Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 4

Player Names
I was looking at Fluminense Football Club and was thinking about changing the squad list to meet the standard, but each player is listed by his player nickname and his full real name, which is the standard, as so far it seems to be to use the player nickname (eg Ronaldinho, Rivaldo etc.) but then what do we do about niknames such as Diego, Ronaldo, Cruz or Alex, where a somewhat substantial amount of players play under these names, how do we differentiate if they get expanded to their own articles.

Also still on the point of squad lists, with F.C. United of Manchester there is quite alot of info on each player, but is it enough to justify their own articles, in which case do we leave them as they are, or do we create a whole lot of stubs and change the squad list to meet the standard. Also, seeing as these aren't the most notable of players, mabye it isnt worht it, if that is the case, please leave a note on what to do with the same situation with more well known clubs aswell.

All replies appreciated, thanks! Philc T+C 20:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For players with the same nickname we can use a disambiguation page like Ronaldo (disambiguation). Articles on individual players below Conference level tend to get put on WP:AFD and are usually deleted, which is why I put them in the club page.  Also, there isn't enough info available on many of them to write more than a stub, so there's not much point in separating them - people who want to read about one FC player are likely to want to read about more so if they can fit in one article they may as well be together.  I intend to split the player info off into a separate page when/if the club page gets too big but I think it's alright as it is for now.


 * I'd be interested to hear what people think about having player info in the club article or in a Players of Melchester Rovers F.C. type article. I think it's a good idea for clubs whose players aren't likely to get more than stubs (say division two and non-league) and suggested it on Talk:AFC Wimbledon but only had one reply from someone who didn't like the idea.  I suppose we'd lose edit history information when a player changed clubs as they'd be cut and pasted between the articles.  Other than that, what do people think? CTOAGN (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on what info a Players of... article would include. If it would just be a series of repetitive substubs then I wouldn't be keen. Whilst I strongly dislike the use of a squadlist mentioning former clubs and year signed etc. for clubs with players notable enough to have their own articles, it may have merit for non-professional teams. Oldelpaso 10:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Player categories
Currently, there is a split among Category:Footballers by club - most of the club subcategories (about 250) are named Some Club F.C. players, but a sizeable number (over 50) are named Some Club F.C. footballers (including all of Argentina and Scotland, and most of Spain). It'd be nice to see these standardised, and I'm tempted to suggest "footballers" is the better term as it matches the parent categories, but I thought I'd get some soundings here before proposing a mass rename on WP:CFD. — sjorford (talk)  09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Footballers" is better for clubs that operate more than one sport (e.g. FC Barcelona) and we should be consistent throughout. Go for it. Qwghlm 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem with me if you want to go for "footballers", but there may be a problem with American, Canadian and Australian (to mention a few), where "footballers" might not be the best choice. What I instead suggest is that we keep "players", and when it comes to clubs with several different sections, the sections in most cases have separate articles (if they are famous enough), and by naming the categories after the article titles, there is no longer a problem. In FC Barcelona's case, Category:FC Barcelona players would include footballers, Winterthur FCB would have Category:Winterthur FCB players for the basketball players, and so on. I've already done this some time ago to a few Swedish clubs, including Djurgårdens IF Fotboll with Category:Djurgårdens IF Fotboll players. – Elisson • Talk 11:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, that sounds like a good solution - I'm veering back towards "players" then. I've also noticed that most other sports seem to use "players" as well. I'll propose this over on WP:CFD in another day or so. — sjorford (talk)  14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinsed. Boca Juniors has football players, but also basketball players, volleyball, etc. Teams that play football don't play American football, so no chance of collition. Mariano (t/c) 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And if players from Boca Juniors different sections are notable enough by themselves, then the sections of Boca Juniors should have separate articles which would provide the names for the player categories. You say: "Teams that play football don't play American football". I say: Do they not? Actually, the Swedish club I mentioned in my previous comment, Djurgårdens IF, has two football sections, one playing association football, and one playing American football. But that was not my point, my point was to avoid confusing readers that might not be familiar with players and teams by having categories including the term "footballers", a very ambiguous word. – Elisson • Talk 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to submit the Scottish categories for renaming, but it'll take a little while to work through the rest, because there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in club article naming at the moment. Ultimately, there should be a consistent naming policy for club articles within each country, and all player categories should then be named "Category:........... players", where the ".........." exactly matches the club article. Otherwise, we're still left with the problem of editors not knowing instinctively what the player category should be for a particular club. The Scottish club article and category names are already consistent ("............. F.C."), except the categories say "footballers" instead of "players". I'll just start with those and see what comes out of the CFR discussion before doing the rest (probably one at a time). — sjorford (talk)  16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now on WP:CFD. — sjorford (talk)  09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:English Premiership players and the like
Also: Category:La Liga footballers, Category:A-League players. See here: Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_13. It was not resolved. Thoughts? DR31 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have voted delete if I'd known about that CfD. we already have various Category:Nationality footballers and Category:Name of club players categories, putting divisions as well seems to me a bit like putting Category:25 April births in addition to Category: 2006 births. Someone like, say, Jari Litmanen would end up in a huge number of categories if there was one for every league and club. Oldelpaso 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I voted keep for the A-League one, but didn't know at the time there was a Category:Footballers by club which contained (for example) Category:Footballers in Argentina by club. There isn't, however a Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club ("Footballers" alone would go against the compromise reached on WP:AWNB some time ago), which would effectively be a replacement of Category:A-League players, since the A-League is the only notable-enough football league in Australia. If all individual players were removed from Category:A-League players, and the category renamed Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club (so that this category only contains, eg Category:Sydney FC players) this would remove the issue in this case at least. The A-League category wasn't intentionally seperating them into divisions, rather it is effectively just a non-standard name for Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club. Is there a quick way to fix this, or would it be faster to relist the category for deletion and explain as I have done above? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WPF navigation and WPF navigation2
I've added the above templates to pages concerning the project. Hopefully this will make it easier for us, and outsiders, to navigate to these pages. – Elisson • Talk 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is easier for me to navigate. Thank You. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Player Article Merging
This is an idea I had, I'm not sure whether it's come up before, but I'll pitch it anyway. Looking at some big club pages recently, I noticed that every single player is blue-linked, as opposed to red. This is good, but the problem is these players aren't particularly notable. In most circumstances an article like Fraizer Campbell, Anthony Stokes and David Mannix would be deleted instantly. There's loads of articles like this from Premiership clubs.

