Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 79

Report of UEFA, how to insert the link to the Wikipedia page
Sorry for the writing style, I live in Russian and English know is bad Much to ask read here, [|message me] recently message of June 8, what do robots Bot. I've always stuck to the pages Eurocup links to protocols that are on the site UEFA Look here 1964-65 European Cup or any other season But here look here 1997-98 UEFA Champions League look Second qualifying round there is a problem Directly to the table, you can insert a hyperlink address only use double-doubles brackets . Bot robots to believe it is not right and they clean pair of double brackets [[leave only a single [, In the visual form spoil everything. At the moment there is no way to insert a link with the address of a hyperlink directly to a table cell. Link can only be inserted when the games are written under the table with the results of I would put in there where it is necessary But then the [[1997–98 UEFA Champions League qualifying rounds look Second qualifying round Table 16 pairs gaming table, and under the table a pair of three games. Therefore, a reference to the protocol UEFA can only be inserted into a table with the results of games. But the way to properly and correctly insert a link directly to the table does not exist. My way, this is not like robots Bot. What do I do here 1972–73 UEFA Cup I do not know, I've done since the only way you can do. Coming soon to these pages will get robots Bot (type Yobot) and spoil it. --Gavrilov Sergey (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Problem seems to be with posting links within Template:TwoLegResult. Using one square bracket at each end of the external link breaks the display of the template: using two square brackets returns the link as expected, but within a single square bracket.  No idea how to fix it, but hope this makes the issue clearer.
 * So this:

(only difference between the two lines is the doubling of the bracket), gives:


 * }


 * The stray square brackets in the second line are no disaster, but presumably bots will continue to try to remove them. Anyone know the codings to resolve? Kevin McE (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. :Titles containing certain characters will display and link incorrectly unless those characters are encoded.

Taken from Template:Citation Style documentation. Hope it works. Thanks, C 679 20:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I tried replacing [ with &amp;#91; and ] with &amp;#93; and it still doesn't work. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first leg seems to be displaying properly here. C 679 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still no joy here: could you display the code in  for clarity.  Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Kevin, don't know what I was thinking earlier. I tried variants with the unicode first, second and in both positions but nothing works to resolve the issue. The template may need to be altered for this to be possible, but my knowledge does not extend that far. Thanks, C 679 11:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you preface those parameters with their numeric identifier and an equals sign, as 6=required-content, you can put what you like (see below). Really wouldn't recommend it, because if ever the parameter order in the template is changed, it'll screw it up. You could try asking any recent editor of the template if it would be reasonable to add optional names for those parameters, so that if the content had anything odd in it, you could put e.g. ...|leg1=required-content etc? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(only difference between the two scorelines is the first has just the single square brackets to make the hyperlink work, the second has round ones outside the square ones to separate the score from the link), gives:


