Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 72

Infobox founded parameter
ok i am looking for outside input, what should be the founded parameter be used for? i know in general it be the year the club was founded, but there the case of rangers fc where they have been relaunched should this type of information be listed in the infobox founded parameter as it a very important part of the club history it was relaunched the club so should be mentioned.

so the question is

should the infobox parameter only contain the year a club was founded or should it include or important information if revelent to the club

some arguments against it have been incorpation date isnt included in the infobox maybe this is something we should look at adding? ie new parameter incorpation-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is one article on a club, and they were dissolved and then re-founded, both dates are acceptable. GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I usually do something like 1884 (original club) 1924 (refounded) . Number   5  7  18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i have tired that but it is reverted by the same club camp, and the new club camp only take it as two articles but thaa bigger debate that in medation hopefully soon.
 * ok when it described as reformed relauncehd in reliable sources what woudl your recommendations be or your views on it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about Port Vale F.C.? Where the club badge has 1876 on it despite a large amount of historical evidence that points to 1879 as the founding date?--EchetusXe 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe put '1876 / 1879 (see below)' with the 'below' being a link to a section in the article about the founding date debate. GiantSnowman 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the club went and 'refounded' in 1907 as well :P Oh well, thanks for the suggestion, with the new third "emergency alternate away kit" we have there was enough room to say "1876 / 1879 (see more information here)".--EchetusXe 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * can you give some of the examples of aritcles that already do it, and would football mos stay that more than one date should be meanioned???-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Port Vale F.C. has more than one date now, three in fact. Bear in mind the club, the entity, was completely liquidated and a completely separate club, entity, took on the club's name but dropped the prefix of 'Burslem' (as Burslem Port Vale F.C. was then in the process of being liquidated). As far as I see it Rangers F.C. were expelled from the SPL and then immediately admitted into the Scottish Football League, so they never really ceased to exist. Strictly speaking Port Vale F.C. and Burslem Port Vale F.C. are as separate as F.C. Halifax Town and Halifax Town A.F.C., but hey, sands of time and all that, what?--EchetusXe 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * there two problems with the rangers ones, reliable sources state the founding date as 1872 but also as 1873 any inclusion of 1873 is said is warranted as it was 1872 that is pov, i rather we leave it to the reader to decide, 2012 date i think it important it is describes depending where the source is as relaunched, reformed or a new club, but any attempt to add this is reverted and said it only a news paper news source view on it, but i keep saying we cant ignore it if reliable source say it we have to mention it and leave it to the reader to decide, also by having relaunched 2012 it means there less chance of edit warring because rival fans want the Halifax town way of things ie two article so by stating on the infobox relaunched i think it covers saying it might be a new club it might not be its left to interruption of the person, can you give any advice?? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Newport County A.F.C. for one. Number   5  7  10:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ok i have now tried again, and the one user who has been determined form teh beginig not to have mroe than one date nor comes up with there only one founding date you cant have more than one, but if we are to go with teh founding date the club own website says all fans knows that we where offically founded in 1873 Talk:Rangers F.C. any outside input from non invovled editors would be appericated not saying you will support me or him but i feel time has come for third opinion, there is pplenty of sources that put founding as either 1872 or 1873 i am happy to go the 1872/1873 route instead o my oriignal proposal of 1873 (formed 1872) as per the offical rangers site, since the sources say both as founding i think both should be meantioned and left to the reader

thanlks for any input-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiago André Coelho Lopes
Tried to move this page to RABIOLA (his sporting name, is not addressed by ANY of his real names at least when he's on the pitch), was not allowed. Can anyone assist please? Furthermore, when i type the words RABIOLA in the search engine, it leads straight to his article, proof enough page can be moved with "no problemo".

Also, i think some WP guidelines/technicalities could be revamped. How does this anon edit i made (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francisco_Garc%C3%ADa_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=507835960&oldid=506204771) constitutes vandalism as summary puts it? So much for helping :(

Happy weekend all --AL (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't wory about the vandalism notice. Doesn't actually mean anything. -Koppapa (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Q1. Because the redirect page has content already, you'd need an admin to move it over the redirect.
 * Q2. The message was triggered either by an anonymous editor changing the player's name without a source, or by an anonymous editor adding a bunch of unsourced material to a BLP. A lot of vandalism is anonymous editors making unsourced changes, as I'm sure you're aware. You'd avoid the problem if you didn't edit anon, but the better cure would be to add sources for your changes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes STRU, i knew adding unsourced changes was not a very legal move to make, but i thought it had another name, never vandalism. Thanks for the clearing up, both of you my friends. --AL (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding unsourced stuff isn't necessarily vandalism, obviously. It becomes vandalism if it's done without the intention of improving the encyclopedia. But I don't really see why someone who knew about the WP:BLP and WP:V policies wouldn't add sources, assuming they have them. Saves people coming along and thinking they've made the stuff up :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For players of the 80s and before, it's virtually impossible to find newspaper articles, etc. Only thing left to do is to repeat LINKS (with mere stats, etc) as REFS, and i hate that man! --AL (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be unaware that El Mundo Deportivo has a full free-to-access archive. So do some mainstream newspapers, e.g. La Vanguardia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas
1. We need a template of "list of super cups by year" for across all leagues (As in the way we have for all seasons) 2. Can someone help populate International sports calendar 2012?Lihaas (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sports calendar article is needed. You could list a millin things there, where would you put the main focus? -07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Its for easy navigation, the asame way as the electoral calendar pages. A reference to the event of the year and then click-throughLihaas (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tirana derby I and Template:Tirana derby II
Template:Tirana derby I Template:Tirana derby II have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footy-competition-prediction
Template:Footy-competition-prediction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Any admins about II
That can undelete the Paulo Jorge Gomes Pereira now he has played a senior match.

Sources & "Substitution Danny Murphy goes off and Paulo Jorge comes on." 

Thanks.--95.148.62.21 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will create it. Give me 15 minutes. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No AK they want it undeleted. It must have been created before and it can be brought back as it was before. Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn it. Misread undelete for create. I just saw the red link, Blackburn and debut and I was off. Woops. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. Number  5  7  22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters
Hi could someone please take a look at this page. A user has taken it upon himself to 'clean up' Wikipedia by removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic. Far be it from a POV editor like me to stand in his way with my "policies". So if someone who isn't blinded by their devotion to Celtic could take a look at the page I'd be most grateful. Cheers. Adam4267 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * he heading for a ban he is pov pushing is all i can say i not goting to undo rather let someone not invovled do it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that it's Gefatane you're talking about, then I can't see what he's done wrong to be honest. Those latest additions are sourced and verifiable and seem to be taking the article towards a more NPOV to me. BigDom (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * what he put is fine an sourced, but he doign it because he cant remove the same type of section out of the rangers article without a consesnus, before you say i aint asusmign good faith look at rangers fc article history earlier in the day abotu secterism and you see he was reverting and deleting stuff and then move to the celtic one because he couldnt remove it, i am sure he maentioned sometihng on talk about the celtic page has very little, the problem is a lot of these editors thingk waht happens on one article should happen on another, sorry abotu spelling really to tired to fix-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't notice what he'd been doing on the Rangers page as well and I'm not saying anyone's acting in bad faith. To be honest, I don't care for Celtic or Rangers so not going to follow this up at all, will leave it to someone who knows more about it. BigDom (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a violation of WP:NPA at my expense. Although given no opportunity to defend my position until stumbling over this page today, I can state categorically that my Celtic Supporters page contributions were multiply-attested, NPOV additions, added in good faith, reverted by the user Adam4267 with no explanation given.
 * I'm happy for my additions to be judged on their merits so here they are one and two. As for editing of Rangers FC, I was compelled to contribute when the page was at the stage of stating that Rangers no longer existed, and since that time I've spent many hours of personal time striving to improve the article NOT from "removing all the negative stuff" as that childish comment above states, but concise rewording where required and occasional removal of irrelevant material (such as a substantial paragraph on OTHER TEAMS using sectarian language e.g. huns towards Rangers within the RANGERS sectarianism section). Once again, I'm happy to judged by my contributions.
 * It's a shame that editors such as above can launch ill-founded personal attacks on editors in which they disagree, but its a greater shame when the user in question has no right to reply. Until now that is.Gefetane (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam, I believe you either received or were very close to receiving a topic ban on Celtic related articles for a period of time in the past for similar disruptive editing. The discussion is here. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup I did recieve a topic ban Monkeyman - from Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters. I still feel it was completely unjust and has left me with a sour view of ANI and the way some admins handle themselves on wikipedia. However, I feel I became a better editor because of it so I'm not going to complain. Adam4267 (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So why are you edit warring on an article that you were topic banned from? Monkeymanman (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitchell Dijks
What do people think of this article? I don't feel like he specifically meets WP:NFOOTY because he hasn't actually played yet, but the season just started. Do we delete the article until he actually plays in a game? Ryan Vesey 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Mickey van der Hart. Ryan Vesey 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mitchell would pass NFOOTY if you can prove that he played in the Dutch Super Cup (Johan Cruijff-schaal XVII) but he would still fail GNG which for a 19 year old I would go lightly on. I will actually revamp the page so that it may pass. Mickey is 100% not notable and should be deleted. We dont know when these guys will play in the league, maybe not at all this year. Specially Michael who (according to the page) is 3rd goalkeeper. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

✅ Okay, I revamped Mitchell Dijks page (hope you like it) but van der Hart will need to be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) ✅ Mickey van der Hart has been PRODded. GiantSnowman 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of English reserve team articles
I've been doing a cleanup of Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy following the revamp of the youth system in England, and it seems that the club no longer has a "reserve team"; instead it has an "under-21s team". I wonder, should this be reflected in the article title? If so, can anyone suggest a suitable title? Manchester United F.C. Under-21s and Academy doesn't sound right to me. – PeeJay 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well technically it is still the Reserve team and this is technically still the Reserve League. If I am not mistaken for the "U21" (Reserve) side you are allowed 3 overaged players. So technically it is not u21. It is u21 + 3. At least that is how I look at it. So no, I would not change the name due to the overage players also allowed in the side and also Man U played a u21 + a few overaged played last year as well and before that so there is no difference for them. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, it is "technically" an under-21 league now, rather than a reserve league. There are rules in place regarding age limits (albeit with exceptions), just like the Olympics is an under-23 tournament with exceptions. All of the teams are now nominally under-21s. – PeeJay 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True but in the Olympics we have the Great Britain national football team and Australia olympic football team. Of course people can say that we have u23 for the other 204 teams but that is because the qualifiers they play in dont have such rules of overage players etc. Specially since most of the Olympic teams qualify through ONLY u23 tournaments like in Asia and the AFC U-22 Asian Cup which is all u22-u23. In this case we begin from the beginning with the overage rule. That is why I think we should keep it at Reserves because that is what they are. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. The league system, league, and teams no longer call it thier reserve squad but thier U21. You mentioned the national teams, but U23 teams are only unique to the Summer Games, Asian Games, or other multi-even games like those two. They don't play directly under FIFA/AFC/UEFA, but under the Games flag, and are obligated to follow the age rules. Those compeititions like the new English league rules uses U23/U21 players with exception of 3-4 players above those age limit. that doesn't mean we souldn't call it by the proper name. Using the reserve in the title will be wrong to do as there is no such thing as "reserves" anymore, even if old name used the same rules.


 * Believe the idea of 'reserve teams' has been replaced by the idea of 'development squads'. The old reserve leagues have gone and sides play in a Professional Development League. There is something to be said for renaming these articles from 'xxxx F.C. reserve..' to 'xxx F.C. development.... --Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends whether the subject of the article is this year, or the history and development of the club's junior teams. If the latter, the "fact" that there's no such thing as reserves any more, or at least for this season, doesn't justify changing the name. For 120 years, there was a reserve team. For ten minutes, there hasn't been. Looks recentist to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So has an opinion on this ever been made. I am now saying U21 as that is what Man U and the media call it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo, HighBeam and Questia
I supose most of you noteced the 1-year free accounts offer to WP editors at Credo Reference, HighBeam Research and Questia. If I had enough time I would definitelly use them for many purpouses, but is any of them usefull for football sourcing? HighBeam mentions newspapers and magazines... FkpCascais (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HighBeam would be, at least for the past 25 years-ish. I often come across sources that are mostly hidden behind a HighBeam paywall. Don't know how much they have in non-English languages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't found it particularly useful for football. The only reliable source I've come across for Watford is The Independent, and their website is generally very good at putting and keeping articles online anyway. It looks as though it might be useful if you cover MLS though, as they have lots of publications from one of the bigger American cities. —WFC— 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noticed most of the HighBeam sources are accessible on The Free Library. Tend to use Nexis when finding match reports or articles relating to football now, given the Guardian archive has been shutdown. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When I looked I found that HighBeam et al would give me access to few useful football-related sources over and above those I can already access online using my library card from my local library. A lot of UK-based editors don't realise quite how much useful stuff can be accessed from home using their library card. In my county it includes the archives for the Times/Sunday Times and Guardian/Observer, plus Newsbank access for many national and regional papers for time periods varying between the last 10 and 25 years. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would also like to add that the Google News Archive has been rather useful for me. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to thank you all for the inputs and, subsequently, ask the following: is any of them good for non-English sources? I´m kind of interested in less known countries, stats which we have difficulties finding sources trough our usual sources (things like local African football, obscure leagues, etc.). FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for number of fan clubs
I recently edited three articles to make clear that the claim for the number of fan clubs the club has is sourced only to the club's own website. Per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, we can never state anything but the most incontrovertible stuff in Wikipedia's voice that is sourced only from a primary source. I think it is acceptable to change these claims to "the club's website states that..." for a claim like this though, but I wanted to see what other experienced editors thought. Any comments? --John (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is probably a weak argument, but why would the clubs lie about how many official fan clubs they have? They're not claiming any particular numbers of fans, just the number of regional fan clubs, which I'd say is pretty incontrovertible. – PeeJay 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why on reflection I would not argue for outright removal but could live with its retention, with the proviso I mention. --John (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * at the end of the day...... the reader will decided, i could go rad 200 sources saying x team has x number of supporter club but if believe it is false then it make no difference, same with if i beleiv it then it will make no difference, i think you forget its human that read wikipedia and human by there very nature choose what they want to believe or too believe themselves not what a source says. primary sources should always be backed up with 3rd party reliable sources where possible but it isn't always possible because some details contained within a primary sources will only ever be there. john since you love your policies i care about tea policies but i dnt go reading them all as i cant, one of the policies states something in this line, we do not judge the accuracy of the source we only report what the source says, by you saying a primary source is misleading you are judging the source, yes a primary source will possible have a commercial interest in themselves but it doesn't mean we can judge. a lot of editors and admins seem to forget the core of wikipedia to provide high quality articles the readers can trust, in that form the readers decides, editors who want to counter someone else arguments with a policies are only using there experiences to subdo another editor who might not know all the policies. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John's edits seem uncontroversial to me, so I'm not sure what's prompted such a reaction. You don't need to delve into policy pages to realise that in-text attribution of a source is often a sensible thing to do.
 * Supporters' clubs are a pretty mundane subject (and I say that as an active member of one!). By and large they have little to distinguish them from those of any other team. I don't think they merit more than a line or so, stating the number of branches or members. But in each case here, that's pretty much exactly what we have, so no issue there. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i never said it was, nor was my response to do with the support group it more to do with wikipedia in a whole which i think is getting drawn away from the core policy and getting driven by policies to form articles Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
I'm sure this is not the right place to bring this, but (despite having been a user here for many years) I don't know how to request a page move. Southampton's player No. 21 was listed as Guilherme do Prado, but this was recently moved to Guly (Brazilian footballer) with the rationale "WP:COMMONNAME". On both the Premier League website and the BBC he is listed as Guly do Prado which is where I think the article should be, but this move is blocked. "Guly" is at best a nickname and is not appropriate for the article name. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved him back to Guilherme do Prado for now. The editor who moved it is a serial mover of articles to where they think they should be, but sometimes they get it wrong. The instructions for requesting a move are at WP:Requested moves. You just add a section called ==Requested move== to the article talk page and put Guly do Prado followed by your rationale for the move, and sign it. And you can put the movenotice template at the top of the article page to advertise the move request discussion. And wait. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the editor in question a note. GiantSnowman 08:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyviol
This article 1963 CONCACAF Champions' Cup is copyviol from RSSSF. This text is copied: "The final was originally scheduled for September 8 and 10, 1963, with both games in Guadalajara, Jalisco; however, the Haitian players were unable to obtain their passports on time, so the final was postponed on three occasions. On February 7, 1964, Guadalajara lodged a protest to CONCACAF, which declared the Mexican club champions, but after a counter-protest by Racing Club Haïtien, CONCACAF ordered on April 2 that the matches to be rescheduled of the matches within 2 months. Since Guadalajara were touring Europe at that time and were unable to travel home for the final, the final was scratched and Racing Club Haïtien were declared champions." RSSSF states: "originally the final was scheduled for Sep 8 and 10, 1963, both games in Guadalajara; however, the Haitian players did not obtain their passports on time, and the final was postponed on three occasions; on February 7, 1964, Guadalajara made a complaint before CONCACAF, which declared the Mexican club champions; following a protest by Racing Club, CONCACAF ordered, on April 2, 1964, the rescheduling of the matches within 2 months; Guadalajara could not oblige as they were touring Europe at the time and withdrew, so Racing Club were declared champions." The rewording is IMHO insufficient. The copyviol should be removed, and the text rewritten.--Casmiki (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be bold and remove such instances yourself! I have done so on this occasion. GiantSnowman 11:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the offending passage, and hope it isn't still too close a paraphrase. Thank you for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