I proprose that all non-notable players are merged into one article, much like List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights. This has, I feel, a number of pluses.
 * No piddling little articles, just one decent sized one
 * No need to click back and forth to read about various young players. It's all there on one page.
 * No need to delete and add lots of articles each time a new players emerges or is released, just edit the existing one
 * Could be utilised for League 1 and League 2 club players generally

Once a person had out-grown this page, they get their own article. Obviously protocols would need to be established, like whose page loan players were put on, and some kind of mention about where to find players with their own articles and so forth, but I think it'd work. HornetMike 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been done to some extent with lower league clubs, including FC United of Manchester however, articles like Frazier Campbell, are youths on premiership first teams, and it is heavily likely that the will go on to lead a notable footballing career, in relatively high divisions. Also before anything takes place, there has to be decided how large an entry on a player is allowed to get, before it justifies its own article. I support lower league clubs having a squad page of all of the clubs players, but for a whole division, the article would become quite large. Philc  T+C 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, well I'd suggest that a fair amount of United's (for example) youth team won't go on to be notable players. One or two, maybe, but most of those articles will be deleted in time. I just think it'd be easier for them all to be grouped together, for the reasons above. I agree though we'd have to develop some kind of concept as to when a player could "graduate." And yeah, I think there should be a different page for each club, I agree one division would be silly.HornetMike 00:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's of little use to have an article for each junior player of all teams, mainly because they are NOT notable. Having them because they might become notable is absurd; an entry can be created when the player deserves it. Having the team listed in the junior team's article seams enough to me, as it's already done, say in Manchester United F.C. Academy. Mariano (t/c) 06:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks like a decent format to follow, although a distinction would need to be made between youth team members and academy products that have been granted a professional contract. And seeing as that page leads to a number of articles (which presumably wouldn't exist under this new system) then there'd need to be a bit of written detail. HornetMike 11:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As its related, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people about the as yet undecided notability page. Oldelpaso 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that players that have a first-team squad nu
 * The youngsters on the United page are not youth players, they are simply young players, who have broken through to the first squad. Philc  T+C 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. And to be honest I don't think they deserve their own page. That's why I think this group page would be best. Oh, and maybe we should shift this over to the page oldelpaso provided? HornetMike 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, I've created Watford FC Players. I've come up with a decent criteria for notability, and so forth. See what you think. HornetMike 00:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is a very good one. However, I would suggest renaming the article to Current Watford FC players; the current title could equally apply to an all-time list of Watford's players. Qwghlm 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One thing we need to consider though is edit histories.  When players transfer between clubs their sections would presumably be cut+pasted between the club player pages and the edit history info will be difficult to trace.  It wouldn't bother most people too much but I think there's a legal requirement to keep edit history info.  One way around this would be to have short articles for each player and transclude them into an article for the club in the way that pages like WP:PR are done - if you edit the page you'll see that it's put together by joining up lots of smaller pages with names like Peer review/F.C.United of Manchester.  This may not be ideal as we'd still have separate articles for each minor player but it would give us a way of havign the club articles while keeping edit histories intact when a player moves (we'd just remove the link from one club and add a link on the new club's player page). CTOAGN (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the player is bought by another team, unless he goes somehow 'down' in category, then he might be ready to have his own article. Mariano (t/c) 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is a good idea to merge different professional players into one article according to the player's current club. Professional players are destined to be transferred between clubs, and every such transfer will then require at least 2 edits just to make the player referrable at the right article.  Think of the havocs this may bring towards the end of transfer windows.  Think also of those users who over-react to every rumour on the The Sun and move a player from one page to another before it is official, and the resulting reverts.