 * }
 * Thank you. I will use the method proposed by you. --Gavrilov Sergey (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yoshiro/Yosiro Salazar
Just wondering if there was a definitive spelling of the Real Garcilaso player Salazar. His club spell his first name Yosiro but a lot of other sources use Yoshiro. Hack (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You would have to check his ID records. I trust DeChalaca.com for that information. They post Yoshiro Salazar. --MicroX (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yoshirō is a name; Yosiro is not. I'd say his club is wrong and the other sources are correct. GiantSnowman 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick search of Yosiro returns a few people with that name - could be a variant transliteration from Japanese. Hack (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going by whether it is a real name or not isn't exactly enough. Such is the case of Willyan Mimbela. It should be William but his birth and ID records show Willyan. However, I trust DeChalaca.com with the correct names of players. They strive to get things right. So it is probably Yoshiro and the editor of the club's website is mistaken. --MicroX (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the official match reports of the Peruvian Primera Division, he is listed as "Salazar Yosiro Abelardo".. Also in the squad listing.Hack (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not much we can do to confirm. Just leave the article page the way it is (or move it to Yoshiro) until a more definitive answer comes along. Either way, sources confirm both spellings. --MicroX (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on youth tournaments
Over at List of CONMEBOL club competition winners, the U-20 Copa Libertadores is being included in the list. Should it be? Is it okay to include a youth tournament trophy with a list filled with senior level trophies? I argue that they can't be in the same list just as an U-20/U-17 World Cup champion is not comparable to an absolute World Cup champion. --MicroX (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly could be: it is a competition, it is at club level, and it is run by CONMEBOL. It equally certainly needn't be, as the list could easily be restricted to senior teams only.  This is why articles have their own talk pages, so that disagreements about inclusion criteria can be discussed locally.  If a restriction to senior teams only is intended, then that should be clear in the lead of the article: if it is agreed that there should not be such a restriction, then other age based events should be included.  Equally, local consensus should decide whether the list should include women's events, and the lead should clarify this.
 * But the article looks like OR listcruft to me: what is the meaning of the summation of such an eclectic list of tournament wins that includes competitions that some teams were ineligible for, some that were open to teams and nations not on the list, and some that were sanctioned, but not organised, by CONMEBOL, and as such have no greater status than pre-season tournaments. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We were just trying to emulate List of UEFA club competition winners. Choosing which tournaments should and shouldn't belong in that list could also be OR. Conmebol didn't organize the Intercontinental Champions' Supercup but it was retroactively made official. They include it in their magazine (pg. 112-113). If it is OR, should it be PROD? If so, wouldn't List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners and List of world club champions in association football fall into the same category? --MicroX (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The other key policy to test both your original enquiry about inclusion of the U20 event and the OR issue is to consider reliable sources: what other publication gives a list by club or nation aggregating these wins? Follow their lead as to what should be included if such exists, and admit that this is probably OR if it doesn't. The same test should be applied to the other articles you mention, but each stands or fails by its own merits. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've never found a reliable source that aggregates international trophy wins. FIFA publishes historical recounts of important clubs from time to time rather than an official list. These publications sometimes include tournaments that FIFA/UEFA do not "recognize" as an "official title" and there has been much debate in the talk pages as to what is official and not official. The references in these pages heavily cite what is considered official and individual club merits but no aggregated list. I will leave in the U20 competition in the article for now as there are sources that confirm it is a CONMEBOL-sanctioned tournament. However, I'm tempted to put these lists up for a deletion discussion. Yet I believe I would be met with strong opposition even though reliable sources are lacking. --MicroX (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A young cup like the U-20 Copa Libertadores deserve being deleted of any list about senior competitions. Here is not valued "prestige", but a young cup have less level than a senior cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