New RVP picture permission?
Can someone check this picture, File:RVP v Everton.jpg. I would do this myself but I dont have much experience with these so if someone does not mind can you please just check if we do have permission from the author to use this picture. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption below the image credits it to Reuters so there's no reason it would be usable here. Ought to be put up for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much doubt this is OK to use. Also the uploader has some history of uploading copyright-vio images (doesn't make this one so but........).--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for speedy deletion and removed from RvP page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Season articles for States
I noticed that there are pages for Football in London or Football in Catalonia etc. and I am planning on doing so for a few Indian states as well but I am wondering because unlike England or Spain, the leagues in India below the top state leagues are not notable but I still have basic information available (League Tables, Teams, other information etc.) and I rather not make the league pages and seasons if they are not notable so I am wondering if I could make a page where it's a season in this state football (Example: 2012-13 in London Football or 2012-13 in Goan Football). This way I could add the league tables and other information of other leagues which are not notable by wikipedia standards and maybe add other things about the clubs that are notable. Maybe I could add what games the India national football team played in that state for that season. Or what major tournaments were hosted that year. etc. i think it could be very interesting but I dont want to go ahead with it before hearing your opinions because I hope we could also do this with maybe England or the United States because I always read about these controversies on here about "this article about this league season is not notable because this league is to low in the English football system". I mean if you have the sources and the information than why not. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If leagues are not notable, or clubs, they don't become notable in a season article. I guess there are 500 leagues in england/germany ervery year, sure you could source every single one of them. But wikipedia would become clusterd with articles nobody cares about. -Koppapa (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have Football in Goa, etc. feel free to list referenced tables of league winners/runners-up - but individual seasons that are nothing more than a collection of results should be avoided. GiantSnowman 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well like I said I dont want to make the individual seasons because I dont have enough sources to make them notable. I dont want to be in another situation like I was in June with the 2011 I-League U19 and 2012 I-League U20 but what if I took the tables and other information that is available from the 2nd Division, 3rd Division and 4th Division in the state of Goa and add it all to one page and name it 2012-13 in Goan football. Also like we do with 2012-13 in English football I could add a Promotion/Relegation section, New Clubs section, matches the India national football team played in Goa that season, then the tables, etc. I have the sources for that much so why not. As for the US, England, Germany etc. I will look into that but in the end I think there football systems are to deep for that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking into your thread, Arsenalkid, but I have another question that is related to those articles: In 2012-13 in English football all teams that was promoted and relegated in the 2011-12 season is listed - is this correct? I thought the info about which team that was promoted and relegated should be in the article on the season the promotion or relegation happened? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nine goals in a game
After a German amateur player scored nine goals for Spandauer SV in a seventh division match this week I was wondering how common such a feat was. I did a bit of research and came up with List of goalscorers with six or more goals in an association football game. It is still very much incomplete, I presume. I set the criteria at six as it is a double hat-trick, if such a thing existed in football and seems a rather rare number, as only one players has scored six goals in the Bundesliga and none in the Premier League as yet. I restricted it to professional/first class matches. Would anybody like to contribute? Calistemon (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Classic example of original research, isn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote No original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Every one of the players in supported by a reference, like the BBC and The Guardian. Where would original reasearch come in here? Calistemon (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The information may not be original research, but the grouping of it together certainly is. The choice of six goals is completely arbitrary. Why not five? Five is the current Premier League record, so you're automatically ruling out the entirety of England's top flight since 1992. – PeeJay 11:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With five the list will become very long, even six may be to few. And a number had to be picked, just like List of Manchester United F.C. players is limited to players with 100 or more apperances, a number as arbitrary as six. How did you, or anybody, arrive at 100? Englands top flight is comfortably represented with Ted Drake with seven goals as it did actually exist before 1992, just under a different name, as is the Football League as a whole with Joe Payne (footballer) with ten. This (The forgotten story of … the Football League's record scoring trio) is actually a very interesting article on how the top-scoring record in England was broken 3 times in 121 days. Calistemon (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the double hat-trick comment above, is a double hat-trick in football four (as in cricket) or six goals? Hack (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hack, 6.
 * Regarding the issue here, I beleave that changing the title from 6 to "maximum" (List of goalscorers with maximum goals in an association football game) or something similar would fix the OR problem. Then, we would have WP:SIZE to limit the inclusion of lower numbers of goals which would become too comun (5, 4, etc.). FkpCascais (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As to User:Hack's question, this article on Ted Drake on the Arsenal website refers to a double hat-trick as six goals. As to User:FkpCascais suggestion its certainly not a bad idea, we could rename it and split it into countries & competitions. One fundamental flaw the current format has is that it does not allow, for example, for Oleg Salenko's five in the 1994 World Cup, a World Cup record, and PeeJay's Premier League record scorers. I will try to rework the article when I get some time in User:Calistemon/Sandbox and see what it looks like. Calistemon (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Article changed to new country/competition format and moved. Calistemon (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't say I like the use of "maximum" in the article title, that makes it sound like there's a limit imposed on the number of goals a player can score in a game............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Use Record or Most instead? List of goalscorers with record goals in an association football game or List of goalscorers with the most goals in an association football game? Calistemon (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the article have changed from OR to an encyclopedic article, will add the Norwegian records when I find the sources. But the article-title should include records in some way. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup)
Why do we have an article on this game? It seems to me that it is only notable for two things: Suarez's handball and being the third time (not even the first time) that an African team has reached the quarter-finals of the World Cup. Most of the information belongs in the 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article, not in a splinter page. I will probably take this to AfD later today, but I would like to gauge the Project's opinion of the article before I do. – PeeJay 07:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont know the page but youve already established some notability.Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Suarez's handball is not the first nor the last time someone has cheated in a football game: not notable. Ghana being the third team to reach the quarter-finals: not notable; if they'd reached the final or won it, maybe, but not the quarters. – PeeJay 08:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, players cheat every game. And the ref calls those fouls. Suarez's handball by itself was notable: the nature of it being last-minute and it obviously changed the outcome. It was a highly controversial incident discussed worldwide. And I still see this incident linked with news on Suarez. For example, in this Olympic preview Uruguay gets only one paragraph and Suarez is mentioned and then linked with the notable handball incident. I don't think it's too common for players to be linked with common fouls.
 * The article is expanded significantly past what was in the knockout stage article. If we put that all in the knockout stage article, then it's much longer than any of the other matches. And I think a stand-alone "splinter" article is a better place for a more in-depth discussion about the handball and aftermath. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is notable at all, just because there was a handball in the last minute does not make the match notable. What about the other 119 minutes? The article is about the match as a whole not one incident. Article should be deleted and info taken to knockout stage article. NapHit (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it passes WP:GNG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How many of those sources refer to the game in any sort of historical context? They're all contemporary to the game, and we need more than that to establish that a non-final match is notable. NapHit is exactly right; nothing happened in this game except for a handball. It's not notable. – PeeJay 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strafpeloton, what real need is there for an "in-depth discussion" of the handball? Suarez handballed, he wasn't sorry, people said he was a twat for doing it; that's about it. – PeeJay 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, four paragraphs about one incident is very excessive. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the match merits an article or not, in our opinions, is really irrelevant. GNG is what we need to establish, in a historical context obviously. I had a quick look through the articles refs and at first glance there didn't appear to be one. That's not to say there isn't but it looks non-notable from what I've seen. Adam4267 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I’m not too familiar with what’s out there for football pages, but it seems the smallest page would be for one match. It seems that just about the only current criteria for having a notable match is that a trophy is given. I think that this match fits mostly because of one remarkable incident. There are example from other sports where one incident makes the game significant: Tuck Rule Game, Miracle at the Meadowlands, Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball).


 * But it’s an oversimplification to say that nothing else happened in the other 119 minutes. It was a WC quarterfinal. It ended in a shootout. If he didn’t do it, an African team would’ve advanced to the semifinals for the first time ever. What would your threshold be for notable events for a match to be notable? Two? Eighteen? Couldn’t we say the same thing about the Hand of God goal? Well, nothing else besides the Goal of the Century (result of an internet poll) happened in the rest of the game, let’s throw that article out too. Maradona handballed, he wasn’t sorry, surely everyone said in 1986 he was a villain for it; that’s about it. That incident makes that game have significant meaning to the Argentines and the English, right? This was farther than Ghana has ever advanced and as far as Uruguay had ever advanced since 1970. Maybe it doesn’t have much meaning in some countries but for Ghana it has significant meaning. For example, I wouldn’t say this article is representative, but it is from the Barbados Advocate (a reliable source, half way around the world from Ghana), and Ghana is said to be “a country defined by bloodshed, sacrifice and a Luis Suárez handball”. It’s obviously not the universal viewpoint, but the handball incident is tied to Ghana.


 * Historically, the game and it's handball incident are tied to the controversial Suarez and to Ghana and is one of the memorable in WC 2010. The match article puts the play in context and it has added meaning since it was in the WC quarterfinals (as opposed to a league game or an early round game of some domestic tournament), and even more meaning that occurred as the last play of extra time (he probably wouldn’t have done it 20 minutes earlier, right?).


 * If I’m a lay person reading about Suarez and this handball incident keeps getting mentioned, I’d want to know the circumstances around it. My first question would be, there are handballs all the time, why is this one so important to be mentioned with him/Uruguay/Ghana all the time? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the articles you mentioned above have proven their historical significance by being mentioned time and again in not just national but global media. When people talk about those games, their reaction is almost always along the lines of "OMG that game was a classic!" but it has yet to be proven that this will be the case for the Uruguay v Ghana game. At the minute, it's more of a case of "Yeah, wasn't that the game when Suarez handballed?" It's not an all-time classic, at least not yet, and you have yet to prove otherwise. – PeeJay 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would look at it this way. Is Suarez's handball notable Yes. Is the match itself notable. Probably not. The match seems to only be notable for the handball incident which is part of Suarez's article so I'd say based on the fact the match itself doesn't apear to have long-lasting notability it should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Check out WP:EVENT for a more thorough explanation of the notability criteria for events, many of which can be translated to a football context. – PeeJay 09:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability-guideline for matches like this is WP:SPORTSEVENT, and I'm leaning towards that this match passes that guideline. However, as the article is nominated for DYK (see Template:Did you know nominations/Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup)), the best thing might be to have this discussion in an AfD, so that the article wont hit the main-page before we decide that it is not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. It wasn't the final of a major tournament, it's not a college bowl game, it's not an all-star game, and it has yet to be proven that it is considered notable by independent reliable sources. As Adam said above, the Suarez handball is possibly notable, but the game itself is probably not. – PeeJay 10:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has now been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup). – PeeJay 10:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Connor Smith
Please could someone unsalt Connor Smith, and move Connor Smith (footballer) to that title. Before someone asks, it's only because of his prominence on Football's Next Star that I think one appearance is enough to meet the GNG. —WFC— 12:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, unrelated but does anyone know what happened to Ben (the winner of Football's Next Star). I know he went to Inter and then supposedly Brighton but thats it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently at Ebbsfleet United . —WFC— 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh god... is this why there is no season 2 because obviously season 1 did not find the next star of football. Actually scratch that, maybe Smith can make it as he is only 19. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Connor Smith ended up at a better club than Inter – our B-team finished three places higher than them last season. ;) —WFC— 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Their your B-team?? Adam4267 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We play in the bigger league... —WFC— 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then considering that we drew with home and away with your B-team last season then I'd hate to get yous in the Champions League :P Adam4267 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait can anyone tell me what is this "B" team? I actually got lost after that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The people that own Udinese and Granada decided to buy the equally cosmopolitan Watford F.C. Don't ask why. Adam4267 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for you we're in the middle of a short break from Europe. You might be on the verge of one yourselves, unless you can overhaul the likes of St Mirren or Motherwell. —WFC— 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I never knew Watford had played in Europe before. I'm sure we'll manage to beat them, however if we lose to Helsinborg tonight then we'll be in a bit of trouble. Adam4267 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, can anyone find a source for his birthplace. I reverted an edit which I was sure was vandalism (at least one of the articles called Connor Smith which was previously deleted referred to a Canadian), but having looked into it I can't find his place of birth anywhere. —WFC— 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the ever-reliable "Westmeath Examiner" his birthplace is Delvin. Adam4267 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I attempted to verify that, but that search eventually took me back to a familiar place. I couldn't find an article that was clear that Delvin was his birthplace: I tend to avoid assuming that "from" means "born in". —WFC— 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the "hometown" is a very American thing and no indication of actual birthplace. The place where a newspaper would sensibly say I was from, and my birthplace, are 4000 miles apart. GiantSnowman 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming of Inter Milan
The Inter Milan naming saga is still rumbling on. Some good arguments have been put forward by both sides, but we are no closer to a resolution. We have far too many guidelines being quoted, from Article titles to Naming conventions (sports), so I think we need someone who hasn't been too involved to come in and sort out which guidelines take precedence over the others. And once this is done, I think we need to apply some consistency across the board, because Inter Milan isn't the only club with a controversial name. – PeeJay 17:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys, this isn't going to solve itself if people keep looking away. Some more opinions are definitely required. – PeeJay 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry PJ I meant to respond but forgot. I agree the issue needs sorting and you've put some good ideas forward there. Personally I do think its a hard one because both arguments have good points. So maybe an outside influence could be helpful. Adam4267 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do have a strong opinion that the name should be anything other than Inter Milan. But as these disputes invariably turn nasty, I won't want to weigh in on the article's talk page unless there's an RM or RfC open. For what it's worth, my reading of the situation is that there is overwhelming consensus to use a common name over the official one. So the best hope of changing from Inter Milan (to Internazionale due to Inter being a DAB) is to convince the community on most of the following points: —WFC— 00:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That there is not a primary common name.
 * That Internazionale is one of the names commonly used by English speakers.
 * That the relationship between "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale" is similar to that between "Man United" and "Manchester United", and that only the second and fourth of those terms is sufficiently encyclopaedic.
 * That for some English speakers, in particular those proficient or fluent in English as a second language, Inter Milan is likely to be understood as Inter&mdash;Milan.
 * No offence but I'd say those all look like quite weak arguments. Tbh I'd say the average english speaker would never say "Internazionale" or "Internazionale Milano". IMO the only real argument is consistency with other football articles. In all honesty I would prefer it to be at "F.C. Internazionale Milano" but I do feel there are more policies pointing to "Inter Milan". Adam4267 (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) For the record, I just want to say I personally don't think that Internazionale on its own would be a good title for the article for the exact same reason that I don't think Inter Milan is a good title: they're both shortened forms of the club's full name that seem to me to have similar levels of usage, which is why I'm arguing for the old title (F.C. Internazionale Milano) to be reinstated. But you're right about the line of argument that should be used. BTW Adam, I'm an English speaker and I exclusively use "Internazionale" to refer to the Nerazzurri. – PeeJay 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I'd say the average person who probably isn't aware of what the club's full name even is would refer to them soley as "Inter Milan" or "Inter" (obviously not an appropriate title). Considering you used the word "Nerazzurri" I would suggest in footballing terms you are an advanced speaker as David Daily Mail isn't going to know his "Rossoneri" and "Nerazzurri" from his "Rigatoni" and "Puttanesca". Although I would like to see it at the full club name and consistency is a good argument. I would say more policies point to common name and possibly IDONTLIKEIT is coming into it a little. Adam4267 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are redircts, so i don't see any problem with any title. -Koppapa (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that people rarely, if ever, seem to properly read WP:TITLE properly. It's quite clear that a name should be nexus of five principles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. If these are all filled by one name, great, but chances are that compromise will be necessary. There is no 'winning' policy that beats these five principles: WP:COMMONAME, WP:USEENGLISH, WP:MOSAT (which is apparently the link for describing the use of conventions across multiple articles) do not trump one another, and are not unbreakable rules (there are many examples where all are brokebn). While we can on occasion privilege one of the principles above others, we have to have good reasons for doing so.
 * I probably wouldn't have moved the [F.C. Internazionale Milano page, first for consistency's sake, but mainly because - "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." But, now that it has been moved, this advice also applies: changing it back would not seem to bring any advantage. Under the five principles above, Inter Milan clearly wins out on two (Recognizability and Naturalness), and is probably more concise as well. It's certainly not an actively bad name for the article and as such I don't see any reason to move it back, even though F.C. Internazionale Milano is clearly better for consistency and precision. To move a page, I'd want evidence that a name is actively a bad description: Inter Milan clearly is not a bad description for the club (unlike, say, Sporting Lisbon).Pretty Green (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually PG, I'd say 'Sporting Lisbon' is in more widespread use than 'Inter Milan' - this kind of name is a slippery, slippery slope. Next stop 'Man Utd' and 'Liverpool (football club)'? GiantSnowman 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the main issue was consistency - all Italian clubs on Wikipedia are (or were) titled by their full name. Why was an exception made for Inter? And I quite agree with the slippery slope comment. A secondary issue was the manner in which the second RM was carried out - i.e. just a few minutes after the old one (in which a move was rejected) disappeared off the talk page into archives - this seems to have been a deliberate attempt to prevent referral to the previous debate. Number   5  7  15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Number 57 Consistency is important but I've seen no good argument for raising it above the 4 other principles of naming in the case of football clubs
 * I agree with the third point - I wouldn't have moved the Inter Milan page and it's not good practice to have repeated votes, particularly with a quick non-admin closure. But I also wouldn't get too worried about a move to a non-offensive name which still fulfils most of our naming principles. Pretty Green (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Giant Snowman "Next stop 'Man Utd' and 'Liverpool (football club)'?" The former is not a bad name for that article under the five principles clearly stated at WP:TITLE. I wouldn't support moving it, because the article has been stable at Manchester United F.C. for many years, and because Manchester United FC is also a good name for that article. But moving it to Man Utd would be no more confusing or troubling than William Clinton being at Bill Clinton. Sporting Lisbon might be more natural/recognizable (ie, common) than the current article name, but is so much less precise than Man Utd or Inter Milan that it would be a poor choice. Liverpool (football club) is also a poor name because it includes disambiguation where there is a perfectly adequate alternative name. Pretty Green (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, (and I realise no one is seriously suggesting it, but just for argument's sake) moving Bill Clinton to William Clinton would be even more ridiculous than any of the suggested moves we've come across in the course of this discussion; no one calls him William, except perhaps his mother and the bloke who swore him in as President. That aside, can we leave aside any arguments relating to other pages: this discussion is about Internazionale and whether the current name for the club's article conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks to PG's very good summary of WP:TITLE, we have ascertained that "Inter Milan" definitely fits with the recognisability, naturalness and conciseness criteria, and it is even somewhat precise; however, it is not consistent with the rest of the articles in Category:Football clubs in Italy. Leaving "Internazionale" and "Inter" aside for obvious reasons, we must now consider "F.C. Internazionale Milano", which is possibly not as natural or recognisable as "Inter Milan" (albeit containing both words quite obviously), but is consistent and precise. It even has conciseness going for it to a degree; at least we're not trying to call it Football Club Internazionale Milano! – PeeJay 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, PeeJay, you're right - these analogies do tend to distract more than they help! Pretty Green (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems you have is that there isn't a definitively persuasive argument that goes either way. The argument against the move that features most prominently is that Internazionale is used as much as Inter Milan (although it probably isn't) and that we'd be on a slippery slope whereby Manchester United F.C. would become the shortened Manchester United, yet no attempt is made to explain why this is a bad thing, while the fact that it is already shortened from Manchester United Football Club is entirely ignored!  mg  SH 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must point out again, no one is currently talking about moving the page to Internazionale as that would raise exactly the same issues as the move to Inter Milan has. We are currently talking about the merits of the names Inter Milan and F.C. Internazionale Milano (and there are several merits to both sides). – PeeJay 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was pointing that people are arguing that Inter Milan is inappropriate as it competes with other common names, such as Internazionale.  mg  SH 00:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi all guys, I definitely think we need to act and make a choice about what to do. We always try to keep using the official name for football clubs, and it kinds of make sense to me, especially in cases where no clear common way of defining a football club name exists. Internazionale/Inter/Inter Milan is the prime example of this. I personally think we should really pay a lot of attention about this, because a decision like this might open the gates for floods or crazy move requests. We have a naming convention for football clubs and should always stick by that, and we need a clear consensus for this choice of common sense. --Angelo (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it, but monitor. If this slip towards other teams does indeed start to happen, then we can always try to undo this (and any other) moves. If the slip doesn't spread, then we can tolerate one exception. Pretty Green (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While this has come to the fore as it were, would it be worth moving articles like AFC Ajax, Almere City FC, Tours FC, and First Vienna FC to versions with (A.)F.C. in their name to match the vast majority of other articles? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 16:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think those pages are at the correct titles, since that is the way those clubs render their names. Of course, if any of them do in fact use the dots, then they should be moved. That said, I'd be far more in favour of moving all the clubs with dots in their names to non-dotted versions. But can we please stay on topic and not worry about stuff like this right now? – PeeJay 22:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