 * Indeed I do not think that having a large number of footballer stubs is a big problem here. Indeed this may be viewed as a plus -- keepinng a substantial number of lesser known, yet still notable, players' profile here which may otherwise be difficult to track.  It is also easier to manage this way; CTOAGN's concern about page history is a valid point here.
 * Let the stubs stand as they are now. The more notable ones will eventually get expanded and the less notable ones will eventually be removed.  --Pkchan 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst some stubs are expanded and some deleted as young players careers go on, there will nonetheless be a consistent amount of stub articles for the 17-20 generation. Whilst Wikipedia bio does state that any player that has played a minute of football should have a page, it would be fairly ridiculous to have a page for all of them and its far better to collate the non-notable (as yet) ones. As for your other concerns, well firstly as Marianocecowski says, if a youth player moves to another club, he is probably worthy of his own article. If he moves significantly down the leagues, where a teams page for this might not just encompass youht players, well, they can be added there without much fuss. As for editing clubs due to Sun rumours etc. well the players subject to such rumours are likely to have their own page anyway, we're looking at less notable players here. The main concern, I agree, is edit histories. Anyone else have any thoughts? HornetMike 09:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Current Watford F.C. players and Alex Campana for an implementation of WP:RP-like infrastructure to group player stubs into one single page, as suggested by CTOAGN. It appears that quite a number of  s will have to be placed properly in order for the listing page to be rendered properly.  --Pkchan 12:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So where are we going with this? HornetMike 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, despite a fairly positive response this idea seems to have drifted into the nether. Someone's created articles for each and every Watford player now we've been rpomoted and deleted the example page. Which is a bit bloody rude to be honest, seeing as they used all the information I wrote out. Furthermore I only discovered when I saw the red link on my page, so they didn't even tell me. Ho hum. Anyway, any other thoughts on possible implementation? HornetMike 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Left-footed players
I was going to list this category on CfD, but I decided to gauge opinion here first. I don't see the use in adding a category to every player to say whether they are left or right footed. I think it should be deleted, but if it is to be kept it should be renamed to Left-footed footballers. Oldelpaso 09:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maradona
This article on a very important footballer is in a bad state, it should be improved if possible. Loom91 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate it for the collaboration of the week... HornetMike 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Melchester Rovers
Hello there. I'm new to this WikiProject, but would very much like to participate. Anyway, I was wondering what the line is on famous fictional football teams? I've been doing some work on Roy of the Rovers, but I also think that the Melchester Rovers article can stand up on its own with regards to providing info about the club and its "history" (because the main ROTR article should focus more on (a) the character of Roy, as Roy Race links there, and (b) the other strips that appeared in the comic). As such, I was considering - in addition to providing a history of the club and its achievements and major events, something I'm in a position to do quite comprehensively with the literature at my disposal - to putting such things as an Infobox into the article. I notice that this has already been done to good effect, for example, with Harchester United (although that article as a whole does need filling out somewhat).

My question, therefore, is do people think that entries such as Melchester Rovers can form a valid part of the Wikiproject? Obviously, I wouldn't be talking about creating entries for every single fictional side ever created, but in the case of the Rovers I think they're famous enough to warrant it. Of course, one problem that arises when compiling infoboxes etc. is that the club are technically no longer "active", as there have been no original ROTR strips since 2001; although I'm sure this can be accounted for. Anyway, I would be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on the matter. Seb Patrick 16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Caretaker managers
I'm planning to do some work on various manager lists and succession boxes.

My question is this: is there a standard as to whether caretaker managers (who may be in charge for as little as 1 or 2 games) should be included in such lists? Some seem to include them, some don't.

Any advice would be appreciated. I think a guideline should be produced if there isn't one available already. Thanks.