American soccer player categories
I just found out that Category:American soccer players contains (almost) exclusively men, while women are shunted off to Category:American women's soccer players. This is in contradiction the advice at WP:Cat/gender, which asks that gendered sportsperson categories be balanced. I'm unsure, though, whether to move the men to Category:American men's soccer players or if both categories should be moved, to "Male American soccer players" and "Female American soccer players". Thoughts? Powers T 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That move will impact dozens of other categories - most footballer categories are for male players, while separate women's footballer categories exist for female players. Are you sure a move is really necessary? What good does it do? Jogurney (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The last thing we need is a repetition of this discussion. If there is a case to be made that interest in the game in the US or any other country is sufficiently equally divided between the men's and women's games, then such specific categories may be necessary.  WP:CAT is an 'editing guideline', not a MoS policy, and its own header states that it is " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "  Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to give male and female players equal footing on Wikipedia as the sports do not have equal football in the real world. GiantSnowman 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm misreading you, because that sounds ridiculously sexist. Treating men and women equally should be among our highest ideals.  What purpose does it serve to make women soccer players harder to find than men?  Even the women's subcat is hard to find among Category:American soccer players, mixed in as it is amongst several other subcats.  Powers T 17:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, with the baseless accusations of sexism, you know full well what I mean, you participated in the discussion that Kevin has linked to. GiantSnowman 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interest shouldn't have anything to do with it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to categorization.  Why should Abby Wambach be categorized as an "American women's soccer player" while Freddy Adu is just an "American soccer player".  Either they both are, or neither is.  Powers T 17:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course categorization is effected by PRIMARYTOPIC, as categories should match parent articles. GiantSnowman 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidance here is WP:EGRS, which is pretty clear- gender-based or ethnic sub-categories should not be diffusing. That means, all of the African-American players, the Mexican players, and the women, should be placed in the head category. If they are then diffused into the by-state categories, that is fine - I'm not sure if the project uses the by-state cats as diffusing or not. Did any of you watch the media sh*tstorm over the American novelists categories? This is the same issue, but the guidance itself is long-standing consensus. There is another path here, which is full diffusion by gender, which I think some sports categories do - but that means having a sub-cat just for the men, and a different sub-cat just for the women, and no blended category. That seems to be the approach taken by, so could be used here as an alternative if there is consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, this |2%0D%0AAmerican+soccer+players|0&sortby=title&doit=1 In both shows players who are in the head cat and the women's cat; this shows players who are in the women's cat but *not* in the head cat, |2&negcats=American+soccer+players|0&sortby=title&doit=1 Not in head cat, and this one shows women who are in the women's cat and in the by-state categories |2%0D%0AAmerican+soccer+players+by+state|3&sortby=title&doit=1 In women's + by-state cat. I see from a discussion above that consensus seems to be that the by-state cats are non-diffusing, meaning membership in them should not preclude membership in the parent. Thus, you can take this query, and then move all of the women to the head cat. You would have to do this in every other country, to be fair. This sort of ghettoization is endemic throughout the tree, so you can either start recategorizing hundreds of bios, which is one path, or you can help User:Magnus Manske and I put together category intersection, which will solve this problem in a different way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a case for perhaps merging the 'NATIONALITY footballers' (male) and 'NATIONALITY women's footballers' (female) categories, but that rule would not apply to international footballers I don't think. GiantSnowman 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not that familiar - can you point me to what you mean by 'international footballers' categories? As I said above, I think you have two options that are in line with guidance - one is to make the female categories (and any ethnicities) non-diffusing (e.g. American women soccer players). The other is to go the way of tennis, and have an all-male category and an all-female one, and basically no-one in the parent. If you look at the top of, we added a link that enumerates all sub-catgories, so you can always get a list of everyone if you like, no matter what sub-cat they're in. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * and, which reflect England national football team and England women's national football team respectively. GiantSnowman 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah, I think that's a different issue - that is categorization based not on nationality + sport, but on membership-on-roster-of-a-team. There's a broader issue of what those are *called*, but it seems it was closed no-consensus. It's a little bit irritating that the women's team is only under the women's sub-category however, it should technically be in both places (since should be non-diffusing, any sub-cats within should also be bubbled to the parent. Otherwise this reinforces male-as-default.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay... so the current situation is obviously untenable; which of the options should we go with? Powers T 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

POV in FIFA Club World Cup
This section is obviously POV. In addition to seeking to delay the story to a young tournament (just has 9 editions), is just ridiculous denigrate the Intercontinental Cup and expose cases of tournaments that have nothing to do as the Tournament of Paris and the Afro-Asian Championship justify fact that the Club World Cup's first edition will be held in 2000, and that the whole theory is included in the text of the articles cited.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those quotes seem a bit POV. (Interesting read, though) --MicroX (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For those short of memory, that article has been subjected to shedloads of POV edits from a user under various pseudonyms. I say we start from scratch, get rid of most of the content from that article and write a decent history of the Club World Cup only, not any of its predecessors. – PeeJay 09:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. GiantSnowman 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I note also that this section of the article on the Intercontinental Cup, besides being biased, is notoriously Eurocentric and is full of sources that can not be verified, dubbious opinion articles and other unrelated links. Would be appropriate to neutralize it.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Millwall Bushwackers
I am confused by the English at the start of the article in the second sentence. However, The firm is one of the largest out of all countrys and teams since the 1980s .