PC&NT updates in infobox
I have been discussing with User:Always Learning about the correct usage of the pc&ntupdates in footy infoboxes.

AL says we have to put the date of the last match, while I think that any date is OK. For instance, AL says we should not change the pcupdate during summer, and keeps on putting back the date of the last match (see: here), while I think that he is missinterpreting what is written at Template:Infobox football biography. He is interpreting the part saying "A timestamp of the last time the player's infobox career statistics were updated" as meaning the date of his last match, while I am interpreting it as meaning the date of editing update. He seems also to be unaware about the 5 ~ functionality, which obviously puts there the date of the editing, not of the last match. Please leave your comments. FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding five tildes is indeed the correct method of updating these parameters. IIRC I've actually discussed this with AL in the past. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * NEVER heard of that 5 tilde approach, "honestest" of truths. My reasoning was as simple as it gets and as i have originally been told years ago: when a player plays for his club or national team, the day of that given match is added to the end of the box, nothing more, nothing else.

I have seen users alter the PC update when a player signs for a new club (thus not having yet played for his new team) like in the case of the bit of a run-in i had with FKP in Francisco Manuel Durán, can't see the logic in that. Believe me, i am trying to grasp the concept(s) opposite to this basic one (a guy plays the update is added, a guy (or a gal!) does not play it stays put), but i just can't.

Maybe after some more inputs i'll be in the clear. Happy week all in the meantime is my wish. --AL (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact that he changed club is irrelevant in this case (well, that was the reason why I came to that article, but it could have been any other reason). What matters is that the stats are correct and updated at that date, whatever the date is (it can be today, despite him not having played since last May). FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I add my opinion here. I agree that it should be from when last played. The reason I say this is because, as an editor of football pages of players from smaller leagues and smaller clubs, I do see the PC/NT changed at random times and usually it is because someone adds an pre-season result or cup result when that is not what the infobox is for. With players from the Premier League, La Liga etc it is easy to find but the lower pages cant be seen that quickly and may never be seen. That is why I think, to be safe, we should keep the PC/NT to the last game the player played. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but how would you find the date of their last match for players that played in, lets imagine, Finish league from 4 years ago? You can easily find the stats, but searching the match dates is just too much.  It would be possible if we would only be dealing with current players playing in major leagues, but it is completely painfull for more obscure leagues.  Also, you can easily find the national team stats for any player (and you update it with no problems), but having to search for the last match date?  Nah.  You update the stats and use the 5 tildes to express the date the stats were updates.  Even this is already an archivement, as many IP´s don´t even bother to do this, much less making them search the dates of the last match. FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: This section now looks messy. Please don´t take me wrong, but why you guys (AL and Arsenalkid700) don´t use the : and add comments orderly? FkpCascais (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The date should be any date (or date/time) at which the stats are known to be correct. That's why the wording at the bottom of the box says "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of". The five tildes method is the easiest way to do it for currently active players, though it's better if editors wait until after any ongoing match to update...
 * If just the date of the last match is used, the reader can't know whether the stats are correct as of before that day's match, during or after. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * League tables are updated "to games played on x", so I don't see the problem of players' stats being updated to a "game played on x" – although the template would have to be changed accordingly. I think this is only a matter of taste. I don't like the UTC times being added with the five tildes. For the majority of stats that I have updated, I have added the date of the last game. Then, if I'm the next person to update the stats again, be it after the next game or six weeks later, all I have to do is find the date of the last game to which the stats were updated (i.e. last game played) and go from there. But I guess it also depends a lot on the sources you use to update the stats. Jared Preston (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're doing this for the reader, and so long as we make it clear to the reader what they're getting, it's fine. Whoever updates Everton players includes the words "match played" before the date, for clarity, so the wording ends up reading "correct as of match played 18 August" or whenever: see e.g. Tony Hibbert. That's quite neat, and totally explicit. But we can't restrict it to as of date of last game played. If we know the stats to be correct as of the end of the 2011/12 season but don't know the date a player last played, or if we know their current stats but haven't got time to look up the exact date of their last game, we do need to be able to put something that means that. Which is what the current wording allows. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the main problem are the less known leagues, for instance, while updating mostly Serbian football, I do often come to find myself updating stats for leagues I am completely unfamiliarised with (exemple, Serbian player playing now in Hong Kong, so I update his stats in Hong Kong). So when I search for his Hong Kong stats, I find them in, exemple, Soccerway, I add them, but I would just dismiss having to further search for the date of the last match.  The stats are updated at this date (current date), and they are updated, that is all that matters (to me).  Same applies with national team stats, I find his stats at this date and I simply dismiss having to digg when did he last played for the nt.  Another thing is that if he played ocasionally for the nt once years ago, having the date of the last match (meaning years ago) would leave me with a feeling that he could have perhaps played in between, and it would be dubious, but having the current date would leave no doubts, he played X times, scored X goals till today.  These are two completely opposite concepts and ideologies, and while understanding the utility of having the date of the last match, I think that in this parameter ends up being much more important to actually indicate that the stats are correct as of today, and not having to wander if there were more matches afterwords (but no one updated them), or not.


 * PS: Despite clearly favouring the current date in opposition to last match one, I personally also rather use the date only option as Jared Preston does (exemple: 21 October 2012), as the hour/minute part is useless as I usually add the day after the match if I come to update the parameter at the day matches are played, but as usually I don´t rush and I usually do it during the week, I don´t have the problem of needing the hour indication which is necessary for match days to know if the stats are from before or after the match. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest having the date as the day of the match is a bad idea if the article isn't often updated. As then you won't know if it is updated to before or after the match. Adam4267 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be when the stats are updated - they are correct as of that date/time. GiantSnowman 08:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Adam - I thought the point of the timestamp was so that it can be seen whether the statistics were updated before or after the match. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point but I meant if it is an article that is rarely updated it could be better to do the day after the match so the time of the match doesn't need to be found out. Just to make it a little easier for the next editor. I rarely update stats anyway because I have lots of IP minions who update all the Celtic stats. So I'll leave it to others who know more about it. Adam4267 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so can we conclude that we have a consensus about the usage of the pc&ntupdate parameters in the infoboxes? It is obvious that we do have editors that would prefer to have the match date, but most editors use the current date and besides, the template is made in a way that the current day should be used. So, editors should not do in other way (namelly AL), neither should advise other editors to do it that way (diff) and leave them confused? Correct? FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough. Adam4267 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility of symbols used in template
Hi, having used football box collapsible for a penalty shoot-out in the League Cup I spotted an accessibility problem. The pengoal, penmiss, and for that matter goal, symbols do not have any pop-up text or link to the image so you have no idea what the entry is. The yel gives a link to the image so you can at least determine what the entry is. Keith D (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this Keith. Looking at goal specifically, ideally the caption should simply say "goal" if a goal is scored but no time is given, and "goal scored in the (51st) minute" if the parameter is used. But to do that, we would need a lot of conditional code to cover all the possibilities if more than one goal is scored. —WFC— 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe always display "goal [minute(s)]" or something like that. -Koppapa (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Need some help watching a few articles please
I have been fighting a battle over the past few weeks with a user determined to add to articles copyrighted photos from a nude calendar that a number of female Australian players were in around a decade ago. This is obviously a problem on two fronts, the copyvio as well as WP:BLP issues. I block the user each time but they return with a new throwaway account for each edit and re-upload the photos on Commons (where I apply to have them deleted as copyvios each time as I am not an admin there). I would protect the pages, but the number of incidents per page is low and spread out so I don't believe they qualify (though I'm tempted to WP:IAR).

I would appreciate some help with keeping the articles on your watchlists please as I do try to check and revert when I can, but I'm not around 24/7 and additional eyes would help revert quicker. The main pages that need to be looked at are the main page Australia women's national association football team, as well as the player pages Amy Taylor, Tracie McGovern, Sunni Hughes, Kim Revell, Alison Forman, Sharon Black, Cheryl Salisbury, Alicia Ferguson, Katrina Boyd, Sarah Cooper, Cas Ambrose, Traci Bartlett and Bridgett Starr. I've included red links as this user has created a page with incorrect stats and templates just to add a photo to it previously, and again tonight added an unreferenced page with a number of BLP violations including the usual copyvio image, so would not be surprised if it happens for some of the other players without a page.

Thanks for any help, I'll continue to block and report images to commons where I can. Camw (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Turns out the calendar was pretty notable so I added a couple of sources to the Australia women's national association football team article. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone's interested here is a link to the pictures in question. After extensive studying (purely for encyclopedic purposes) I think you are completely correct Camw and if I see any of those red links turn into blue ones I shall notify an admin. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that the title of that link is "Socceroos in their underoos" when they're clearly not. – PeeJay 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Its more funny when you know that they are not the Socceroos but the Matildas. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NEVER let the truth get the way of a good headline kid. "Matildas showing their particulars" doesn't really have the same zip, you know?--EchetusXe 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is the single most hilarous post I've read on this WikiProject. :P – Kosm  1  fent  21:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Patrick McLaughlin (footballer)
Can someone restore this article. He has played in 2 Football League Two matches and 1 2012-13 Football League Cup match as well. See. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, please add any sources to support the article meeting WP:ATHLETE as soon as posible so it doesn't get re-deleted. Camw (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While we are at it can someone please restore Craig Jones (footballer born 1987) now that he has debuted at number nine for Bury. Some links to update the article with:, , , , . btw Soccerbase is wrong again.--EchetusXe 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - I'll let you update if you don't mind. GiantSnowman 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Quite pleased to see it is already a half-decent article.--EchetusXe 09:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Javad Nekounam
Can someone with knowledge of the Persian language be of assistance here? In the last lines of CLUB CAREER, the ones that make reference to his Esteghlal F.C. return, both the contents of the sentence and the TRANS_TITLE keep being altered (the values of the transfer, the wages).