Jameboy 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the caretaker managers themselves are notable, they should be included in such lists. If not, a small footnote would do about them at the end of the respective articles. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in any templates or guidelines. My opinion is that caretakers should not be included, as they have not been appointed manager at any time, they are merely deputising. Oldelpaso 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think caretaker managers should be included in any manager lists unless they have been in charge for a sustained amount of time - i.e. over a month, at least. HornetMike 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Arsenal F.C. lists every manager, caretaker or not; to not do so would mean there would be gaps in the record, and possibly be misleading as to the dates of the permanent managers' tenures. I would think virtually all caretaker managers are notable anyway, having either been past professional players, or managers at other clubs. Qwghlm 09:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Qwghlm's comments here. He is right to state that ALL caretaker managers are notable because of the above given reasons. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Arsenal are a typical example - they have a tradition of having long-serving managers. Most caretakers will be notable enough to have their own article by virtue of their playing days etc., but that is a separate issue. I think it is misleading to list them as managers of a club in a list of managers as anything other than a footnote, as being caretaker manager is different to being manager, and has lesser status. One other problem I forsee is that caretakers are also used if the permanent manager is ill or otherwise unavailable for one or two matches, which would result in a caretaker entry in the middle of a manager's tenure. Oldelpaso 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think they are worthy of inclusion, regardless of length of tenure, and even Arsenal have had the odd period of turmoil - four different managers in the space of six weeks in summer 1996, which is fully detailed in that list. Wikipedia should be as complete and accurate as possible - even if a manager only took charge for two or three games, his contribution should recognised and listed, with the appropriate dates specified (and of course an annotation saying they were only caretaker). There is no reason why it shouldn't apply when it is due to illness (I'm thinking e.g. Trevor Brooking covering for Glenn Roeder or Phil Thompson for Gerard Houllier, not just if a manager has had to stay at home for one match because he has a cold), and it can be quite comfortably explained with a simple footnote. Qwghlm 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qwghlm. Why leave gaps in the history? Aabha (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read the points made so far, I am definitely leaning towards the inclusion of all caretaker-managers, especially as this information is available on Soccerbase in the manager histories. It certainly removes any discrepancies when you add up the number of games that each manager was in charge. My opinion is that we should add caretakers wherever possible, but if the caretaker is missing or not known, the information should still be considered to be correct, although not 100% complete. In other words it is correct to say that manager B succeeded manager A, but it is also correct to say that caretaker manager C succeeded A for 1 or 2 games in-between. Jameboy 12:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Want to contribute
Hi, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have been editing, adding information on various subjects.

I would like to be a part of this project, as I have been editing and adding player infoboxes, I would like to continue in that direction. Since I am quite busy in my profession I can take up such small tasks which I can finish as I get time !

How can I be a part of this..

Thanks !

Gurudatt 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no special criteria, simply continue contributing! Optionally, you may wish to add your name to the list on the WikiProject Football main page. Oldelpaso 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You will find voting processes and articles for improvement on the projects page. Any help that you can give to these will also be greatly appreciated. -- Alias Flood 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

needs split
Perhaps by level of the "football pyramid", or by county? (Or if counties are too small, by English region.) I'm cross-posting to WP:WSS/P. Alai 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of all footballers, renowned footballers, and footballers by position
There has been some discussion on the present listing of footballers stemming from my AfD nomination of List of goalkeepers; see also Talk:List of renowned football players. I would be interested to learn what the other members here think about whether should should keep these lists of all footballers, all footballers by position and renowned players and, if so, the criteria of inclusion for such lists.

I am of the opinion that lists of all footballers, by position or not, are inherently unmaintainable and redundant with the much more organised and maintainable category and its sub-categories. However, a list of renowned footballers, organised by position, may be of interest to those who know little of football (soccer) and its history. I also believe that it is feasible to develop an objective, workable and commonly acceptable criteria of inclusion on such list(s). What do you all think? --Pkchan 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be an increasing obsession with lists on Wikipedia recently - or perhaps I am starting to come across them more On recent changes patrol within the last hour, I have discovered lists ranging from virgins to the List of renowned football players, lists of people from this or that place to lists of protest songs. Personally, I see very little purpose in such lists and I find it difficult to gain any knowledge or interest in them other than pondering what purpose they serve. As you have said, to maintain a list with such a vast potential number would be very difficult and issues regarding POV are obvious if no qualifying criteria are used. My initial thoughts are to delete unless an agreed criteria for inclusion/exclusion can be formulated. Alias Flood 04:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) positions was getting messy, so I dumped the names to List of renowned football players (secretly hoping someone would AFD it, ahem. But) I think there is some merit in having certain lists (as per Pkchan) if proper criteria for inclusion can be applied so as not to let it get out of control. eg: Multiple international awards. Regularly appears on All Time Greatest/Best players list etc. Alternatively, we can just have a category for "renowned" players. See also Category:Lists of football (soccer) players for more wonderful lists. --Dodo bird 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of lists which are maintainable & and have (reasonably) objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion:
 * Lists by record (e.g. List of top goalscorers)
 * Lists by national team (e.g. List of England international footballers )
 * Lists by club (e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players - the only featured list of players ATM).
 * Lists by award won (e.g. FIFA Player of the Year)


