take a trip to WP:AFD? Thanks. Woodym555 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Any chance its a hoax? Davnel03 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He exists, even has a small profile on the Fulham Academy site. Played for Wales at U17 and U19 and has played in a couple of reserve matches for Fulham. Don't know if that makes him notable or not but there is a small bit of googleable stuff related to him. Foxhill 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great FA Cup Games
I have just come across this article, which currently contains a report on only one match. This article should either be expanded or deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted would be my favourite option. Defining "Great" would be a POV issue. - fchd 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete, there is no NPOV way to define what is a "great" game ChrisTheDude 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD'd. The Rambling Man 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to recommend deletion from the start, but thought that I might be accused of bias in view of the identity of the defeated team in the one match reported on! Even after six years it still hurts. --Daemonic Kangaroo 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Using Goal.com as a source
Something has come up on the Klaas-Jan Huntelaar FAC, namely the use of Goal.com as a source. I was wondering what others feel: is it an acceptable source to use? JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-15 10:03
 * Why shouldn't it be? It is a football-only news source which is as reliable as several others around, so I don't really see any problem with it. --Angelo 10:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say I wasn't familiar with this site before today, but after having a look round it I see no reason at all why it would not be considered a reliable source ChrisTheDude 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Premier League
Premier League has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Canning City Soccer
A new(ish) article on a Perth football club Canning City Soccer. Is it notable? Plays in the State League First Division. --Malcolmxl5 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

TFD
Another football squad templates nominated at WP:TFD --> here. - Darwinek 08:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR
Everton F.C. is under FAR. Buc 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

General call to extinguish succession boxes
Hey, as I'm sure some of you are aware, I went on a navbox spree and created templates for all previous managers for all English league clubs. It was easy, no applause required...! However, every time I visit most manager articles I find a disgraceful and dirty succession box which says "ooh, I won the Portuguese Cup" or "hmmm, FA Cup winning coach". I'm guilty as the next man, way back when I was keen on telling everyone that Joe Royle was succeeded by Jim Magilton, I thought that those succession boxes were the bomb. But now I think they stink. So, to gather a consensus, I have three questions... Interested in the general WP:FOOTBALL vibe... The Rambling Man 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What DESERVES a navbox?
 * What SHOULD BE ONLY a category?
 * Is there ANY argument for keeping ANY sucboxes?


 * Argument to Keep for referee articles, and specifically for those who have officiated in an FA Cup Final (quoted example Paul Durkin). This is directly linked to the larger list FA Cup Final Referees. It is not productive for a referee to have a navbox, as that would have to consist entirely of which league he officiated in, and in which year. A pointless exercise. However, the succession box is easily the best way to link an FA Cup Final referee to the specific Final, with useful reference to who officiated in the Final before him, and who followed him. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant for a referee to link him to whoever officiated the year before or the year after ? - fchd 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I merely stated "useful reference", not "relevant". If the wider community decides that this is no longer a correct practice, then it will cease obviously. Ref (chew) (do) 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be brutally honest, I prefer succession boxes to navboxes - they are muted in tone and can be stacked & merged much more easily. The current plethora of big managerial navboxes with their cramped, tiny text and garish colours makes most articles look quite ugly - but that's a personal view. Qwghlm (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking at Mark McGwire last night and his succession boxes are in a hidable/showable box called Accomplishments. I thought it looked really tidy. I do look the navboxes but I appreciate they can become a little bit garish when you start building them up. Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that the colours are getting a bit garish, we could always override the colour parameter and enforce a single colour, much like the milhist templates. A one colour fits all would work better, (but would need a large consensus to implement). I disagree with the stacking comment though, navboxes are designed to stack and i think they do it perfectly adequately. I think some are larger than others, those with caretakers should have them removed. I also think implementing an autohide feature would be better. For some stubs, the box take up half of the page if there is only one there.
 * To answer the actual question that the Rambling Man set, I don't really see the point for the succession boxes on football pages. How does it affect Ron Atkinson that Alex Ferguson won a trophy after him. If it is important to Atkinson's article, then it shoule be included in his article, in the text and most likely in a category as well. Woodym555 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite like the colours, I've gotta say. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As i said, each to their own. I just wonder whether fits in on an encyclopedia, if it sets the right tone. It doesn't really offend me that much, it is just that on some pages it can get a bit much. I have to admit that I am happier now though, after the VDEcolor fix has been implemented. Points to the person who can find the most garish end of an article. Woodym555 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Bohemian F.C. international footballers
Should this category not be deleted? If it remains then there is a danger that it would spawn similar categories such as Category:Arsenal F.C. international footballers or Category:Southampton F.C. international footballers. --Daemonic Kangaroo 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have List of Rangers F.C. international footballers already. Woodym555 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Better as a list, I think - as a category it's misleading (suggests Bohemian are an international team). The name of the Rangers article is similarly misleading. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

York City F.C.
Is the original incarnation of York City, who lasted from 1908-1917, notable? They played three seasons in the Midland League, which can be sourced here. Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already tied into the main York City F.C. history section and also History of York City F.C.. 86.21.74.40 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reply to own comment) saying that though, there are probably enough sources etc to pull it out of those articles and make a new one purely for that team. 86.21.74.40 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the company they kept in the Midland League - clubs such as Rotherham County & Town (later United), Chesterfield, Doncaster Rovers  etc. - which are all quite notable clubs, then I would edge towards saying yes. However I would be interested to see what article could be made about the team that is more substantial than what currently exists in History of York City F.C.... Qwghlm (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nation youth teams