I am not sure if it is suppose to be counties plural of county or; should the sentence tell us it's the largest firm in the Country? Or plural to be countries?

Govvy (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's meant to say that the Bushwackers are one of the largest firms, regardless of whether or not other firms 'represent' clubs or countries. However, it is unreferenced so I have removed it. Also, the article as a whole is a real mess, seems to be a catalogue of violent events as opposed to anything resembling encyclopedic content. GiantSnowman 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that sorts that out then! heh, ye, I found it odd reading, it's... it reads like a bullentin board! Very poor for a wiki article. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Football FLC nominee
Hello. Would anyone be interested in checking out this FLC, NK Maribor players? The article has one Support, but it probably needs a couple more to receive the FL star. Check it out and feel free to write your thoughts on the article's talk page if there is anything that needs to be fixed. Any help would be appreciated. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakeup in Scotland
I guess we will need to start a new article at Scottish Professional Football League. (see here) New season articles may need to be moved, as the division names will probably change. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also say we should move-protect the current leagues as no doubt some over-eager fan will mess up pages/histories. Any other admins disagree? GiantSnowman 12:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Though pre-emptive protection isn't really mandated in policy, I think this is pretty uncontroversial and would be for the best. Which pages are you proposing we protect? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Scottish Premier League (existing structure and division for clubs in 1st tier)
 * 2013–14 Scottish Premier League (upcoming season article)
 * Scottish Football League (existing structure for clubs in 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers)
 * Scottish Football League First Division (division for clubs in 2nd tier)
 * 2013–14 Scottish First Division (upcoming season article)
 * Scottish Football League Second Division (division for clubs in 3rd tier)
 * 2013–14 Scottish Second Division (upcoming season article)
 * Scottish Football League Third Division (division for clubs in 4th tier)
 * 2013–14 Scottish Third Division (upcoming season article)

That should just about cover it! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that every current SFL club will need to go onto List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which would then effectively become a list of all-time members........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, though we should probably re-name the article (remove 'former' as they all are!) GiantSnowman 12:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Another article. GiantSnowman 12:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cadu
Someone had moved the article about Ricardo Manuel Ferreira Sousa to Cadú (footballer) however that was a bad move as there are other articles about people known as Cadú, and they are all footballers. We already have Cadu as a disambiguation page, but Cadú (footballer) should also be a disambiguation page, and Ricardo Manuel Ferreira Sousa should return to his full name title. I can´t make the move, so some admin will have to do it. Best regards to all, and I hope everyone is having a nice begining of summer. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Long time no see! This is probably for WP:RM rather than an admin jumping in. GiantSnowman 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi GS :) OK, I´ll do that later. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Move request
If there are any uninvolved admins who have some time would you take a look at the move request at Airdrie United F.C.. There is a wee bit of impatience going on. Blethering  Scot  21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Parachute payment
I wonder if this is worth creating as a separate article. At the moment it just redirects to Premier League–Football League gulf. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