Thus, i don't know if the changes are vandalism or proper edits, help please and thank you very much in advance - --AL (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yearly cup templates
What about these? Template:2007-08_Turkish_Cup_finalists. Those other than the current one can't be uses in a useful way on any other article than the cup article of that season, and even there it's redundant. They are uses on some clubs still but could be exchanged for the current one there. Do i miss any purpose or should those be deleted? The uefa champions league only keeps the current one (which i think could go easily too). -Koppapa (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a deletion discussion for the oldest one. 2003/04 Cup -17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Season tournament notability
Just a quick question. Pre-Season tournaments are only notable if the clubs are fully-pro, are annual, and they meet WP:GNG. Is that it, because I am trying to make a page for a pre-season tournament, yet I dont want to do it and then see it be deleted. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have made my first question hard to understand (thus the no replies) so here it is again... Is there a specific notability for pre-season tournaments or do they just need to pass GNG? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They'd need to pass WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FA Youth Cup Finals of the 1960s
I'm not up to speed on templates and all the changes that have been happening but could someone explain what has happened within this article? Looks like a template has gone AWOL.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about deleting those articles, doubt the line-ups are notable. -Koppapa (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are articles on all finals from the 50s to the 2010s - all non-notable!?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it might have been because some templates were redirected. I've mentioned it to Chris Cunningham who did the redirecting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former Football League clubs
What is the purpose of this category? I thought the general rule is that an article remains in a category "for ever". Category:Football League clubs is introduced with the statement: "This category is for all teams, past and present, that have played in The Football League." There is not a Category:Former Premier League clubs. As there is a separate Category:Defunct Football League clubs, surely Category:Former Football League clubs is redundant and should be merged with its parent category? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this category were renamed to also include Premier League then it could be useful in tracking clubs that used to play 'League football'. As it stands though it is a strange mix of Premier and lower level sides. Eldumpo (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Something needs to be decided, because when I looked the category the other day it pretty much listed clubs in the Football League as of 2011-12. I took out those that got relegated from League Two and promoted from the Championship and added those who went the other way.--EchetusXe 18:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Hillsborough riot
This article has been recently created, is there any notability to this that would make it anything other than a case of WP:NOTNEWS? Valenciano (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd certainly need better sources than a Youtube video and some rumours on Twitter. Can't find a thing in the press, not even the local papers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Millwall!! Article says they killed a police horse and there was rioting. The only citation is Youtube showing someone (?) kicking out a tram window. Lacks citations and a Google search for pre or post events showed me nothing. Not exactly a hoax but mountain/molehill etc.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a single mention on the BBC Sport Football front page and a Google News search of "Hillsborough" yields no relevant results. Blatant exaggeration or just plain BS.  Delete. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about it either, which seems strange considering it was "South Yorkshire Police's biggest ever police operation"! Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. BigDom (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't think it was a hoax as I've seen Millwall fans at Wolves and Stoke several times but I doubt this was anything more than a few minor scuffles. I'll give the guy a few hours to see what he comes up with and then prod it. Valenciano (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wait? I've prodded it already. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Joining WikiProject Football
Hi I'm a big football fan and was wandering if I could help out in any way thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncbwfc (talk•contribs) 20:06, 26 August 2012  (UTC)
 * Add your name to here and simply get editing! GiantSnowman 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The English National Football Archive
This new site  has been set up by Tony Brown to incorporate the data from www.allfootballers.com (also known as "since1888"). It is a paysite; I am not endorsing it as I have yet to use it, but it would appear to be a very useful addition as it will contain the line-up for every Football League match since the 1888-89 season, with drill-down available for every player. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is essentially a combination of Michael Joyce's appearance data and Tony Brown's match database, with some updates. A copy of the mailshot I received about it is online halfway down this page. While it certainly looks useful, I will not be subscribing. Its £32 a year, about the same amount it costs to get copies of the books by Joyce and Hugman to keep forever. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only benefit of this site for non-registered users are the squads (but without DOBs or nationalities). Note that it is impossible to link to anything on this site because subpages are dynamically generated based on user requests. 32 pounds for a yearly subscription is not much, but there's a 1000 page views limit per month (that's about two seasons) which effectively puts a damper on the site's utility. And of course you cannot reuse most of the content elsewhere since there are no other sites to cross-check against. 109.173.212.187 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Campbell (footballer born 1995)
Does the existence of this article mean that players who have appeared in the Europa League qualifying rounds are notable, or should it be deleted? In my opinion it would be an awful idea to set the precedent that this is acceptable, because we would no doubt soon have swathes of under-referenced stubs. BigDom (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From past experience, no, but this is a game against another fully-pro side so possibly. For me, I would say no as these are only qualifiers and not the actual tournament itself. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the consensus was that players who playing for clubs in fully pro leagues meet WP:ATHLETE by appearing in any competitive match for their club, regardless of the opposition (so a Liverpool player making his debut against a non-League club meets the spirit of WP:NFOOTY, if not the technical wording). This doesn't open up a huge number of possible player articles, as players from clubs in non-fully pro leagues still aren't eligible. Number   5  7  12:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say that players like this absolutely do not meet the "spirit" (whatever that is) of FOOTYN. Players like this are not notable, they haven't received anything other than routine coverage but for some reason people think it's acceptable to have articles about them. BigDom (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that (in the case of the Liverpool), if a player who played in say the FA Cup against a non-League club then he is still not notable. The other club has to be fully-pro. Now in this case, the Newcastle opponent is fully pro but its qualifiers. So again I keep to my delete but someone else should offer there opinion. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of giving a notability "free pass" to players who only compete in a cup competition that their club doesn't take seriously. If Daniel Karbassiyoon hadn't had a few appearances apart from his time at Arsenal, it would be pretty silly to have an article about him (even though I remember he was considered a novelty in the United States for signing with Arsenal as an amateur). Jogurney (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well its not as if Liverpool dont take the Europa League seriously in the latter-stages. For qualifiers they definitely dont. Not sure about group stage. My logic is since it was only qualifiers it should not count because Newcastle treated it almost as another pre-season match. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would put it to everyone that extremely few players whose highest level is League One or below have ever received the level of national coverage that this guy already has. Even I'm not going to suggest that no League One or Two player is notable, but the fact that we are seriously considering this person less notable than a paint pot debutant just highlights the absurdity of NFOOTY. —WFC— 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the specifics of this guy in particular, but I can offer a bit of background. Over the past four years I've nominated some twenty articles for deletion on footballers who failed WP:GNG, and who had played in Europa League/Champions League qualifiers, but failed WP:NSPORT otherwise. All of them were deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well actually looking at the article again, it does say that he broke a record by becoming the youngest Newcastle player in European competition so that may help the articles cause. Also like WFC said, its this kid has gotten more recognition than most players notable of playing in the Football League Trophy. I am now changing my view from delete to neutral mainly because of the reason he broke a record. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At 17 and a half years old (is the 1 January birth date accurate?) he has the statement "Campbell is regarded as a big prospect of the future, drawing comparisons with Wayne Rooney." Now either that statement is absurd and should be removed OR we can assume he will shortly embark on a career at either Football League or Premier League level. Qualifying game or not, I don't see any benefit in deleting the article.--EchetusXe 13:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then, lets compromise... does he pass GNG. First glance, no, and this is not a situation where I would give an exception because the player is to young to have a lot of info. Just to get more discussion on this I suggest putting the article on AfD. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That this guy's notability is questioned is pretty absurd (if we disregard the "everything must pass GNG discussion); A player who appears for a Premier League-team in the "third-priority" cup against a League2 team get's a free pass to notability, while playing for the same team in an European competition does not? I'd say that playing for one team in a from a FPL cup-match against another team should confer notability, regardless of if it's the League Cup or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Group tables
Hi! I want to know how results of games (hoem and aways) are represented in such tables (where the results are, not the other)? --84.245.229.37 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Home team names down the left hand side, away team abbreviated along the top. I think that's probably the standard method of presenting those results grids. Do you think it should be made clearer? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like this, maybe ?

TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid's website
Can someone help out (again, sorry i forgot last year's explanation) how to make the sources on this website hold on? Happened last year or so with Adrián López Álvarez, now with Domingo Cisma González. I elaborate: you go to the web, you choose the news you want, you copy/paste, all well. When you try it again in the player's page at WP, it leads you not to the related news, but to the web's home :(

After the "help" i received in Javad Nekounam, am down on my knees wishing for better luck this time, will it work? --AL (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the problem is that you clicked on a link in the site's news index, the page appeared, you copied the url from your navbar, and all you got was the link to the index page? what you do is go the news index page, right click, and select "open link in new tab" or similar from your browser's menu. That opens the page in its own tab, with its own url in the navbar, that you can copy. Don't know what you're on about with Javad Nekounam. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks my friend, and i also remember it was you who helped in Adrián last year! About Nekounam, the usual (i find it very hard not to feel bad about it, thinking it's only a coincidence, but it has happened many many times and i see that almost 100% of the queries here are responded, and they are so within minutes. What happened? I got zero words in feedback asking for help in the ref found in the last lines inside CLUB CAREER, i see that the both original title and the trans_title keep being changed, and i don't know if it's vandalism or a good edit, as my Persian is a little rusty to put it (VERY) mildly.

Sorry for the "crybabyness", and cheers --AL (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a football in Iran task force, but it looks pretty inactive. If there's anyone listed there who's still actively editing, it may be worth asking them. As to asking here, remember that even if people want to and have the time to help, which isn't the same thing, they can only answer questions if they have suitable knowledge: you wouldn't want dozens of replies all saying dunno, mate, can't read Persian... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed i'll try there. Again you are helpful and don't fail at pointing out my shortcomings in behaviour, kudos as always! --AL (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What do I do in this situation (Nehru Cup and Cameroon)
The 2012 Nehru Cup is here and it involves India, Syria, Nepal, Maldives and Cameroon's national teams. I thought this might be a great time to maybe create a few pages for players who make there debuts, specially for Cameroon since 19 out of the 20 players Cameroon sent to the Nehru Cup have no caps at all at international level. Now when the All India Football Federation announced the teams they said that... And I thought that was true because when I looked at fifa.com they showed the matches as official matches for the Cameroon national football team but surprisingly just today they were taken down. Now if you go on fifa.com and you look at the profiles of Cameroon, Nepal, Maldives and Syria you will see no matches between any of them, however if you still go to the India page on FIFA.com you will see that they kept the Cameroon match. So now I am confused...
 * 1) They would only accept "A" teams. and
 * 2) Cameroon would bring an A team with domestic based players and each game would count towards the FIFA Rankings.
 * 1) Can I still call Cameroon Cameroon on the Nehru Cup 2012 page or do I call them Cameroon B as that is what it seems to be happening.
 * 2) Will I be still able to make pages for these players as through what the AIFF classify this team as. and
 * 3) Do I remove the Cameroon fixture from other national teams pages. It is just so confusing and I need more opinions before doing anything. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a similar situation regarding the CEMAC Cup and All-Africa Games where some national teams bring their A team, and some don´t... I´ll try to see further about this years Nehru Cup and we shall see how FIFA considers those matches. FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the FIFA website doesn't list the matches, I think you'll need some other tangible evidence that they are FIFA "A" internationals - and my best guess is that they are not. Jogurney (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True but what about the India vs Cameroon match? It is still listed on the India FIFA page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. FIFA only reports two official matches between India and Cameroon - both in January 1993. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right here. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That link only lists matches with Syria, Maldives and Nepal for me. No matches with Cameroon. Jogurney (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For me too. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked on my other computer and it does not show Cameroon there yet on my laptop (what I use for wikipedia) it still shows Cameroon. Anyway I think I might need to clear my cache. Anyway should I just now call them Cameroon A but instead of creating a new Cameroon A page I will just do this "Cameroon national football team|Cameroon A". --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a twist in the situation! The games do count! Look at this --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject FIFA World Cup
I think WikiProject FIFA World Cup should become a sub of this one, don't you reckon? TollHRT52 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (AEST)
 * Definitely should be nothing more than a TaskForce. GiantSnowman 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should just be redirected to this one. It isn't active, and never has been; the users who set up the page haven't touched it since. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it should be (but currently isn't) covered by the National teams task force anyway. Maybe the task forces should merge?  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should seriously put it up for deletion, yes? I did try to clean it up a bit and alerted the creators (albeit a little while ago) but have got no response since. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2012 (AEST)
 * No need to put it for deletion, just mark it as defunct. – PeeJay 07:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer born 1994)
Hi all. This article was recently deleted, but he made his debut this past weekend and even scored. So he now passes notability. Can I ask someone to restore it? Best regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone created it in the meantime... FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was never deleted...? GiantSnowman 14:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they meant Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer). Should a restore/history merge be done? Number   5  7  15:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we leave it just as it is now. We have the new article, and I doubt the previous article had some substantial content that is not included in this one. Thank you both for the attention. FkpCascais (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer) - the 1994 bit was unecessary disambiguation - and restored the history. GiantSnowman 15:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thank you once again GS. FkpCascais (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Career statistics table
Hi, would someone mind keeping an eye on Lee Peltier‎, as an IP insists on reverting to the former table layout, despite it being in reverse chronological order, being guilty of WP:MOS violations and being just plain ugly. This layout seems to be common across articles for some current and former Leeds United players. Seems like a case of WP:OWN to me. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither your version nor the IPs are ideal at all. My own preferred option is in use at this page, among many others. There are far too many variants though - we need consensus. GiantSnowman 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your preferred layout, my amendments to the Peltier table were esentially intended to make the old layout less bad by sorting out the obvious deficiencies. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still haven't brought myself to delete the template table, in use here, as I fear it is too widespread... GiantSnowman 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda disagree with your preferred layout - shouldn't the league that the team played in that year be mentioned in some way? I find that useful when reading a player's article. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to include the league played in, if I'm starting from scratch, as at Pablo Ibáñez. It is useful, and getting that info from a table is easier than trawling through possibly lengthy prose to see what division they played in for any given club/season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about if you don't know the league? GiantSnowman 17:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you don't put it. Is it common, that you have a sourced season-by-season breakdown of appearances but can't find out what league they were made in? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never come close to that situation. I do not see the advantage in removing the division column from the stats table. It is pretty important for some context don't you think? 10 goals in 30 games is not bad for the Premier League, but it is hardly an achievement at Conference North level. The reader can see at what level a player has spent much of his career, at what level they seem to be most comfortable... why is it a bad thing to include the division? As for the style of table, I have updated most former Port Vale players (who had the luxury of a stats table) from the old-fashioned 'Robbie Findley style' to the new-fathomed 'Pablo Ibáñez style'. It is an improvement. But do we have any idea how many articles would be affected by deleting the old template? It is a relatively simple process to change the styles as you can reuse the apps/goals line, and I would support deletion but it might take a considerable effort to clean up the resulting mess?--EchetusXe 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What if they play in a state league as well, for example, for most of the pages I edit (in Indian football) it is National League, Fed Cup, Durand Cup, State League, Asia, Total. Do I have enough room to add the league and would I do the same for state league? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is a situation where there are multiple leagues then you can't have a division column really. Maybe you would include both leagues in the league column, I don't know, is that what happens with the stats in the infobox?--EchetusXe 23:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well currently I use this but when the Goa Pro League begins and the Calcutta First Division Final Round begins I want to add state league to it but do I do this or do I do this this. Personally I dont want to add the league and state league names to the table because it just looks ugly. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the team plays in multiple leagues (i.e. a national league and a state league), surely you could use "rowspan" and put the figures for the national league in the upper "League" column and the state league in the lower "League" column. If I had the inclination, I'd mock up an example. Maybe later. – PeeJay 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

U-20 Women World Cup
Hi! I have a question....the player who have apps at the final phase of the U-20 woman world cup (this is playing now on Japan) is notabily for one article on wiki? Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.178.174.160 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Only senior international apperances convey notability per WP:NFOOTY. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  09:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Does playing in the Final of a major tournament for a semi-pro team make you notable?
Right now in India we are about to have the final of the 2012 Durand Cup which is one of the three main tournaments in India along with the I-League and Federation Cup. However during the final the two teams will be Air India FC and Dodsal F.C. but there is a problem. One is a fully-pro team while the other is not fully-pro. Now would there be an exception to NFOOTY if you were a player who, despite being on a semi-pro team, that is playing in the Final of a major competition? At least would there be an exception for a player on the fully-pro team who does not have an article yet? Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:FOOTYN, no, a player is only notable is he/she is playing in a "competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." Therefore, with one team being semi-pro, then they are not considered notable. However, keep in mind that WP:GNG trumps all. If some of these players have received significant coverage from reliable sources then they can be considered notable. TonyStarks (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that GNG will trump all but does it matter if this is the Final of a major competition. Like think about like this... what if Chelsea F.C. and Wembley FC made the 2012-13 FA Cup Final, despite Wembley FC being a semi-pro team would the players get an exception because they made the Final of a major senior club competition in England? That is exactly the situation I have now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They would not meet the requirements of WP:NSPORTS though there's a fair chance some of them would meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can probably find a bunch of sources to help. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Transfer deadline day 3RR thread
There's gonna be a heap of over-enthusiastic IPs adding 'transfers' to player articles - so thought it ideal to have one thread where we can request 3RR help. I'll start:


 * GiantSnowman 08:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman 09:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Add92 (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman 10:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hack (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Worth considering making this a fixture of transfer window day in future, I think! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I fear it's a losing battle... GiantSnowman 11:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With my usual caveat that it's far better for our editors not to waste an entire day of their lives every six months reverting material which half the time turns out to be correct, I do think that having a temporary task force for this sort of thing, prominently displayed on the main project page, would be a worthwhile endeavour in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point about these often being true, but so far this window Gregory van der Wiel has definitely signed for both Chelsea and Arsenal, while Douglas of FC Twente has signed for both Fulham and Newcastle. GiantSnowman 11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Bowery: Villa's manager has said they're just finalising details and will have "no qualms" at putting him straight into the team, so personally, although it isn't official yet, I'm not going to bother reverting again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And what is something comes up at the last minute? GiantSnowman 11:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If something comes up, then it can be undone, but in this case, it didn't. I'm happy to revert inventions and assumptions, but as Chris says above, there are better uses for limited time than reverting moves once they clearly are about to happen. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Adam is also probably going to happen but nothing definite yet. GiantSnowman 11:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Already had Kane Ferdinand, Nigel Reo-Coker and Billy Sharp added to the Forest page. Gotta love transfer deadline day. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Managerial statistics query
Just to check, this edit isn't correct, is it? The user seems to think the result of Liverpool's recent Europa League second leg game counts as a win due to the aggregate score being a 2–1 win, when the result of that individual match was a 1–1 draw. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Managerial stats are about the results of individual games, so if the game was drawn, it counts as a draw. It being the second leg of a two-legged tie isn't relevant. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. The individual match was a draw, end of.  By this logic, if a two-legged tie ended 0-0 and 1-1 and one team won on away goals, would the second game by counted as a victory?  Or both?  Clearly neither would be correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought as much. Have reverted and linked to this discussion. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