 * Argentina national under-20 football team
 * Chile national under-17 football team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Colombia national under-17 football team
 * England national under-16 football team
 * England national under-17 football team
 * England national under-18 football team
 * England national under-19 football team
 * England national under-20 football team
 * France national youth football team
 * Germany national youth football team
 * Ghana national under-17 football team
 * Ghana national under-20 football team

There are lots of youth teams article, and some of them totally useless, as a squad list. Do these team notable? For sure England U-18 only for friendly games on youth football, i suggest that U-21 in Europe and Olympic (U-23) team [of rest of the world] were sometimes notable to have its own articles, but rest of the ladder (schoolboy to U-20), should merge into *XXX national youth football teams. Matthew_hk  t  c  17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or just merge them into XXX national football team. --Angelo 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to get this sorted, someone deleted all of Argentina's U-20 World Cups from their achievements, saying they weren't achieved by the full international team. So the U-20 article was created to document their incredible achievements at this level. I would say that they should be kept as they are (but with standardised naming). If people really want rid of them they should be merged back into the national team articles with care not to delete any information. Whatever happens we should make it clear what the consensus is, to avoid further circular processes. King of the  North  East  17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Argentina national youth football teams then? U-23 team starting from 1992 and only played twice in Olympic, better merge U-20 and U-23 up. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of x national youth football team(s), including everything from U-20 down. ArtVandelay13 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "xxxx national youth football teams" sounds like a fair compromise to me. I would support bundling all the youth teams together under the single heading, over merging them back into the (in many cases already lengthy) main national team article. King of the  North  East  21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that. Having the youth team in the main national team article could make these articles a bit hard to grasp. Bundling the youth teams together in seperate XXX national youth teams is better since some of the less important youth teams would have quite short articles (Moldova national U-17 team for example). Sebisthlm 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally in agreement with that: I feel strongly that achievements of anything other than the full national team (including Olympic medals) in XXX national football team is inappropriate. My reservation would be with the umbrella name: does "youth" describe the members of an U23 team?  I would counter-propose XXX age restricted national football teams: its a bit wordy, but more accurate, and most trips to such pages would be by links rather than directly entering the page title.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In countires that have an U-23 side and play in the Olympics, they are called the 'Olympic' team (such as in the example of Canada). I would therefore propose having the senior team, U-23 (where applicable) and U-21, with U-20 and below listed as 'youth'. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point in allowing U-21 teams and bundling U-20 teams as yoth teams, especially considering that in CONMEBOL (South American) countries there are no U-21 competitions, the most important youth level there being U-20, which is the highest level of proper youth football in South America (Pan American games and Olympics allow the inclusion of selected non-youth players). King of the  North  East  14:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case have under-19 and below bundles together in South America, with under20 and below in the rest of the world. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Italy national football team new improvement drive
I have promoted the article Italy national football team to be the new Article improvement drive. It did not meet the letter of the drive, since it hadn't received three votes in two weeks time. But it was the oldest nomination with at least three votes, and Football club names had been the article improvement drive since June 10. The next oldest nom did get the three votes in time, so I suggest promoting that article in about a month time: List of men's national football (soccer) teams. A ecis Brievenbus 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The improvement drive is actually dead, and proved to be useless if people don't get involved in it after having voted for a given article. --Angelo 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let's just call this a final attempt at resuscitating the drive ;) A  ecis Brievenbus 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However I don't see anyone here (other than you, of course) seriously interested in resuscitating the project. There's no need for an AID when nobody really cares about it. --Angelo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Midland League players
Are players who played in the Midland Football League notable (those who never played in FL or other professional league)? The article doesn't really claim the league was professional, but does mention it contained professional clubs. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As the article indicates that by the turn of the 20th century many participants were reserve teams, I'd suggest not. For the very early days it may be a different story, but any player from that era for whom there are enough sources to create a half-decent article will almost certainly have had enough impact to be notable without having to resort to the "professional league" test. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As it seems to have mainly been a reserve league I wouldn't recommend it either. Qwghlm (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Taylor
I'm not very happy with the way that Andrew Taylor (footballer born in Hartlepool) and Andy Taylor (footballer born in Blackburn) have been disambiguated. Surely there must be a better way? – PeeJay 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well the usual distinguishing factor, year of birth, is inappropriate because they're the same. Do you have an alternative suggestion that could distinguish them at such an early age for both of them?  Otherwise the dab page will just have to be very descriptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They could simply be moved to Andrew Taylor (footballer) and Andy Taylor (footballer) or if we want to stick with the year of birth method add month as well Andrew Taylor (footballer born August 1986) and Andy Taylor (footballer born March 1986). Though I don't see an awful lot wrong with what they currently are. Peanut4 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Best solution is to use Andrew Taylor (footballer) for the former, and Andy Taylor (footballer) for the latter (using "Andy Taylor" per WP:COMMONNAME rather than "Andrew Taylor"). --Angelo (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the names we use are already different from each other (Andrew v Andy), there's no need for the place of birth to be added. Having Andrew Taylor (footballer) and Andy Taylor (footballer) is the best option. A  ecis Brievenbus 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would actually have to be Andy Taylor (footballer, born 1986) because there is also an Andy Taylor (footballer born 1988) who plays at Grimsby Town. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)