International goals... again
I'm talking about lists like this. I've gone through past discussions on this issue (like this and this) but I'm not sure if there's a clear consensus as to whether they should be included. I'm arguing against their inclusion, even if they're cited. We don't include club goals or club/international appearances so it's inconsistent to list international goals and for me they probably violate WP:NOTSTATS. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to remove all international goals tables from articles. GiantSnowman 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can see no problem or inconsistency in providing these tables. Also can see nothing in the wording of WP:NOTSTATS which indicates a violation either. Some explanatory text as a header before the tables would certainly be preferable, but for me non-excessive lists such as this are by far the best way to convey this notable encyclopaedic information. Sgt Elvan (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes it "notable encyclopaedic information"? Have the international goals of the player in question / thousands of others been the subject of reliable, significant coverage? GiantSnowman 15:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure reliable, significant coverage to cite every individual international goal could be provided should it be so desired. I am at a loss as to how these tables provoke such ire. Sgt Elvan (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, databases and match reports don't count as "significant coverage". GiantSnowman 15:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any policy-based argument against their inclusion, nor am I convinced by the "we don't list this, so we can't list that" generalisation. International goals are likely a highlight of a player's career, so belong in their page, and a simple chrono list, properly cited to reliable sources and (ideally :-) complying with the MoS, isn't a bad way to include them. That's as well as words, not instead of, but words tend to mention debuts and firsts... NOTSTATS speaks of "long and sprawling" lists of statistics without any context; a controlled stats section at the end of a balanced article, as in the Sander Puri example, wouldn't IMO fall foul of that. A huge list of goals in a proseless article would, but I'd have thought that was something that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * seems like trivial statistics, which I would say should be removed. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Struway I don't agree with any of the reasons argued for their removal. Though I see listing caps as a better idea. It just doesn't seem right to miss off say World Cup matches whilst having four entries for a hatful of goals scored against the Faroe Islands or whatever. Also discriminates against goalkeepers and defenders.--EchetusXe 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely against removing them. TonyStarks (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest concern here is creating a separate page like the ones for Abby Wambach and Christine Sinclair (both of which should never have been created in the first place). – Michael (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wambach one ended up as no consensus. Not sure of the other one as the page on deletion points to the Wambach page?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I nominated both of them for deletion. I know it ended up as no consensus. – Michael (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Taking a different approach. The separate articles make perfect sense in relation to Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Splitting. For some reason, these women have hundreds of goals and adding the to the player articles would make them too large. It's why we have season articles for clubs. Some make excellent use of them, but with other clubs, the seasons can be summarized with only a few sentences with RSes. Does that mean we delete all season articles because a few are simple to summarize? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Second deletion discussion for World Club Champions
List of world club champions in association football is up for discussion here. Members' opinions are valued. --MicroX (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that List of combined European football club champions, European football records, and List of football clubs in England by major honours won be proposed for deletion as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The first list is a strong case for deletion. The second list is somewhat a copy of UEFA club competition records and List of UEFA club competition winners—a merge or redirect seems like the appropriate solution. The last one is a similar case to List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners. Comments? --MicroX (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Club logo's
Can someone please update Simurq PIK's new logo? It's just I don't know how to load logo's to Wikimedia commons. I would be so grateful.

Logo can be found here http://www.azerisport.com/uploads/images/Simurq-500jpg.jpg

--NovaSkola (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't upload logos to Commons, you have to upload them to Wikipedia with an appropriate fair use rationale -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating by position?
Hi friends, is it a good practice to disambiguate footballers with the same name by position? This is a convention used in other sports that seems useful, given then readers are more likely to know a player's position than birth date (for example). But I can't remember coming across such a practice in the title of a footballer article, and consistency counts. So is this done? If not, should it be? --BDD (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally I'd say yes but the problem is, goalkeepers apart, many of them play in multiple positions through their career - the infobox position field causes enought wrangling on it's own. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should avoid disambiguating by position at all costs, given the fact that there are very few 'set' positions that players operate in, many playing in multiple. GiantSnowman 10:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ↑ What this guy says. BDD were you looking at a specific example of a player? --MicroX (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was inspired by an RM. But now that I think about it, I see the problem. I'm not quite as concerned about the changing positions, because we could always use a broader term, like (midfielder). But unlike baseball, football position terms have some ambiguity. (defender) could conceivably be a soldier, (goalkeeper) could be a hockey player, etc. So I guess we're stuck with birth years. --BDD (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BDD, I don't think that's the issue. I don't think anyone will see an article on "John Smith (defender)" expecting a WW2 veteran. The issue is that, even with borad terms, many players play in both defence and midfield etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, birth date is better to disambiguate than playing position in most cases, but I believe we should be able to use some common sense in cases where it would be much better to disambiguate by position. The two Danish footballers named Morten Rasmussen (the striker Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and the defender Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985)) is a good example. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a sensible move, as a one-off. GiantSnowman 14:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Obolon Kyiv - Obolon-Brovar Kyiv (Merge article ?)
During this season FC Obolon Kyiv withdrew from the Ukrainian First League during the season when their main sponsor (President of the club Slobodyan) withdrew funding. He then reforms the club as FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv and submits an application to the Professional Football League of Ukraine and its accepted. The club will now compete in next season's 2013–14 Ukrainian Second League.