 * Lists that are less so, and should be better covered by categories:
 * Lists by nationality (most of whom will have played for their national team anyway)
 * Lists by position (worst of the lot, and inevitably POV-prone)
 * The grandaddy of them all, List of football (soccer) players
 * Subjective lists of "notable" players that have themselves been composed by notable organisations (e.g. FIFA 100 internationally, Football League 100 Legends for England) are worthy of inclusion, as including them is a statement of fact. But there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that a broad Wikipedia consensus is going to produce a stable list of "notable" or "renowned" players. Football's a passionate and (somewhat) irrational game - we're all fans with our own allegiances, we're all bound to disagree. Qwghlm 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd add lists within articles to this debate. For e.g. Football in England contains Great Players and Great Managers sections, which are highly subjective and pretty pointless. SteveO 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per consensus here I have nominated List of football (soccer) players and List of renowned football players, two lists with the most unclear inclusion criteria, for deletion. See the AfD nomination here.
 * As for lists within articles, I would submit that this is perhaps an equally problematic issue. Articles infected by this "epidemic" include not only those cited by SteveO but also Striker, Football (soccer) positions and virtually all club pages.  This issue is perhaps more scorny, however, because having some "renowned" players on a page does, in some case, help to illustrate the topic, and also because people are bound to add the players back after a complete removal (case in point: Football (soccer) positions).  What do you all think about this?  --Pkchan 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Aditogs spamming
Aditogs seems to be mass spamming football articles to include "fansites" that in my opinion have little value to anyone except to bring in advertising revenue for him. jaco ♫ plane 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's the drill, go in to all of them and undo them all? (additional - OK Bentley Banana has undone one, who's gonna help? :)) Andymarczak 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed a few more as well as warned User talk:Aditogs on his talk page against spamming. But not all have been reverted.  Perhaps someone with access to the more sophisticated popups would be able to help?  --Pkchan 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've reverted all the remaining ones. Normally I would have done this myself in the first place, but I didn't have time, so I posted it here. jaco ♫ plane  18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done the ones which had subsequent unrelated edits, they're all done now. Oldelpaso 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

History in articles
There is currently a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing in going on in the various history articles surrounding the game and some consolidating is needed and also we need to make sure information isn't lost. See football history of football The Football Association Laws of the Game Football in England Sheffield Rules Cambridge Rules Attempts to ban football games Mediæval football mob football Timeline of football (soccer), Prehistory of football (soccer) etc.. Jooler

Another point
We have Argentina and England football rivalry. i'm amazed we don't have England and Germany football rivalry Jooler 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or indeed England and Scotland football rivalry Jooler 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sporting Testimonial events
This football-related category is on WP:CFD for either renaming or deletion. — sjorford++ 10:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The World Cup in other languages in Wikipedia
Hi English Football portal. I'm popping in here to inform you about the state of the World Cup squad members' articles in other languages. I'm a member of the French-language football Wikiproject (they need lots of help, bless 'em, those Francophones), and we're in the progress of de-redlinking all the players in the upcoming World Cup (blueifying about a score per day). We (Or maybe it is just me) think the French way of doing things has certain advantages over the English way, as in 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads). What we've done is make 32 subpages (for example this one for the German squad ( inspired mercilessly yoinked from the German version)), and have them all linked from a template (clicky here for the pretty template). The main benefit this holds is that it allows for more scope than just the 23 players, like we can talk about internal squad goings-on and stuff. Maybe this could be effective in the English Wikipedia. --Wonderfool 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The coloured table is certainly a better format, but I'm not certain that there needs to be seperate pages? Maybe, maybe not. aLii 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an idea, what if we created a squad article for every Country/Year, and then Include it with – wherever its appropiate (squads of the 2006 world cup, list of german squads, etc) so we have the list only in one place?
 * Comments and categories can be added with noinclude tags. Mariano (t/c) 07:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I got it. Check 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads)/Templated. And see that Argentina doesn't have its table there but in a separate article named Argentine squad for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Once the squads of all counties for all world cups are done, we can easily make a list of squads pre country, or per year, with little code, and having all the information consisntently in one place. To include the squad article use  {{:  Mariano (t/c) 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of interest for the creation of squad templates to allow cross articles' consistency, I will delete the articles I created for illustrative purposes. Mariano (t/c) 08:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad, it sounded like a really good idea.  It could be one less occasion where Wp blatantly violates the DRY principle.   Oh well. - PhilipR 06:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just joined this project and I have to say that what Francophone have done is excellent and I'm willing to work on such a thing if more people participate. --Serte 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