FIFA International Match Calendar
What are people's thoughts on this article? Personally I'm leaning towards merge & redirect...GiantSnowman 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't this why we have 2012 in association football and so on. This page is kinda useless then when we already have a page that goes over this (and more). Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite right, AK. This article is intended to outline the windows in the calendar when international matches may be played and the footballing legislation governing that calendar. I'd say it's pretty interesting, but perhaps not article-worthy. – PeeJay 13:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True, did not think of it like that but still I dont think mentioning that is really needed when someone can easily just go here and also how would this go, would we update that one table every year? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Flag images
ip user has raised this point on the rangers fc talk page but i believe this is more a project issue i quote "In the players sections, nationalities are shown using flags rather than words, this is contrary to MOS:FLAG, which states "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as virtually no readers are familiar with every flag". The use of the Irish and the English flags are virtually impossible to tell apart at the size used in this article" for the rest of the discussion see here but i feel the issue needs address by the project as it caused by the template-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can of worms. GiantSnowman 11:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP's right. The straightforward solution is to use Football squad player2, as at featured articles Luton Town F.C., Seattle Sounders FC, York City F.C. But as GS says, it's a can of worms: try searching the talk page archives (search box at top of page) for flags squad list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * squad list 2 is crap looking i dnt get how article can be featured with that it looks crap, well what i might do is try fix the footbal squad lis tone, to be complainent, but i aint excately sure what is wrong is it because screen reader cant read it?? or is it it should display the name next to the flag to??? i can fix that easily. oh i dnt have a problem with it, its the ip user that does and been shouting abuse that the onus is on me to prove it should be that way etc etc, and ti doesnt matter if it isa can worms if it wrong it shoul;d be fixed Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite like that kind of squad list now I'm used to it, although there is a little too much white space down the right-hand side. What the squad list looks like has nothing to do with whether it's a featured article or not. A lot of people have tried "fixing" the original squad list template, so I'm not going to hold my breath that all will be solved any time soon. BigDom (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * fixing it aint the hard bit, the bit is then implentment it on all articles even with awb it will be a lot fo work and time comsuming, whne i have tiem to look at the template ill try fix it in sandbox, but the problem still remains i aint 100% sure what the problem is, is it display the coutnry name with the flag or is it accessabilty with alt text??? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Football squad player2 is absolutely vile, whatever happened to implementing the template in use at Boca Juniors? GiantSnowman 12:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:FLAG, "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." I fail to see how the nationality of players is pertinent to the purpose of listing the members of Fooville United FC anyway.  So the issue of whether country names should accompany flags is secondary to the one of whether the flags should be there at all.
 * Of course, if flags are to be shown, the text explaining them should make sense, which the current text in the header does not (something we have frequently agreed upon, but never agreed how to get around). Kevin McE (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What happened to further work on the squad templates is that there are a limited number of editors with both the knowledge and the enthusiasm to work on it. Speaking only for myself, I'm not inclined to waste any more of my free time trying to find compromise with people who would filibuster over something as lame as heading colours and table borders. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that the basic template had been updated so that the three digit country code appeared alongside the flag in the squad lists, as on Boca Juniors. But that seems to be an exception. All that is different from say 5 years ago is the addition 'Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.' I cannot see how people get so worked up over this issue, I see squad lists everyday and as I say I didn't even notice whether there was a three digit country code or not. I cannot believe that this has been debated so many times for so many pages and yet nothing has changed.--EchetusXe 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

chris if the template fails MOS then it doesnt matter as it needs fixed as FA and GA article soculd be delisted Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please not go around de-listing articles over this issue? Please? I mean, come on, seriously?--EchetusXe 14:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i aitn goign to do it, but it has happened with tv show episodelist, someone noimated list of friend epsiode because teh template was causing it to fail mos so in turn meant it had to be delisted, but that meant all articles that where features listed for this template had to, if no one wants to happen with footbll articles someone better step up and fix the template or someone will nomiate for delisting Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i just looked at the boca juniors one it is using a hacked whiched of the football tmeplate 2 which then makes it look liek football template 1, this wont be hard to fix, i just need to know what the exact issue is with the flags as the ip users didnt really explain what in mos flags it breaching Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I remember it, there were two basic flag-related problems with the standard fs-start set of templates (just sticking to structure, ignoring sourcing or whether they were needed at all). First, the MoS requires the first use of a flag to be accompanied with country name, for the benefit of readers who can't tell them apart, can't load images, can't access tooltips or alt text. Second, screen readers couldn't cope with the 2-column implementation of fs start/fs mid. I don't know if that's still the case. The two problems tended to be discussed together, which is one reason it all got out of hand. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * cheers struway i will mess about on sandbox to try fix this already making progress but dnt want to take to much time away from getting the rangers fc article to FA Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i have managed to amend the template to include flag nation but i broke the template to so ill fix it later, i dnt see what problem teh screen reader will have with two coloums as ther eplenty of tables on wiki that do similar things but ill look at the split table later ill fix teh nation first@ Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i have now fixed it Template:Football_squad_player/testcases apart from no nation ones which i will need ot fix now, would eveyrone be happy with this? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok fixed it Template:Football_squad_player/testcases if no one has objections ill put the edit request in, two coloums still needs fixed Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The names and flags aren't lined up properly, the flag and country name are slightly higher in both the one- and two-column versions. BigDom (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. Why do the rows seem to go all fucked-up now? Also, it makes far more sense to have the player's name in the right-most column so that the "other" parameter relates directly to the player's name and has nothing to the right of it. – PeeJay 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just use flagcountry instead of flagicon in the fs player template and just fiddle with the column widths a bit? BigDom (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes far more sense. We just need to make sure there is a visible gap between the end of the country's name and the start of the player's name to prevent people from thinking that any part of the country's name is part of the player's name. – PeeJay 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A great idea in principle - but not when you have players from Democratic Republic of the Congo. GiantSnowman 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely there must be a way to make it display a common abbreviation like DR Congo? BigDom (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The FIFA trigramme would be better, surely? GiantSnowman 20:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the accessibility people think of trigrammes; is COD widely known to mean DR Congo? I often have trouble deciphering some of the less intuitive three-letter codes (especially unofficial ones used in results grids, but that's another matter). BigDom (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be including flags or country names without making it clear exactly what they are referring to - the player's representative country, his place of birth? Using the column heading 'Nation' is not good enough. Eldumpo (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why the current template wisely says "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." GiantSnowman 21:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And furthermore, the trigrammes should be linked to reduce confusion (if any exists). Not sure whether they should link to the national team or the country article, but a link should definitely be there. – PeeJay 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not such a wise thing to say as FIFA eligibility rules identify more than one potential nationality for a very considerable number of players, and there is no such thing as a non-FIFA nationality (well, there is, but we have very few articles dealing with players from Western Sahara etc). Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the typical reader, COD is at best as informative as SUSHI or HADDOCK. Arguably less so, given the lack of a fishing connection. Draw your own conclusions on what I think about trigrammes. While I disagree with the "I'm bored of this topic, please stop talking about it" mentality, I agree with Echetus that there isn't a lot new to say on the two formats. Football squad player2 is undeniably closer to complying with sitewide guidelines than its predecessor. Football squad player doesn't meet sitewide guidelines on flags and easter egg links, but undeniably has a core of support from some in this project for varying reasons. We knew that two years ago. —WFC— 06:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have a mini-RfC on something resembling the statement below. It may seem over the top, but for as long as we have multiple templates this will continue to come up. My first stab at the wording: "Template:Football squad player is a distinctive, widely-used format for listing a football club's current squad. Template:Football squad player2 is designed to convey the same information in the widely-used wikitable format. Some editors believe that the latter template is the only one that complies with the Manual of Style, for instance on flag usage. Some editors dispute this, while others contend that there is consensus to ignore the guidelines. WikiProject Football endorses the use of either template, favouring neither. The project takes a dim view of editors who change an individual page's established format without prior discussion. Mass changes are likely to lead to blocks under Wikipedia's policy on edit warring." —WFC— 06:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That serves well enough as a description of the status quo, but an RfC question should really be simpler. Simply "should the football squad template be phased out in favour of the football squad 2 template?" would probably suffice. But WFC is right to point out that opinions have ossified here, and I doubt an RfC would have any impact. For my part, my present position is that transitioning to squad2 on individual pages should now be uncontroversial unless there is evidence to the contrary, and that while mass-changes are inappropriate editors should be free to do so in the course of general editing. There's no point waiting forever for the remaining holdouts to have the required epiphany. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there are a bunch of hardened Football squad player fans, myself included; there are a bunch of hardened Football squad player 2 fans. Why can't we work for a compromise? I think the Boca Juniors template is a good start. GiantSnowman 08:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Boca Juniors template addresses an entirely different set of concerns to that of squad2. There is no real room for compromise here because the argument on one side is "consistency, accessibility and MoS compliance" and the argument on the other side is "it's better and it isn't as ugly and I like it more". We went through exactly the same thing several years ago when we didn't use navbox for footer templates (remember that?) and eventually got it resolved without the need for arbitrary compromises. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I switched to . It looks a bit naff but I think it has potential. Even with pictures on the side there is still a lot of white space. I think Leeds have the right idea. How about including a column for 'Date signed' or 'age', so that at a quick glance you can see how long the team has been together, and how young or old the team is? I don't think 'Club appearances' would be a good idea as that would mean it would have to be continuously updated; 'contract ends' would also be difficult to source. With the joined and age columns they would not have to be updated, as we can use this for the age column: 24 years --EchetusXe 11:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Leeds idea is a step too far - next is the American-style 'hometown', 'signed from' etc. etc. Not needed. Name, position, nationality, name - simples. GiantSnowman 11:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Age is theoretically sensible, but the problem is that these row-level templates are too dumb to cope elegantly with too many optional variables: it was hairy enough just adding conditionals for nationality and squad number. If you're going to add information willy-nilly then you might as well just use a plain wikitable. With that in mind, I'm tempted to TfD Fb si player (as used on the Leeds article) as serious overkill. But let's not get sidetracked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chris in that there doesn't seem to be space for a one-template compromise. There is too much support for the original template to get rid of that, and too much sitewide support for the MoS to prohibit the use of player2, particularly at FAC. The Boca Juniors template doesn't address the MOS arguments against Fs player: it annoys those who just want flags, whilst creating easter egg links such as COD for those who assert that full country names are necessary. Finally, the one edit, two templates concept at Boca Juniors is brilliant, but will become redundant once Wikidata becomes fully operational in the new year. "RfC" was probably the wrong phrase for my suggestion above, "community motion" might have been a better way of putting it. I just think that unless someone comes up with a one template solution that tackles the seemingly irreconcilable differences, we should clarify what we do agree on. —WFC— 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i dnt want to read through countless discussion trying to work out wha thte problems people have one fs squad and fs squad 2 templates. just give mea list of the problems i will fix them, i can easily make it two coloums under one template the problme is i need ot know the problems not agruments just list all the things you want it to do, and i will then make it comply to MOS Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually don't care about spelling and grammar on a talk page, but your last post is genuinely difficult to decipher. If I have interpreted your comment correctly, it looks as though you intend to introduce a one size template whether there is consensus to do so or not, and that you think we have previously argued about something other than the problems? —WFC— 20:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sure that's not your intention by the way, I just can't tell what is. —WFC—  20:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

no i dnt intend to force through a consensus but i will fix the template, reason stated above is there not many people who know how to fix it, and the ones who do dnt want to, so for me to fix it i need ot know the problems people want address so i can fix it as long it presented in a list the problem people have with it i can look to fix it Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An undiscussed approach is here, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I have added it for completeness 188.29.90.129 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK i have now messed about and got the code working with a few problems which i will detail at the end and will have to be fixed before going live I would like the project to review this Template:Football_squad_player/testcases It fixes MOS:FLAG issues with regards to not display the country name which in turn makes it complinent with WP:accessibility also now been converted to wikitable, also changed teh country to 3rd column and name to 4th column as editors where against it being the 3rd column. Please let me know if there is any other problem with the test cases let me know i really want to fix this, if there been any other problems in the past with the template please let me know so i can try fix it. (note although i have been asking for advice about delisting at FAC i have no intentions to do it that would be last resort i rather work to get the template working and complinent with MOS and accessibility)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Issues still outstanding
 * 1) Remove table cell borders
 * 2) Fix name column so text is aligned with the other 3 column (not sure what is causing the text to move up)
 * 3) Confirm it complys with alt text
 * PS big advantage no change would need done to any page it automatically change once the code was live as it just using the code differently rather than new template Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not as simple as simply fixing it and the template becomes the one used in every article is not going to happen. There have been numerous discussions about this before and a consensus has not been reached. Its admirable you want to fix the issue, but it is more complex than simply creating a new template and everyone adopts it. NapHit (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * that what i am hoping to get a consensus to change the template, but unless someone gives me the problems in teh pas ti cant fix them, i have fixed two of the problems that have been stated by struway2 above if there more that stopping people wanting to change it i need to know what there are, so i can fix them i have looked at past discussion but they go in circles it hard to work for me being dyslexic, i a;lso aint saying it should be used in every article but it be good if it was-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * its teh exact same template football squad the only difference is i have changed the code to use wikitable and flagcountry to make it complinet with mos flags and wp accessability, some prefer one coloumn some prefer 2 with teh fixes i have done it makes it not fail FA standard Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still not grasping the issue. The issue is not about fixing the template, football squad player 2 fixes all the problems listed. The problem is people cannot agree whether we should change to that template or keep the one currently used. Hence a consensus has not been reached, its very naive to think you're going to solve the issue yourself and impossible without a consensus. You'd be better directing your efforts elsewhere, as I can't see this being solved anytime soon. NapHit (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Antony1821, again
Banned user Antony1821, a natural block evader, seems to be editing again today as an anonymous editor. Lots of IP addresses used by him have been blocked by over the summer (here and here, there's also behavioural evidence) but he's currently on vacation and obviously can't react swiftly. Anyway, the following are edits from 46.103.80.134 of similar style to those performed by Antony1821 and his socks (italization of the term "(loan)" in players' infoboxes – his most characteristic treat). Moreover, the IP belongs to the same provider as the vast majority of his socks (46.103.80.134, CYTA Helas). Would an administrator please review these edits and perhaps impose a block? Thanks. – Kosm  1  fent  18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, CT Cooper blocked the range. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:FPL
I've made a post at relating to the references supporting the wording of the criteria. If you have any comments please post them there. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro Del Piero
Due to a poorly worded statement from Sydney FC, a few users are adding statements to the effect that Alessandro Del Piero has signed a contract with the club. The affected articles are Sydney FC and Alessandro Del Piero. Hack (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone semi-protect the articles and remove Del Piero from Sydney FC, and vice versa, as I believe I am on the cusp of reaching 3RR. Hack (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted and put on watchlist. Right now it is around midnight over in Aus but give it around 7 hours before the battle of Sydney/Alessandro begins. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both pages protected and added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 18:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that guys. Hack (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and thanks Snowman for saving me from what would most likely have been, me getting blocked. Mind you I would have enjoyed the battle. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Irawan
So much for site consensus, deliberate or not these actions really "blow". Player page has been recreated, he has only played (if he has!) in Segunda División B thus far, NON-NOTABLE as can be... The ESPANYOL section's storyline...the work of a bonafide "professional"!