I had already merged the two articles but it has been reverted without reason. IMO it is similar to why there is only one article for Rangers F.C.. The continuum of the club is the same. Jumping around from one article FC Obolon Kyiv to FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv is not the best way to provide information about this entity. Opinions, especially from those in that managed to hold Rangers F.C. together? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a case of one club being shut down and the same owners then starting a new club by a similar name? GiantSnowman 10:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; it a case of one club being shut down and the same owners then starting a new club by a similar name. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  13:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If merge this articles, many other articles should be merged for the same reason, e.g.:
 * FC Skala Stryi and FC Skala Stryi (2004)
 * FC Politehnica Timişoara and ACS Poli Timișoara
 * NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005)
 * NK Mura and ND Mura 05
 * Chester City F.C. and Chester F.C.
 * Rushden & Diamonds F.C. and AFC Rushden & Diamonds
 * K. Beerschot V.A.C. and Beerschot AC
 * R.E. Mouscron and Royal Mouscron-Péruwelz
 * Vejle Boldklub and Vejle Boldklub Kolding
 * FK Sevojno and FK Sloboda Užice
 * FC Politehnica Iași and CSM Studențesc Iași
 * Alex (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the articles should be merged, they appear to be seperate clubs - who owns the club(s)/their names are irrelevant. GiantSnowman 13:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So what was the basis that Rangers F.C. survived as a single article, when in real terms of finance and manangement the resurrected club is a separate entity? Is it historical reason? there must of been great debate about this when Rangers went down to the fourth level. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the same situation as Rangers. GiantSnowman 17:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we all can agree that FC Obolon Kyiv's history is nothing to write home about...Face-grin.svg —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing with FK Sevojno and FK Sloboda Užice is that the two existed separately until 2010, so the case is different. FkpCascais (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, Sevojno and Sloboda are bad example. Alex (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it is not a bad idea to merge both articles under the club's new name Obolon-Brovar and explain the reason for its name. The new club is based on the football academy of FC Obolon Kyiv, it also will continue to play at the same home field and its club's crest very reminiscent with the original Obolon. Unlike cases with CSKA-Arsenal and Skala's labyrinth of transformations, this merger is fine, yet need to be well annotated. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Stojković
Can page protection, small as it may be, be awarded to this page please? Since last year or so, a wise guy, using a vast array of IP, keeps insulting the player, calling him "Mustafa" or "gypsy" instead of his real name.

Poor Stojkovic, death threats on his life and now the grand humiliation, his WP page also constantly "killed"...Attentively --AL (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not enough recent disruption to justify page protection, though I have added the page to my watchlist and will monitor. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

List of fixtures on club season pages
In previous seasons I've added in all the fixtures on a page and commented out (due to the ongoing copyright battle between DataCo and numerous others), but reading this and this, can we now show all of the fixtures for a club on it's current season page? Should we even if we can? -- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, if it's a scheduled event and referenced to a reliable source. Number   5  7  10:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As this is returning to the UK courts as per the BBC ref given "The matter will now return to the UK for a final ruling, and the league said it was confident that this hearing would go its way, and provide "database protection for the English and Scottish football leagues' fixtures". We should wait until that has been completed and we should not put commented out entries in articles either as they are still visible in source. Keith D (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first of the references states that the appeal has happened (I may be misreading it)-- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not being a copyright lawyer, I wouldn't like to say with any certainty. Judging by the licence numbers at the footer of major news sites' fixture pages, Football DataCo still claim rights. Fansite networks such as Vital Football and Footymad have gone ahead and published though. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * while it's not proof this article appears to suggest that football dataco has stopped charging and this one appears to give an explanation why. This one suggests that further appeals were based on 'live information' including goals, cards and substitutions.