National League System
I thought it might be useful to show how the National League System in England has evolved year on year, so I've started a thing (currently in my userspace) at User:Sjorford/Development of the National League System - I'd like to move it into the main article space eventually. If anybody's interested in giving feedback or suggestions, it'd be most welcome. — sjorford++ 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to help out with the article itself, but when/if moved to the Main: namespace, wouldn't History of the National League System be a better name, following the standard that most other football articles use when referring to the past? – Elisson • Talk 11:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * History of the English National League System would be even better. aLii 09:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that level of disambiguation is needed, as "National League System" is a proper noun - the main article is at National League System, and the history article should follow it. — sjorford++ 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as "National League" is a proper noun in this case, maybe it's ok. There are other things that could well be described as a "national league system" though, that was my point. aLii 10:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on New Zealand friendly articles
My first though was to nominate Chile v New Zealand (2006) and New Zealand v Malaysia (2006) for WP:AFD, but I wanted to hear your opinion on the matter before I do so. IMO, friendlies are very seldom notable enough to have their own articles, and this is no exception. – Elisson • Talk 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. I don't see the point of having articles for every single friendly match a national team plays. In any case, if the creator of those articles wants to have a list of all matches played by the New Zealand NT in a particular year/season he should create an article similar to 2005-2006 in Argentine football or 2005-06 in English football where all the matches played by a NT are listed (friendlies, world cup qualifiers, world cup matches, etc.). Bruno18 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. The majority of friendlies are not notable enough to have a separate article for each game. k m s 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wipe. Mariano (t/c) 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Better still would be to somehow enhance MediaWiki so that fixed-format data such as results of individual games can be stored in one place (Don't repeat yourself!), not all over the yearly articles for different teams. I'm going to post a bunch of thoughts about this on  my user page. - PhilipR 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup squad templates
Please see Category talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Squad Templates and help finish the templates and adding them to player pages. jaco ♫ plane 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also started working on creating squad templates for regular teams, see Category:Football squad templates. jaco ♫ plane  04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

England and Germany football rivalry
Hello all. Not a football expert by any means, but last year I researched and created Argentina and England football rivalry, and it seemed to go down quite well. I have now put up a first draft of a England and Germany football rivalry page, which I'm reasonably pleased with as a starting point, but it needs a lot of work. For one thing it needs more from the German side, and obviously as I'm not an expert I am sure there is much I might have gotten wrong or ommitted. The club level section, in particular, needs a great deal of expansion. Anyway, hope it's not too awful! Angmering 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice that the talk page of the Eng–Arg article mentions the lack of images. Couldn't you throw in a few national flags somewhere to brighten them up? aLii 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What it really needs is a decent picture of the England team giving the Nazi salute in 1938. There's one on the BBC site. But I think there might be a better one out there. Jooler 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello, I've put FIFA World Rankings up for peer review and all of your comments on the article would be appreciated, leave them on the peer review page not here though. Cheers! Philc TECI 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist?
On the main article is a short list of articles that should be watched. I would like to know what the criteria for being on this list is? There are many many pages that could do with watching. Of my personal watchlist Peter Crouch and Steven Gerrard are the most regularly vandalised (a few times a day each). However they probably don't need adding to the main page list as there are plenty of people watching them anyway. So, could someone edit the main page with either: It seems a confusingly brief list to me. aLii 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) instructions for which articles should be added to the watchlist.
 * 2) remove the watchlist from the page.

football (soccer) FAC
Football (soccer) has recently been placed on FAC. Any assistance in addressing objections would be greatly appreciated, particularly copyediting and working on the lead. Oldelpaso 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate
I've nominated an image for featured picture status, and I think this image represents sportmanship at its best. I think it would be a great featured picture sometime during the world cup! jaco ♫ plane 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Nevermind was apparently a copyvio. jaco ♫ plane 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * Talk:United States men's national soccer team Jooler 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * issue resolved. Jooler 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA 06
How far away is FIFA 06 from being featured article standard? I'm not nominating it, just curious for areas of improvement. Normy  132  09:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the article is in constant flux while the tournament is in progress. I was quite suprised to see that it is featured in other languages. Jooler 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What Normy actually asks about is the game FIFA 06. I thought the same as you before I followed the link, though. :) – Elisson • Talk 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! Jooler