Attentively, happy week - --AL (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sent it to AfD. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes logo
I was on the brink of getting into an edit war over the logo of American team SJ Earthquakes. I uploaded an SVG file from de.wiki to replace the existing PNG. Since then, it's been removed by two IPs because of colour differences. I compared both images to the one currently on the franchise website and (to my eye at least) my SVG seemed closer to it, which inspired the second revert, stated that the website version is "stylized". Please advise. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a content dispute for the talk page. In all honesty, though, while SVG is a far better format for this kind of art and it's always nice to have vector versions available, when it comes to non-free imagery we're as well using the image downloaded directly from the club website; the chief advantage of SVG is resolution-independence, but that's incompatible with our fair use guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the SVG for speedy deletion - it's an issue that doesn't really matter too much and the PNG is of a high enough quality to stay. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan
With the article officially moved to its new title from the previous F.C. Internazionale Milano, should we start updating the infoboxes of past and present Inter players to reflect the name change? ie. Should I change Internazionale to Inter Milan in the infobox of players such as Diego Forlán and Zlatan Ibrahimović? TonyStarks (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to stir it up even more? But from my point of view, the fact that Category:Inter Milan players have simply "Internatizonale" in the infobox, indicates that we are using the wrong commonname as article title. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no preference one way or another when it comes to the name, I just think we should have some consistency. However, after reading your message, I went back to Inter's talk page to read the move discussion and it seems that many people are opposed to it and were simply not aware that a move discussion regarding the name was taking place. Now I wonder if it should be moved back to its original name, there is certainly very strong evidence to suggest that the move should not have taken place. TonyStarks (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Crest or badge
hey all,

since this is minor content dispute on the rangers article, and there appears to be no consensus as to which way to do it, can i have some input on this. stated the following a while ago on the newco rangers page. i quote "References to the club "crest" are wrong as a crest refers to something on top of a helmet rather than the colloquial and wholly inaccurate use as an alternative for arms or coat of arms. This is common in a number of football club articles but generally I can just edit it myself unlike here. I suggest changing any mention of the club crest to club badge as it is more common in a football context than arms or coat of arms but, unlike crest, is not inaccurate."

now the same user has done the same on the rangers fc article, and i support the use of badge but i also support the use of crest. however there is some other editors who think it should be crest only to which i have no objection but i think this is more MOS issue and as such i rather get the project input.

has checked and found its not where it is standardised for FA article, i personal think we should be doing it the same way in all FA article here are the examples i quote −	"Arsenal F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Chelsea F.C., FC Barcelona, Derry City F.C., Gillingham F.C., Manchester United F.C., Norwich City F.C., York City F.C., Sunderland A.F.C., Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C., Leek Town F.C., IFK Göteborg, Dover Athletic F.C.. FA's using Crest.  FA's no section Seattle Sounders FC, Luton Town F.C., Blackburn Olympic F.C.. Fa Badge Manchester City F.C., Liverpool F.C., Central Coast Mariners FC, Aston Villa F.C. That is 14 Crest, 3 neithier and 4 Badge." any input will be welcome and if we can get a consensus on how this should be done maybe all articles should be standardised Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no definition of "crest" as a badge or logo in the Oxford English Dictionary so it seems like he is technically correct (if a little pedantic). But since everybody knows what "crest" means in this context then there shouldn't really be a problem if it is used. BigDom (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Language is a living, evolving thing. In heraldic articles, this strict, heraldic definition is appropriate.  In a zoological article, crest should only refer to feathers, hair or skin folds on top of the head, and in discussing the products of Proctor and Gamble, it should only be used in relation to a specific toothpaste and its associated spin offs.  But these articles are about football clubs, so the meaning of the word used in relation to football clubs (and it is undoubtedly widely used in the context) is the only one relevant.  We should avoid linking to a different application of the word, but I see no reason to eschew it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Again? See the previous discussion here. Cloudz 679 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes logo
I was on the brink of getting into an edit war over the logo of American team SJ Earthquakes. I uploaded an SVG file from de.wiki to replace the existing PNG. Since then, it's been removed by two IPs because of colour differences. I compared both images to the one currently on the franchise website and (to my eye at least) my SVG seemed closer to it, which inspired the second revert, stated that the website version is "stylized". Please advise. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a content dispute for the talk page. In all honesty, though, while SVG is a far better format for this kind of art and it's always nice to have vector versions available, when it comes to non-free imagery we're as well using the image downloaded directly from the club website; the chief advantage of SVG is resolution-independence, but that's incompatible with our fair use guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the SVG for speedy deletion - it's an issue that doesn't really matter too much and the PNG is of a high enough quality to stay. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan
With the article officially moved to its new title from the previous F.C. Internazionale Milano, should we start updating the infoboxes of past and present Inter players to reflect the name change? ie. Should I change Internazionale to Inter Milan in the infobox of players such as Diego Forlán and Zlatan Ibrahimović? TonyStarks (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to stir it up even more? But from my point of view, the fact that Category:Inter Milan players have simply "Internatizonale" in the infobox, indicates that we are using the wrong commonname as article title. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no preference one way or another when it comes to the name, I just think we should have some consistency. However, after reading your message, I went back to Inter's talk page to read the move discussion and it seems that many people are opposed to it and were simply not aware that a move discussion regarding the name was taking place. Now I wonder if it should be moved back to its original name, there is certainly very strong evidence to suggest that the move should not have taken place. TonyStarks (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

LFC and Noel White
Bit of a situation developing at Talk: Liverpool F.C., a user claiming to be from the club's press office is requesting we add info about Noel White's tenure as chairman to the article. With no source it cannot be added and I'm uncomfortable with this being added as I feel they might be trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. As far as I'm concerned I don't see any need for this to be added, the user doesn't seem to understand the practices of Wiki, asserting the the club would like it added. Anyway, thought I'd flag it up here, as its an unusual situation and probably best the project is informed about it. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Francisco Varallo cases
Hi everybody! Here are my questions: Francisco Varallo from the last months of 1930 to first months of 1931 played for Vélez Sársfield, but he didn't play in the championship or in the national cup; he did a Pan-American tournée, and he didn't sign any concract, so I think to eliminate that period (at least, on it.wiki we did so). The second question is about his youth career, on 1927 he supported an audition with Estudiantes de la Plata, but they discarded him and he didn't sign any contract, so why don't eliminate even that period as Vélez (and maybe put it in the body of the page)? Thanks! --Ter&#39;rece (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or (again)
Given that Ballon d'Or is a featured list about an award which we assert no longer exists, it crops up on my watchlist far more than it should. The last time this subject was raised, the conclusion appeared to be that we should see how things go, and if necessary look at it next time. Since then there has been no letup in the rate at which IPs attempt to "update" the article to include Lionel Messi, probably in good faith more than half of the time (I say this because most editors take several edits and minutes to "update", whereas someone who knew what they were doing would presumably do it all in one go). Furthermore, the feedback from readers suggests that a lot of people continue to come to this article and believe that it is out of date.

Is it time for us to reconsider a merge? If not, and for the record I'm against a merge which doesn't involve UEFA Best Player in Europe Award, then what further steps can we take to assist those who land on the page and believe that it is out of date? Does the edit notice need to be a luminous yellow? Do we need to add a row to the table to emphasise the point? Is there a case for a form of protection? If so, what sort, bearing in mind that it is generally IPs who add 2010 and 2011, and generally registered users that revert? —WFC— 01:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given this a lot of thought since I read this earlier in the day, it is a tough issue. Personally I don't think any edit notice or rows would stop IPs adding Messi to the article. Perhaps the best solution is to merge the two articles together, under the new name of FIFA Ballon d'Or. Then you could either have two separate tables or one table with a row separating 2009 and 2010 stating the changes in the award. The other option is page protection as the editing by IPs will not stop, which is not helped by media outlets not distinguishing between the two awards. That's my view anyway, I'm interested to see what others think. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick history lesson, and forgive me if I'm wrong - the Ballon d'Or and FIFA World Player of the Year merged in 2010 to become the FIFA Ballon d'Or, and subsequently the UEFA Best Player in Europe Award was founded in 2011? GiantSnowman 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep that's it. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right; let's merge all four. Let's merge everything. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One alternative would be to create a disambiguation page at Ballon d'Or which directs readers to either FIFA Ballon d'Or and a new article at Ballon d'Or (former award)?  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  21:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, I prefer this over the merge, either way something needs to be done. NapHit (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Ballon d'Or (1956–2009)? I prefer this approach over a merge: there is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but persistence, even if sometimes in good faith, should not win out over factual accuracy. —WFC— 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer separate articles for "old" Ballon d'Or and "new" Ballon d'Or as well. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone with a compromise: Ballon d'Or now points at FIFA Ballon d'Or, with a hatnote to Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) for the old award. Hopefully this resolves this Messi situation for good. (the Pun Police have already revoked my license.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the point of redirect, as at the moment most pages that link to Ballon d'Or would want to link to the old award. I have no objection to an AWB run to change links from Ballon d'Or to Ballon d'Or (1956–2009), if the consensus is that Ballon d'Or should point to the current one. —WFC— 09:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should see how it goes for a few days. If activity dies down then we should leave as it is now, if not then doing the AWB run is probably the best option. NapHit (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Ballon d'Or recipients - there are a number of articles on annual editions of the awards, not sure if they need sorting as well? GiantSnowman 11:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with those. Ballon d'Or 2009 is not ambiguous, nor is 2010 FIFA Ballon d'Or (although the seemingly arbitrary change in the year's location is a bit weird). —WFC— 14:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian Football Clubs - is there any unwritten club notability criteria?
As we become more familiar with Club Notability and the AfD process so we become aware that in some countries such as England there are useful unwritten criteria that we might use. In this context is there any unwritten criteria that we have been using for Australia or is any club that has not appeared in the A-League ripe for a PROD or AfD? And there are loads!!

I have been trying to save Mt Gravatt Hawks Soccer Club which is currently subject to AfD.

The big problem with respect to WP:GNG is that there are no relevant newspaper reports on the National Library of Australia Trove website. Any advice on looking up Australian newspaper reports over the last 50 years? Or is there simply a dearth of written material that has been catalogued by online libraries? League Octopus (League Octopus 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Trove is no good for newspapers after about 1954 and only Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have any level of coverage in the Google News Archive. All of which is no good for a club based in Brisbane, founded in 1960. It may be worth asking assistance from WP:QLD or WP:Australia for people with access to sites like newsbank or Lexis Nexis. Hack (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the notability issue, I would suggest that clubs who have appeared in the highest level of the state leagues (including the ACT Premier League) or who have appeared in the A-League/National Soccer League would have received sufficient coverage to be notable. There are a few anomalies in Australian football -
 * Tasmania has for most of its history has had two regional leagues;
 * New South Wales has two state leagues
 * WA briefly had two state leagues
 * There is argument over the relative quality of Brisbane Premier League versus the Queensland State League.
 * There is no formal tier system in Australian football below tier 2 - it's basically just A-League=Tier 1 and others=Tier 2. All of the rest is just Wikipedia speculation.

Hack (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments Hack. Are there any useful Australian soccer club AfDs that we can refer to? I can start the ball rolling with 3 Northern Teritory AfDs - Articles for deletion/Padres FC, Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC and Articles for deletion/Port Darwin FC. These appear to confirm that we have been using the underlying club notability criteria that Australian clubs who have appeared in the highest level of the state leagues are considered notable. I think that it would be very helpful if we reach some form of conclusion on this issue. If we start with Soccerway as a first point of reference 13 leagues are listed:


 * A-League / National Soccer League
 * Australian Capital Territory - ACT Premier League
 * New South Wales - NSW Premier League
 * Northern NSW - Northern New South Wales State Football League
 * Northern Territory - Northern Zone (Darwin Football League), Central Zone, Southern Zone
 * Queensland - Queensland State League (association football)
 * Brisbane - Brisbane Premier League
 * South Australian - FFSA Super League
 * Tasmania - Northern Premier League (Tasmania) and Southern Premier League (Tasmania) T-League
 * Victoria - Victorian Premier League
 * Western Australia - Football West State League

Can we confirm that all clubs that have participated in these leagues (at the highest tier) are notable? If you are inclined to disagree I think it would be helpful to refer to relevant AfD decisions. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I wouldn't be confortable assuming notability for Northern Territory clubs and I don't really know much about Tasmanian football. Outside of that, as a general rule most clubs at the highest state league level should have receieved a reasonable level of coverage. The difficulty remains that a lot of the sources are not freely available outside of Victoria and New South Wales. Hack (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your subtle change Northern Zone (Darwin Football League) does enough to cast doubts on the league's notability and I agree it should not go forward. For Tasmania we will need to refer to the new T-League (http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/246890,new-tassie-super-league-set-for-take-off.aspx Victory League) which will be launched in March 2013. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
 * The sparsity of on-line media sources in a number of states is clearly a problem but I think that we should always assess whether there would be plenty of source material on-site in the archives of local libraries. In this respect I think we should allow for potential coverage in reliable independent sources.


 * This article highlights the current moves by the Brisbane Premier League to counter the Queensland State League. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

Afghan national football side
Does this guy pass the WP:FOOTY notability standards? He captained the Afghan national side in the 1960s, but I have no clue whether they were professionals or if they were FIFA approved for international competition at the time. 2001:18E8:2:1020:3C37:2647:EC63:BDCF (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That bio is a primary/secondary source and would not be considered reliable in this regard. GiantSnowman 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to my question. I only linked it so that you'd have context.  2001:18E8:2:1020:3C37:2647:EC63:BDCF (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes – if he played for the Afghan national football team, then he is suitable for inclusion. However, did he really play? The source you provided appears to be a primary one and should not be used to establish notability. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "irrelevant" at all - if the claim to notability cannot be verified by reliable sources, then there is no claim to notability - simple. GiantSnowman 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to RSSSF.com, Afghanistan didn't play a full international between 1959 and 1975. Hack (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, I am in the same boat as Hack here because during the SAFF Cup in 2011 I was talking to a few Afghan footy fans and from what my understanding is that Afghan did not play from sometime in the 1950s (1959 according to RSSSF) to sometime in the 1980s (or 75 according to RSSSF) and then again sometime in the 1990s to 2000s. This guy was probably the captain of some sort of Afghan travel team or something like that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the bigger point here is that if Alam Payind is notable it's almost certainly for his contemporary ambassadorial work rather than for his career playing football for an unofficial Afghan national side. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

East Midlands derby
Just a heads-up: various IPs have left comments on the Talk:East Midlands derby page advocating a merger with the pages dealing with Forest and Derby's rivalries with Leicester, with no input or response from signed-up members (myself included admittedly). Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Super Match
it would be great if more editors could weigh-in on the talk page for Super Match. as far as I can tell, there was a long history of edit warring concerning which team should be listed first (FC Seoul vs Suwon Samsung Bluewings or Suwon Samsung Bluewings vs FC Seoul). once some level of consensus can be reached, the article will hopefully be unlocked. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople convicted of crimes
I'd like to draw attention to the above category that is undergoing a PROD debate at the moment.--EchetusXe 09:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian club notability again.
This is almost a continuation of the above discussion above but now I want to add India to that and possibly other countries with state leagues below the top tier. Now like Australia I want to see clubs that play in the state leagues get notability. Now the only differences I would ask for, as probably the most knowledgeable person on Indian football on here, would be that unlike Australian notability I would only request top tier state league clubs notability and only certain state leagues have notable clubs. What does this mean? Well basically India has 28 states + 1 Delhi Capital. Now not all clubs that play in the 28 state leagues + 1 Delhi Soccer League would be notable to me because 1) Not all the states have an operating state league. and 2) Not all the states that do have an operating state leagues have a professional nor semi-professional rules and running. So due to this; I am only asking for select leagues to be able to have somewhat automatic clubs. Leagues like the Goa Professional League or Calcutta Football League should have notable clubs as I can easily find the info to fill the pages but AfDs etc have not stopped anyone from deleting before. Also leagues like Nagaland Premier League or Mizoram Premier League should have notable clubs due to there professional manner and great local coverage I can easily use. These are the only leagues I am asking for to be given permission to to have notable clubs just for playing in them even if they did not play in I-League. As for ways to say no. The domestic cups in India dont help, the I-League 2nd Division is not the 2nd tier, it is a 2-month annual tournament which is for select clubs. The Fed Cup is for clubs who will already have a page and the Durand Cup will have clubs with no page but those are Army teams, not real teams. That is why I am asking for clubs from these 4 state leagues to have almost the rights as the clubs in state leagues from Australia. If you want I could prepare pages within my userspace for clubs in these leagues with no page so I can prove I have info (example: User:Arsenalkid700/Kohima Komets). Only on request though. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of coverage would an average state league receive, say for example in the Calcutta league? Hack (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Calcutta Football League is huge among the local support. Almost all local papers are in Bengali however (like anandabazar) and are not on Google News. The league is also covered in Zee News and the Times of India. Also the league is covered in kolkatafootballs which covers almost all Indian football competitions and from whenever I use it, is always correct. They also provide squads and history for most Kolkata teams. Now personally, looking at what I provided, I think the Calcutta Football League/Premier Division clubs should not have automatic notability but only the clubs that make the Final Round. The Calcutta League will divide with the top 10 teams going to the Final Round. From what I see, the national media dont pay to much attention till the Final Round when the teams are divided in Final Round and Relegation Round. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest as a starting point that you create a page on Indian State Leagues listing all of the leagues/divisions/tiers. We then have a point of reference when considering notability of individual leagues.  Another option is to use the page that I created on Indian State Football Associations. Regards. League Octopus ((League Octopus 08:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Not a bad idea but how can I do so on a page called Indian Football League System if technically the Calcutta Football League and leagues like the Chennai Football League (unpro league but existing) are on the same level in terms of tiers. I wont classify each state league (3rd tier being the select leagues like the 4 I mention above and 5 being the rest) because that wont be true.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we refer to Brazilian football state championships and individual championships (eg Campeonato Acriano) as a way forward re. structure that might be used for India. It would be great to have a better understanding of the State Leagues system in India. In cases where there are league notability issues we can link to the relevant State Football Association rather than the State League itself.  A section in the main article could list the "primary state leagues" and hopefully we can then reach consensus that they are notable (in terms of club notability).  That is my suggestion as the best way forward. League Octopus (League Octopus 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
 * WOW!!!! Both the systems are so similar. Only that the winners actually go to Serie D and that all the leagues are active. Indian football is a selection for the 2nd Division. Anyway I am working now on a mock Indian football system which should give you guys an easy idea about what is the Indian football system. If possible can we make sure the bot does not archive this until this is done, I rather not start a new thread. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Hughes of Scunthorpe
The article is currentky located at Mark Hughes (footballer born 1989) but IPs have been editing both this article and Scunthorpe's to say he was actually born in 1992/1993 and that the two players are not the same - and I've seen news reports which report both ages. Any idea what is right? GiantSnowman 17:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 19 years old says this source. Also I would imagine a 22/23 year old who has been signed to a Football League club would have sources about their exploits in Ireland. An unknown teenager winning a contract is a bit more usual as the club spots their potential without the player uprooting trees in non-league.--EchetusXe 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but born in 1989 according to Soccerway and Soccerbase and aged 22 according to the BBC. GiantSnowman 17:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly, Scunny's website was no help at all. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 17:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems he already has an article. BigDom (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aged 19 in May 2009 according to this Irish article (assuming they're definitely both the same guy)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Scunthorpe website says he used to play for Bohemians and Tolka Rovers so it seems pretty conclusive. BigDom (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chris - the fact that there is a player called Mar(k/c) HUghes, who was born in 1989, is not the issue - it's whether or not he is the same player who now plays for Scunthorpe. Dom have you got a link to that Scunny page please? GiantSnowman 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Malpass already linked it above ↑ BigDom (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, didn't see the bio, just saw the lack of DOB and stopped reading! GiantSnowman 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Scunthorpe website says 22. Mark Hughes (footballer born 1989) and Marc Hughes are obviously the same person, but where this 19 year old business comes from I have no idea.--EchetusXe 18:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers everyone, we can be confident he was born in 1989 and played for Bohs, Shels and Tolka before Scunny. Are we happy his name is 'Mark' rather than 'Marc'? If so, the two articles will need to be merged. GiantSnowman 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus lads he's 19 years of age, I know the lad personally. He played his best days with youth club Belvedere fc in Dublin. I can understand where everyone is getting confused from but he's 19 YEARS OLD! The Marc Hughes you's are talking about STILL plays in Ireland for Cherry Orchard ( amateur side). PLEASE trust me, I follow League of Ireland football and you's have got it all messed up. Someone should really grow a set balls and just delete the page and start a new for a mark hughes who is born in 1993. I KNOW THE LAD WHO SIGNED FOR SCUNTHORPE!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.108.147 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that Scunthorpe would get the age and former clubs of their new signing wrong though. BigDom (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the Scunthorpe press office use Wikipedia as a reference point... that would complicate things.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but surely they scouted him before signing him, and they would know his date of birth when he signed the forms. BigDom (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Forms that the press guy might not be privy to. Just a thought. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This piece on Herald.ie might be of interest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Three cheers for Lawrence! – Kosm  1  fent  18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does Wikipedia always get the blame for any inaccuracy? The Scunthorpe website reported him signing for the club before the article was in existence. They reported Mark Hughes, 22. There was an existing article on a Marc Hughes, 22. If they referenced person a from the Wikipedia article of person b then that is their problem. Struway's source would indicate the IP is telling the truth and that the guy running the website made a mistake, which is no of surprise to me as they seem to spend about 5 minutes a day tending to it. There are two different individuals, the younger lad plays for Scunthorpe, the older lad is still in Ireland.--EchetusXe 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted if they spent five minutes a day on the Watford player section. It's hopelessly out of date... —WFC— 14:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Rabiola
Please see Talk:Tiago André Coelho Lopes - this has run for a number of days now and there appears to be consensus, however as I have voiced an opinion it would not be right for me to perform the move. Can another editor please close and move if they view as appropriate? Regards, GiantSnowman 07:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sriwijaya U-21 vs Sriwijaya FC U-21
I need some help from your project (and the Indonesia project). Can some of you please check the articles Sriwijaya U-21 and Sriwijaya FC U-21 to see whether they are about the same team, and if so to merge them (or perhaps into Sriwijaya F.C.? They clearly need cleanup, the Sriwijaya U-21 makes references to "the only team in Hong Kong sports history" and things that happened from 2002 until 1934. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * HISTMERGE performed, Sriwijaya FC U-21 appears to be the 'correct' article and title. GiantSnowman 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

List of finals or winners?
Eldumpo has taken it upon himself to move List of Football League Cup winners to List of Football League Cup finals without discussion. While his rationale is sound, the problem is that there are number of these type of lists and it opens debate about how they should be titled. He should have brought the issue up first before moving it as this has wider implications than just one list. So should we move all let of this nature to finals or revert this one back to the winners format? NapHit (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the move as controversial - WP:RM should be used. GiantSnowman 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, List of Football League Cup finals was not a redirect until GiantSnowman created it by moving the page back to its original title. Whichever way we go, it would be worth making sure that these redirects exist where appropriate. —WFC— 12:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article should be at List of Football League Cup finals, since the article lists more than just the winners. – PeeJay 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus to change it to this then I'm all for it. Problem was the change was made abruptly and didn't take into consideration the number of other lists of this nature we have that our listed the same way. So it was rather pointless changing one list, instead of flagging the issue up so it can be disused and a consensus reached. NapHit (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I raised the naming question at the FLC for one of the early lists of this type, because I thought finals was more appropriate than winners, and still do. But any decision does need to apply to them all, not just this one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem confined to real football, there's also List of Super Bowl champions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

After I'd made the move I did think that maybe it was a wider issue. Anyway, it's been brought up now. My reasoning is that the list was more than just winners, but also included finalists, score, attendance etc, and having since looked at other lists, they are similar. Therefore I think calling it finals is a much more appropriate way of capturing the content. Eldumpo (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, and have started a RM. Because these titles should be consistent, I've added 10 other lists to the discussion. The rest of the lists could in my opinion be moved without a discussion. The RM can be seen here. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jewish footballers
With regards to this category, and many other Jewish-related ones on Wikipedia, is "Jewish" a religion or an ethnicity? My understanding is that being Jewish refers to your religion. Meaning, for example, an American Jewish person of Ukrainian descent is of Ukrainian descent and his/her religion would be Jewish .. or am I wrong with my interpretation? If I'm wrong, does that mean we should also create categories for Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. footballers as well? I know this is not the best place to ask the question but I didn't know where else to take it, and I think the reply I get here can help determine what to do next. TonyStarks (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we discussed this a couple of years ago, and as far as I remember, I think we agreed to ignore the religious categories for footballers, specially as they lack a reliable source in an overwelming majority of cases and it is mostly OR by editors that add them. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I say get rid of it. A category set-up like this with Hindu, Christian etc would mean we need these category for almost every page or every page project members make from now on but who knows what the religion is. I mean I do Indian footballers and I have no idea what any of them believe in. There are Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Christian and Catholics in Indian football. Plus many other players with other religions. It would just be to much to do and its so hard to find the information. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is a Jew? Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. You are either born a Jew or convert to Judaism. 99% of those in the category will be born Jewish, assuming they have not been placed in there by mistake. So religious belief doesn't enter into it, treat it as an ethnic category. On the surface, it is similar to Category:African-American soccer players, most of whom will have never been to Africa and will have had parents who were Americans, grandparents and so on going back for generations. If you took the cat to be deleted then it would be snowballed into a keep vote. Just don't even go there.--EchetusXe 08:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they might consider themselves ethnically "Jewish" but in reality they're not, it's just their religion. As an encyclopaedia, is self-identifying enough to really warrant inclusion? Let's not even get started on the use of the term "African-American". If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the US census use the term "black" and not African-American? TonyStarks (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For all categories similar to Jewish/African-American etc. - it is not for us to define inclusion. If a reliable source describes footballer A as Jewish, and that is included in the article, then they should be in the cat - no source, no cat. GiantSnowman 08:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Javi Martínez
Still at it with good 'ole User:Struway2: last year or so we had a run-in with a user that kept changing his birth place to Ayegui – Aiegi, but ALL the links available (including the OFFICIAL club profile) say he was born in Estella-Lizarra. Turns out he might have been onto something...

In the face of this (here http://www.deia.com/2011/01/30/athletic/el-estribillo-de-javi-martinez here http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/2010/12/15/deportes/otros-deportes/javi-martinez-triunfa-en-su-tierra and here http://www.diariodenavarra.es/20100725/tierraestella/javi-martinez-es-nuevo-nombre-campo-futbol-ayegui-desde-ayer.html?not=2010072501375871&idnot=2010072501375871&dia=20100725&seccion=tierraestella&seccion2=tierraestella&chnl=10, i can find more if requested), what can we do? There is also the possibility, i haven't studied it thoroughly, that one place is a smaller town inside the bigger one. Cheers all --AL (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful with things like this. He may be from Ayegui, but if Estella-Lizarra is the larger town, that might be where he was born as it might be where the nearest hospital was. Of course, there is the possibility that he was born at home... – PeeJay 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He is born in Ayegui.--Cruks (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The stadium in Ayegui bears his name...here. This is the proof that he was born in Ayegui.--Cruks (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not. GiantSnowman 11:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe for you, but for me. I am European and I know what that means. Do you think the town administrators choose his name just for fun?--Cruks (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they chose it because he is from the area and they wanted to honour him? It's certainly not concrete evidence that he was born there. GiantSnowman 07:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to the Ayuntamiento. Lets wait and see.--Cruks (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr Martínez is undoubtedly from Ayegui. But the difficulty I have with him being born there is that his profile at the Athletic website says he was born in Lizarra, and his profile at Bayern Munich's website gives his birthplace as Estella. He was at Athletic for many years: if he was born in Ayegui and not in Estella-Lizarra, why didn't he tell them they'd got his birthplace wrong? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a direct comparison regarding the "they named a stadium after him" argument, it has just been announced that a swimming pool in Aldridge will be named after Ellie Simmonds, however she wasn't born in Aldridge, she was born in Walsall because that's where the nearest hospital is.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Newsletter
Is there the possibility to create a monthly newsletter, like the Formula One WikiProject? If so, I'll help by editing/co-editing.TollHRT52 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (AEST)
 * Sounds like a pretty good idea. Hack (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Graham Burke
Would someone mind commenting on the edits made at this page? is kicking up a fuss about some formatting changes I made at Graham Burke, an article he recently created, and has resorted to calling me a 'vandal' and a 'bully', since he's not getting his own way. While he's usually a constructive and good faith editor, this seems to be a case of WP:OWN. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH I can't actually see any difference between the two versions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Chris. It seems to only be a problem with the references (at least when I click undo to see what the edits were). Honestly, and this is my opinion, I like the references written the way they are now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was primarily to do with the format of the career stats table, which has been reverted since (from this to this). Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am guessing the current one is the one that Dominic did and the one you wanted to use. Well its quite obvious the current one is the right one and that the other one should be applied if the player leaves England. No point stating the stats again for England if he has only played there.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was advocating the one Daemonic Kangaroo reinstated; it was me who added it in the first place. It's all there at the page's history. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like your way of referencing with those big spaces, but the table is a change for the better and that is the only thing that the reader will notice.--EchetusXe 21:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Matty, that is what I meant, sorry if the way I worded my last sentence did not indicate that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is he notable; doesn't seem to meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, he played in the Football League Cup against Tranmere which is indicated by the BBC reference. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't meet GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Playing a League Cup game doesn't automatically confer notability. Everyone ought to get into the habit of ensuring new articles actually meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You might as well talk to a brick wall, I've been saying this about GNG for years and no-one takes a blind bit of notice. Also, you are correct that NFOOTY says nothing about cup games. BigDom (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If thats the case then let us go delete around 100 pages (There are articles which are from other countries as well like this). Also may I add that this guy is 18, what do you expect, he played in a match between two fully-professional sides in an official tournament all we should need is a reference saying that he played in said match and another giving some general information. Eventually as time goes on the article will grow. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only assuming his career actually grows. What if he didn't impress, gets sold to a non-league side, and completes his career outside of professional football? Isn't it premature to start the article after one appearance in England's secondary cup competition, in which almost all sides play a large number of reserve and youth players?  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  00:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well considering in this match Burke played with a bunch of the usual starting XI for Villa I would say he is okay and he is 18 so I think at worst it will be League 2 but yes it is a concern and I would love for there to be a consensus for these cup matches. I mean I will admit, I do myself have my fair share of "create whoring" whenever cup matches are around because I know players with no pages play in these games but I would rather come to a clear standpoint on this before doing anymore. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a clear position on this: League Cup (or indeed any cup) matches are not included at NFOOTY, and thus he would need to meet GNG to stay, which at present he doesn't. Eldumpo (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when have cup games not conferred notability? They always have in all my time here, and I've been editing for about 5 years now. – PeeJay 07:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cup games have always conferred notability. Are you saying playin in the final of the FA Cup would not be enough? (ignoring GNG) GiantSnowman 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We know that cup games de facto confer notability, so why aren't they mentioned in NFOOTY or FPL? BigDom (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The original format has been reintroduced; but am I not right in thinking the use of Template:Football player statistics 1 and similar is discouraged, and that we should be using wikitables instead? Pretty sure that's been discussed a few times here before. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep - there's been a number of discussions, all have said we should use wikitable rather than template tables. GiantSnowman 08:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A featured list in serious need of updating
Risking to spoil the good times you might be having with the national teams' matches of these days, I'm drawing your attention to this kind of mess (a featured one). England and Scotland are up-to-date, but so is no other country. It's not just for the enormous amounts of time, energy and nerves of steel that updating them all is going to take, but also, the references are to be replaced with completely new ones, because just replacing "2010" with "2012" generally doesn't work with the now-present links. (Example: rsssf.com/tablesa/alba2010.html is outdated, and rsssf.com/tablesa/alba2012.html links to nowhere.) What I can suggest is that we should reach an agreement on the sources, and then everyone should pick a country and do it. Thus, all the tedious work will be done quickly, and it will be in no time that the update tag can be removed. --Theurgist (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the list need to be kept, given the existence of Template: UEFA leagues, and the acknowledged amount of work in keeping it up to date? Eldumpo (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise problematic, but thankfully not featured, are the lists of AFC clubs, CAF clubs, CONCACAF clubs, CONMEBOL clubs, OFC clubs, and non-FIFA clubs. As for the sources, the Soccerway database seems OK to me. Is anyone going to suggest something else? If not, we could start doing them. --Theurgist (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose Soccerway will do. We should use the appropriate redirects though: http://www.soccerway.com/national/albania/super-league/20122013/regular-season/ would require manual updating every year, whereas http://www.soccerway.com/national/albania/super-league/ wouldn't. If Wikidata works out as planned, this should be the last time we have to do manual updates. —WFC— 09:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Prolific Irish Football vandal notice
Just a quick heads-up for anybody who follows the Irish football articles. A prolific vandal who has been removing markup tags (refimprove, nofootnotes, stub tags, etc.) was just identified at SPI. He's made a number of questionable edits in favor of his favorite football team (The Shamrock Rovers AKA The Hoops) and he's been playing the tag-blanking games here since 2007. If you see this sort of nonsense in the future, you can refer the people at AIV to this SPI case. I hope this helps. -Thibbs (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We should make an effort to tag all IPs with - I've found one this morning, and have warned Rovers Forever that if he block evades I will increase the block to indefinite. GiantSnowman 15:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I've tagged his main IP account and I'll tag the IPs I see in the future, but should we go back and try to track down all the old IPs he's used? There may literally be hundreds simply because of how long he's been doing this. -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

National team articles squad lists
User:Banhtrung1 has takenit upon himself to replace the template for squads on many nft articles with a table featuring particularly garish colours, like this, for example. My preference would be reprimand and request that he revert them all, and then discuss before thinking of repeating. What say you? Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you - please note that Banhtrung1 is also the editor in question in the thread directly above this, creating many poorly referenced stubs of questionable notability. GiantSnowman 12:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know if you talked to him yet but he just did it to the India national football team, I was quick to revert it as honestly the dark bright blue just hurt my eyes and I tried reading the squad but the template was too distracting. I also reverted his edit on the England national football team in which the template went from the normal color to white and all of a sudden it was all unreadable. Dont get me wrong, I think it's a neat idea but like you guys said, he should discuss something as a major as this before attempting to change maybe 210+ NFT articles. And I dont even know if he will start doing the same in the youth articles as well. Also I would advise him that if we do agree to this, use easy colors that dont make it hard to read and if you do white, try adding a border. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio images on Commons
Can someone remind me how to get an image on Commons deleted? File:PhotoBL.png is clearly copyvio..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign-on on Commons (assuming you have one) - click Toolbox (on left) - deletion options are there.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User on the AfD for Richard Shaw (footballer born 1977)
has not really been the most corroborative user on this discussion to see if this player should be deleted or not. Users have asked him to stop repeating KEEP or DO NOT DELETE etc yet he will still do it (less then before now though) and it seems he is going into an anti-foreign phase (or anti-England phase more specific) where if you are not American and you say delete then you are automatically wrong and you did not do this and this. Me being American born and raised tried to comment and despite that I get criticism myself. His sources dont help at all and the way he is formatting replies just makes the AfD a huge mess. Is there a good reason to delete comments on AfD's (other than cursing) because once a closing admin comes in it looks like it will be hard for him/her to read the AfD. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The closing admin will see what's going on. Don't worry about it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it seems I have found a few socks..., , and . All of these accounts edit the same AfD only and NY Tanner and Billy were both created within 7 minutes of each other. I will leave it to others to make judgements. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Parkes
Can someone advise what to do with pages like this? I tagged it (apparently incorrectly) as a G8, which was rejected. However I don't see what purpose the page serves, it is identical to all of Andrew Parkes' multiple attempts to promote himself, all of which have repeatedly resulted in speedy deletions or prods. Valenciano (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a talk page, so I've talked on it. I guess proposals should be argued against and rejected, rather than deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But the admin who rejected the tag has deleted it anyway, even if it was a discussion rather than an article... Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Club website workaround
Remember the mess caused when some English club websites revamped over the summer?