Review needed - History of association football balls
Hi. I've just got round to making the article History of association football balls just in time for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. It's a fairly minor subject in the grand shape of things, but has some interesting information. I'm wondering if anyone here would be up for reviewing it, suggesting any additions, any clean-ups and what not? Thanks - Master Of Ninja 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, I've put FIFA World Rankings up as a Featured Article Candicates and all of your comments on the article would be appreciated, leave them on the FAC page though, not here! Cheers! Philc TECI 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD-able?
List of England FIFA World Rankings, what should we do with articles of this kind? – Elisson • Talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I know I'm beating a dead horse, but this is one more topic that falls under what I'm getting at under User:PhilipR.  As the wiki stands right now, I don't consider this encyclopedic. - PhilipR 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Transfer list?
Hello, just a quick question. I've recently been looking at the List of transfers of La Liga - 2005/2006 season article, and find it to be very well written. What I can't find, however, is a list of transfers from outside of La Liga, for example a list of all transfers. Is there such a list? If so, could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. --212.1.142.248 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Footballers
I found this in the template namespace, but it's not really a template, more a standard article structure. Anyway, nothing links to it and the creator seems to have left Wikipedia — does anybody want to use anything from it, or should I just TFD it? — sjorford++ 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * TfD. – Elisson • Talk 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Jevrić / Montenegro
Is it undue speculation to start naming players who could well play for the first Montenegro national football team? Apparently someone thought so. Maybe so -- but I'd like to ask for broader comment. - PhilipR 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the verbiage on this section has been hammered out to a point where it's clear that it's speculative.  I consider it a working consensus, so I would no longer interpret deletion of this section without comment as acting in good faith. - PhilipR 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a user acted to revert this despite the emerging consensus.  I don't consider this action in good faith, and I'm open to suggestions that on avoiding a revert war where, predictably, the person with the most time to waste destroying the work of others wins out.   Cheers, PhilipR 05:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal / World Cup news
Can someone keep the World Cup news section of the Portal up to date for the next week or so? I'm about to go on wikibreak and won't be able to update it. Thanks. Oldelpaso 09:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Football club
I've noticed over the last couple of weeks that someone has been adding counties and the actual areas that clubs are situated in onto their infoboxes (i.e. Bolton are now in Gt. Manchester as are Wigan. Arsenal are in Gt. London and Tranmere are now in Tranmere, Prenton. This has also happened with players, so Nicky Hunt was born in Gt. Manchester. Does anybody else have an opinion about this as I feel that, for example, Arsenal should just be Emirates Stadium, Islington, London and Bolton should be Reebok Stadium, Horwich. (Pally01 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Good articles on WikiProject Football
I've noticed on other wikiproject pages that they have a section for articles that are listed as being good, I think this would be helpful here as it is these good articles that only need a small bit of work to become featured articles. Would it be possible to have a small section on the main page of this wikiproject listing current good articles i have looked and there are no more than about 5.

Futhermore I think part of this project should be to identify good football articles because there are a lot of football related articles and im sure some of them must be good but have not yet been spotted.

The currnent Good football articles are;


 * 1) Marc Pugh
 * 2) David Beckham
 * 3) Chelsea F.C.

Thats it, Im a sure that there must be articles that can get to good article stage easily but not many people know about good articles, to become a featured article is alot easier if it is good first.

see; Good articles &mdash; WikiProject Good articles &mdash; What is a good article?

Ch ild zy ( Talk 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like the images on the Marc Pugh page are copyright violations (Good work on the rest of the page though). Surely the "good" articles are the ones that are listed as featured? aLii 11:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good articles are like a steeping stone between normal and featured articles, they arent on the Page as featured articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Childzy (talk • contribs).


 * Chelsea hasn't had a peer review yet, I suggest we put it down that route? HornetMike 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template
Just wanted to say that the standardization of navboxes has been updated, see its subpage. – Elisson • Talk 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambig help needed
There are currently two articles about footballers called Joe Shaw:


 * Joe Shaw (footballer) covers an ex-Arsenal player from the 1910s-20s who was a left back and later became Arsenal's caretaker manager.
 * Joe Shaw (soccer) covers an ex-Sheffield United player who was a centre half and played in the 1950s-60s.

Neither is distinctly more notable than the rest, and there are other individuals called Joe Shaw, so I was wondering how best to disambiguate them. I came up with some based on other disambiguations, but none is totally satisfactory:


 * Joe Shaw (left back) and Joe Shaw (centre half) - but the second Joe Shaw played in a variety of positions, so it's not that accurate.
 * Joseph E. Shaw and Joseph Shaw (footballer) - works for the first, but the second Joe Shaw has no middle name (I checked the records) so it doesn't make him distinct enough.
 * Joe Shaw (1883-1963) and Joe Shaw (1928-) - this is discourage by the MoS, and I am not sure even if the second Joe Shaw is still alive.
 * Joe Shaw (Arsenal) and Joe Shaw (Sheffield United) - but the first Joe Shaw was associated with clubs other than Arsenal.