I'm not sure whether this is a temporary hack, or a long-term solution, but I've just discovered that if you type "origin-" before "www." on an old link, some of them seem to work.

For instance, http://www.watfordfc.com/page/Features1/0,,10400~2321861,00.html redirects to the new homepage, but http://origin-www.watfordfc.com/page/Features1/0,,10400~2321861,00.html works as it previously did. —WFC— 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for discovering this. Even if it doesn't last... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good spot sir! Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rangers F.C. Articles
FYI. GiantSnowman
 * Dating this to archive as it's no longer on ANI.Borgarde (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian league player infobox statistics
For players plying their trade in Brazil, what "league stats" should be included in the infobox? For example, for Fred, his infobox says he's scored 94 goals in 139 games since returning to Brazil to play for Fluminense, but only about half those stats are actually in the Série A, the national league, the remaining stats are in the Campeonato Carioca, the Rio de Janeiro state league. Should both of them be included, like the infobox is right now, or should it just be the Série A stats? By comparison, for Neymar, his infobox stats only include his games in the Série A. TonyStarks (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both leagues are domestic, notable and played by the first team. I don't see a reason why appearances in the state league shouldn't be included in the infobox. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  08:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What other Brazilian State Leagues are notable? League Octopus (League Octopus 10:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC))
 * As far as I understand, only Brasileirão (Série A, Série B, Série C and Série D) stats should be included in the infobox. Not because the state leagues aren't notable, but because only the national league is usually included. Domestic cups, international competitions and any other official tournament may appear in the statistics section. Luxic (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This question has been raised a few times. Only national level matches should be included for stints with national level clubs. Hack (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By national, you mean Serie A, B, C, D and not the regional state leagues? TonyStarks (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. Looking back at the archives, there had been a suggestion that the state league information be entered separately to the national league. Hack (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do find numerous newcomers that are not familiarised with the consensus, and most start "correcting" the stats and adding the state championship stats to the infobox.  This is specially noticeble when the stats are 0 (0) because the club doesn´t play in the national level, so many IP´s replace them with the state championships numbers thinking that the 0 (0) was a mistake or lack of information.  Although I thought about it, I am still not sure how we could make this clearer to a nonfamiliarised editor, but some sort of indication saying that national level stats are only to be inserted would be very welcomed.  I think that beside Brazil we have a few other cases where this is also an issue. FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in adding state league information separately if it can been reliably sourced and it is actually league rather than cup. Hack (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Spacing on scorelines
What is the consensus on the spacing in scorelines in detailing match results in, for example, the club season articles or for competitions and tournaments?


 * Option A - with spacing between the numbers:


 * Option B - no spacing between the numbers:

Option A is more prevalent on articles but I have seen more and more usage of Option B. Can we try and achieve a consensus to proceed with? Sinfony81 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this a while ago and as the MOS is clear the dashes should not be spaced then it was decided we should follow suit. The reason more articles have unspaced dashes is because not all articles have been changed to the correct method. Hope that helps. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NapHit - do you have a link to the consensus please? GiantSnowman 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 64, which linked back to Template talk:Football box/Archive 1. The thread after that, Template talk:Football box/Archive 1, suggested the way round it was to deprecate the "score" parameter in favour of "score1" and "score2", and have the template generate the correct dash rather than its being input by the user. It never was, though, presumably because people who know what they're doing don't have an infinite amount of spare time. And the template documentation still shows the unspaced version, which some people are very keen on for aesthetic reasons, in its example. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with Struway2: as far as I'm concerned we're just waiting for the work to be put in here, as the MoS indicates that unspaced is the way to go. Previously I suggested a compromise whereby we go with unspaced but with some CSS which provides a bit of a gap anyway, but whether this is necessary or desirable anyway is in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be against the CSS compromise. If the MoS wants scorelines to be unspaced, then they ought to look unspaced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks better in a scoreline with the space, although i do understand why the mos is the other way though. Blethering   Scot  19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think a ball is a damned silly symbol to use to indicate a goal: the ball is used in scoreless draws too. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For once in the entire history of WT:FOOTY please let's not derail the discussion onto some interminable squabble over iconography, please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I know it may cause unnecessary work, but if consistency is really wanted, why not change the parameter from " |score= " to " |score1= " and " |score2 "? Then the space and dash or no space and dash can be fixed by the template not the editor's choice. Borgarde (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that on this occasion we choose to comply with the MoS, can someone explain to me why typing "0–5" instead of "0 – 5" is not an option? All this talk about CSS workarounds and splitting parameters seems unnecessarily drastic. —WFC— FL wishlist 06:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Because people who find the unspaced version aesthetically horrible won't do it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that in itself necessitate additional codecruft? It's not the most complicated thing in the world, but it's certainly counterintuitive: the typical person would type a score in one go. "Badly" formatted scores only become a problem when someone notices them, and someone else categorically refuses to go along with the edit/suggestion. Among reasonable editors, these things are invariably sorted out at a relevant talk page. If the problem is that editors decide to shun discussion and literally mass edit war over the quantity of nothing, block the lot of them for as long as necessary. Much better for people that way inclined to get blocked over something which does not change the meaning of the content, than to not be blocked, assume that their behavior is okay, and then wade into more substantive disputes, such as things involving the Old Firm, or the nationality of a player where genuinely controversial (Turkish/Armenian/Azeri, ROI/NI, first generation American immigrants, Serbia/Albania/Kosovo etc). —WFC— FL wishlist 12:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really an issue, as long as only one option i9s used per article. How would a score like "abandoned" "postponed" or "w/o" work with splitting it up to two parameters? -Koppapa (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably with a special parameter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely only "walkover" would be a problem; A–A and P–P are often used for abandoned and postponed. BigDom (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible lists with article content inside
What's this projects view on collapsible lists with article content inside? MOS:COLLAPSE states they "should not conceal article content". Recently I stumbled upon List of Paris Saint-Germain F.C. seasons and was bold and removed the collapsible list extremely relevant to the article, same with the managers article. I further had a look, and nearly all PSG articles are using collapsible lists all over the shop for one reason or another which seem to have been generated from one user. The reason I'm bringing this up here is because this one at List of Paris Saint-Germain F.C. players I think looks shocking, and on a "list of players" article I think the players list should not be hidden, but this one I didn't just want to go in and change I wanted a second opinion on. Would it be fine just to remove it, or does anyone think it's justified and may need to be changed a bit? Borgarde (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove the hiding. Apart from any MoS considerations, and the horrendous block of bright colour the list is hidden behind, the whole point of a players list is to allow the reader to look at the list of players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Robin Hulbert still at Barrow?
He isn't listed on the club website, yet no mention has been made of his departure (that I can find). He is extremely injury prone and it would be reasonable to assume that a serious injury he picked up last October has ended his career for good. Someone removed him from the squad list and template, so I assumed he quietly retired. However he turned up at number 15 against Tamworth three days ago. Yet number 15 up until that point was Mr Garry Hunter. Can anyone help me make sense of this?--EchetusXe 11:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Barrow fan's forum, it was a cock up, presumably by PA sports or whoever provides all the media with stuff, and the player was actually Garry Hunter. The Tamworth site got it right, but bizarrely the Barrow one got it wrong. Number   5  7  12:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On his twitter account he announced that he left Barrow on 9 May and seems amused that he 'played' against Tamworth.--Add92 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this week's Non League Paper confirms that it was indeed Hunter and not Hulbert. BigDom (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, thanks guys.--EchetusXe 16:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Help at 2012–13 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds
IP:99.226.214.165 is editwarring and removing all the updates being made to the page.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a similar case to something that's been pulled up before Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He'll be blocked as soon as an admin goes through the backlog of IP vandals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reported it to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Hopefully some admins are there to sort it out.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Referee notability
I feel we need consensus on this; we have an editor (I'll invite him here momentarily) creating incredibly basic stubs on FIFA international referees - see Kadhum Auda among many, many others - is that enough? I don't know if they'll ever meet GNG. GiantSnowman 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, they appear to pass WP:NFOOTY, as they are referees who represented their country in a FIFA-sanctioned senior international match. Is that enough? No, in my opinion, but the same regime should apply to international footballers who don't pass WP:GNG. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  08:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NFOOTY refs who participate in international football are presumed notable but I reckon you'd struggle to prove every FIFA ref meets WP:GNG. Also worldreferee is not a reliable source. Hack (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NFOOTY proving to be utterly useless. Who'd have thought it? —WFC— 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Like, totally. – Kosm  1  fent  08:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy to falsify the idea that referees who have worked on an international level have all been the subject of the kind of coverage we would need to satisfy WP:V. Take for instance CONCACAF matches and to be safe let's go back 20-30 years in time. Soccer was entirely absent from mainstream media coverage in the US, in Canada and in a number of Caribbean countries yet some of these matches had to be refereed by completely obscure American, Canadian referees that probably didn't get coverage even in specialized publications. This would be even clearer in the case of Caribbean countries that don't have specialized football publications. And fair or unfair, the situation is even worse for women referees. I'd certainly be in favor of a change that doesn't exempt referees from WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The same can be said of many players and clubs who get a free pass from WP:NFOOTY. Hack (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Referees receive infinitely less coverage. The idea behind NFOOTY and all other similar guidelines is that if an individual meets the criterion then it's highly likely that coverage exists somewhere even though we can't find it online. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis for players in fully professional leagues but not for referees, even those who have refereed international games and in any case WP:V is not a policy that can be overridden by a notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting back to players for a moment, and noting that I am only talking about current players here, are we really arguing that significant numbers of people playing in 2012 are meeting the GNG solely through offline coverage? That strikes me as incredible. —WFC— 18:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you like WP:NFOOTY to actually say (for current players)?--EchetusXe 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking this seriously would be a good start. The big problem is that we have it back to front at the moment. NFOOTY is nearly (but not quite) at a level where it is implausible for anyone notable to fail to meet it. This might sound good, but the problem with this approach is that a lot of non-notable living people will slip through the net, and worse still, be kept at AfD due to meeting a guideline. Because they haven't received significant coverage, those who do not progress with their careers are bound to remain unwatched stubs on living people, which are an absolute gift for both mindless vandals, and those with an anti-Wikipedia agenda. This is the wrong way around. It should be implausible that you would ever need or want to delete someone who meets NFOOTY, but the trade-off should be that it becomes more common for players not meeting NFOOTY to be kept, where editors have shown that the player has received coverage above and beyond the norm. I have posted an extended version of this comment at WT:FPL. —WFC— 06:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not suggesting that we treat current and former players differently, but as a general rule current players receive more coverage than former ones. Therefore, if the notability bar allows a lot of low-profile current players, we can presume that it is at least as bad for former ones. —WFC— 06:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pichpich, this project has over a century's worth of players who fail WP:NFOOTY because they didn't play fully-pro football. This is much bigger than just referees. Hack (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem with articles on players (or referees) that fail WP:NFOOTY. I have a problem with players (or referees) who fail WP:GNG and stub articles that can't comply with WP:V. Some of the latter are being kept because of NFOOTY and that should be fixed. A good start would be to remove any reference to the referees in NFOOTY: if referees meet GNG they're in, if they don't, they're out or redirected to lists as suggested below. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How many referee articles do we have that are longer than stubs? It can only be a small proportion. Like Kadhum Auda, many of them are just name, date of birth, and the most prestigious competition in which they officiated. Outside match reports containing contentious decisions, very little gets written about them, even the ones at high levels. Here's a little test: how many referees can you name off the top of your head, who are not from your country/the country you follow most closely. I could name just two: Pierluigi Collina and Kim Milton Nielsen. I think a preferable alternative to substubs would be List of FIFA World Cup referees etc. If a referee article contains no information beyond what you would expect in such a list, then it should be redirected there. A reader gets little to no use from an article like Falla N'Doye (1 line substub, no expansion since it was created five and a half years ago). Why not redirect it to something more useful? Oldelpaso (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * List of football referees already exists, apparently with the aim of documenting every FIFA-listed ref. Hack (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Falkingham
Usually, I will know if a football player is notable judging by the club(s) but I need help with this Articles for Creation submission. It appears that the clubs aren't professional per NFOOTY. Please add your replies here, not the submission. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  04:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He passes NFOOTY as St. Johnstone play in the Scottish Premier League and according to ESPN and Transfermarkt he played in 1 SPL match for 63 minutes. Also seeing that the article is sourced well enough I would say that the article is fine. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty damn sure Dunfermline Athletic are professional as well.--EchetusXe 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They certainly are and its listed at WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/Articles to be created. This is the source for playing in SPL and to be honest if i had realised it the article would already exist. Blethering  Scot  19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then I shouldn't have rejected the submission. It looks like the editor who created the article has gone inactive, maybe one of the Scottish experts might finish the article so that it could be moved to the mainspace? I'd say it be ready if we add one sentence about why he playing for St.Johnstone (he wasn't on a trial, like the article states), and another sentence about the match that makes him pass NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in List of Central Coast Mariners FC players?
This is a featured list but sections are between a year and 18 months out of date. I'll nominate it to be delisted in a week if it's not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are saying that it is outdated because of the datestamps, right? I had a look at the list, and there seems to be an IP who has been updating the article frequently, but seems to forgot about the datestamp. Look at this, there has been a lot of updating to the "list of players"-section since 8 February 2011. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it may be the records section above the table that is out of date. Hack (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

International squad templates
I know this has been discussed before but I don't think a strong enough consensus was reached; basically my suggested/preferred naming format is [country] squad [tournament name] i.e. 'England squad 1966 FIFA World Cup', 'United States squad 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup' etc. etc. - can we get agreement on this please? Cheers, GiantSnowman 13:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one discussion you started on this in March 2012, and I'd say consensus was leaning toward what you proposed. Like in that discussion, I'd agree with that naming format.  One example of where it might get trickier is with multi-sport and multi-sex tournaments like the Olympics, so for the 2012 Summer Olympics squad templates I implemented this format, which is that of "[country] [sex] [sport] squad 2012 Summer Olympics".  Does that seem proper? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes I remember that discussion but I'd forgotten the amount of support! Still, a second discussion can't harm - either more support (good) or opposition (which will save the hassle of loads of opposed TfDs). Regarding the Olympics, would you have 'Brazil men's football squad 2012 Summer Olympics' then? If so, I'd be happy with that. GiantSnowman 13:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable, but I agree with ArtVandelay in the previous discussion - even though the article title is 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship, that seems like a too long name for a squad-template. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer something a little more grammatical, such as "England 1966 FIFA World Cup squad". – PeeJay 06:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Portland Timbers player ID help please
Can anyone identify the two Portland Timbers players who appear in this Flickr photoset? Thanks much. Mosmof (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the black one (sorry but what else am I supposed to say, sorry if I offend anyone) is Darlington Nagbe, not 100% sure. Is there a news article about this clinic? Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The white one (sorry but what else am I supposed to say, sorry if I offended anyone) is Steve Purdy. The other one is definitely not Darlington Nagbe .. I think maybe Hanyer Mosquera, but not certain either. TonyStarks (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like Mosquera to me. BigDom (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus looks like the club they visited is very Hispanic, so I'm guessing they took two Hispanic players for the event, which both Purdy and Mosquera are. TonyStarks (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - images added for both players now. --Mosmof (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Facebook as a source
I have been here for 1.8 years and for some reason I do not know if facebook can or can not be a source. So can it? For example I want to add Michael Rodríguez to the United Sikkim F.C. roster on there page and I want to give the players there respective numbers which was announced on there facebook page here and as you can see if you click the link the two players that signed are there and the numbers are announced. This is the only place the roster is available and no where else. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:FACEBOOK has some info on this. --Jameboy (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate. Thank you so much. YES! --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)