So I'm stumped. Does anyone have any better suggestions? Qwghlm 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you visit the 1. FC Kaiserslautern page there is a similar situation for a German footballer by the name of Fritz Walter. I wasn't aware of it until the other day, when I clicked on Fritz' Wikilink. Initially it took me to a disambiguation page, and gave a choice of Fritz Walter (19xx-19yy) or Fritz Walter (19jj-19kk) - even though that may be frowned on by the MoS, it worked. The disambiguation page offered enough info to make a choice, I suppose, but I just changed the link to a specific one. Each article references the other Fritz. Wiggy! 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I "often" see name (born year) as disambiguation (for example Mikael Nilsson), so that might work. – Elisson • Talk 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading Naming conventions (people), Joseph E. Shaw and Joseph Shaw (footballer) looks the best option, with a line at the top of Joseph Shaw (footballer saying This article is about the Sheffield United F.C. footballer. For the Arsenal F.C. footballer, see Joseph E. Shaw. For other people of the same name, see Joe Shaw. This would be similar to the current solution for Alan Smith. Oldelpaso 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Joseph Shaw (footballer) is my least favourite title of them all, as it is so ambiguous; additionally I think Alan Smith is a special case as he is a current player, and should not be a general rule for historical players. I am leaning towards a hybrid scheme of: Joseph E. Shaw and Joe Shaw (Sheffield United). Both names are accurate (the second Shaw did not play for or manage any other club), and are precise enough that each one cannot be confused with the other. Qwghlm 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Newbie needs help
I'm trying to fill in a few blanks for some players, and have managed to grab some info on them, but I'll be damned if I can master the coding for this site. I've started Hamilton Ricard, and will be doing a few more guys such as Igor Stimac and so on, but if someone could do the honours in terms of formatting, I'd much appreciate it. I'll add more names as I add them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanadianRed (talk • contribs) 19:37, June 23, 2006.


 * Looks a good start. Couple of tips - remember to categorise articles, and when on talk pages like this one, to sign your name by typing ~ (four tildes). Qwghlm 13:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can list articles you create at WikiProject Football/New articles. Oldelpaso 13:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Squads Template
Hi, I have been checking out these world cup squads and have created two recently.

How about creating a page for every team for their world cup squads. This page will have a link on the national team plage.

e.g. Brazil National Football Team will have a link to a page Brazil World Cup Squads which will have the squad boxes for all the Brazil world cup squads (for 1990, 1994, 1998 etc.)?

Gurudatt 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at Category talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Squad Templates. A page with historical squad listings need not have anything to do with squad templates. It's only a case of copying each team's squad list from each World Cup's squad list page. In my opinion, we don't need more international squad templates until the next major tournament.   SLUMGUM    yap    stalk   21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be interested to take a look at the thread above as well as this discussion over the 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads) talk page.  I did express some doubts in both but then realised that with more and more requests of this kind, it is perhaps time to re-consider the proposal to break down information into small, self-contained articles and link them up on "presentation tier" pages using trasclusion.  --Pkchan 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on World Cup 2006 results articles
Hi people,

I thought this WikiProject would be the best place to ask - there is currently a bit of discussion at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup about how the results will be arranged. I thought members of this project might like to offer any advice or recommendations to make these fit a standard (if one exists). I didn't see a page on the wikiproject nav bar specifically for results, so apologies if there is already a page discussing this! -- Chuq 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability proposal
A proposal regarding notability criteria for sportspeople is currently under discussion at Notability (athletes). Oldelpaso 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(UEFA) European (Football) Championship or "How To Name Continental Tournaments"
I took some tome to clean up in the football categories a few nights ago, by standardizing the UEFA youth tournaments to the name currently used for the main tournament, which is European Football Championship, thus moving the under-xx tournaments to European Under-19 Football Championship and so on. But then I realized that it wasn't the smartest move I have made during my time on Wikipedia. There seems to have been no discussion whatsoever over what to refer to the European tournament as. Looking at other continental tournaments, there seems to be no standard on how to name continental tournaments at all... Some include the confederation name and should do so (CONCACAF Gold Cup, OFC Nations Cup), some do not but really should (Asian Cup), and some do not and should not (Copa América) and some I am not sure about (African Cup of Nations). But the European Football Championship got me wondering. What should that article (and category, template, ...) be called? UEFA European Football Championship, UEFA European Championship or European Football Championship, or something else? The official UEFA site says "UEFA European Football Championship", while being the name with least hits on google, where "UEFA European Championship" gets many more but "European Football Championship" gets the most. Any thoughts? – Elisson • Talk 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting one. My gut would to say that the official name is the one to go with, but "UEFA European Football Championship" is so unbelievably clunky! Of course all the more usual names can be redirects. hmm. aLii 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)