 * wrt numbers on the pages showing fixtures, it may be that they didn't see the point in removing them (or forgot to). as an example this is one publishers 2012/13 announcement on last seasons fixtures (with licence statement) and this is this seasons one (without licence statement)-- Spudgfsh (| Text Me! ) 20:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Name order
Q: is footballer Elderson "Uwa Elderson Echiéjilé" or "Elderson Uwa Echiéjilé"? An IP user has added a roster from fifa.com of national teams which puts the name as "Elderson Uwa" and also mentioned that his former team, Stade Rennais, lists him as such on their website, but most other reliable sources, including most other pages on fifa.com, have the name as "Uwa Elderson." Which source or sources should be treated as most authoritative here - is this roster PDF more official than the other pages on fifa.com? Should we go with the larger body of sources either way? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Uwa is his first name, Elderson the main surname. --AL (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Or so i thought, turns out the FIFA.com ref now "resting" in his article shows him as ELDERSON UWA ECHIEJILE. It's quite confusing really, take Finidi George's example: he was referred to as GEORGE FINIDI (GEORGE being the "obvious" choice for birth name) for years, turns out he's called FINIDI GEORGE. I'm at a loss... --AL (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh that's what I'm asking in my comment. A user added that ref which says "Elderson Uwa", but almost all the other pages on fifa.com, as well as many other reliable news sources, use "Uwa Elderson". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines and grounds for hooligan firm articles.
I've been asking myself a question of late, what notability rules are we applying to the hooligan firm articles. I for one think the page Yid Army has to go, I've tried to find stuff for it, as I have been working on it in my sandbox a little. (Sandox/Yid Army But even still after finding some additions to support that the firm does exist, I still don't think there is enough to have an article. I still can't pass it on notability.

These articles I think also fail GNG.


 * Arsenal firm
 * Baby Squad
 * County Road Cutters
 * Derby Lunatic Fringe
 * English border front
 * Hull City Psychos
 * Middlesbrough Frontline
 * Naughty Forty
 * Newcastle Gremlins
 * Red Army (football)
 * Soul Crew
 * Subway Army

Either a huge improvement is needed or I feel the lot should be put to the sword. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it fails WP:GNG, it doesn't really merit an independent article. There'd be a reasonable argument that, if verifiable, something could be added to the relevant club page. Hack (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or we create a List of English association football hooligan firms (or whatever) and list them all there with a brief bio supported by reliable sources and get rid of the "in April 1982, Chopper Johnson single handedly beat up 20 Arsenal fans" stuff. GiantSnowman 17:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that a list of hooligan firms already exists, and has a section for England. Is a separate list really necessary with the content we currently have? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Football hooliganism has spawned tons of mostly quite poor books on the subject such as this for example for the Soul Crew. A good place to start if trying to bring to GNG rather than just deletion. My main issue with these types of articles is just when is football violence attributable to a hooligan 'firm'. Just beacause Millwall fans fought someone in 2011 doesn't make them part of the Millwall Bushwackers. The article on Subway Army states active until 1982 and then details crowd trouble in 2011? --Egghead06 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Half the time hooligan memoirs deserve a place in the fiction section as much as the non-fiction shelves. Very few could be regarded as WP:RS. And if we did use them we'd soon find that every single firm was described as "All decent young working class lads, salt of the earth.", "Never went looking for trouble but stood our ground if it went off" or "Never ran, even when outnumbered". However, there's a lot of academic material on the subject, as even the most cursory search of Google Books shows. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That Subway Army article reads like something straight out of one of those piss-poor hoolie books, and really needs a good kicking :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When I point out these articles because I believe they fail GNG and will not pass GNG at all because there is a huge lack of web content, newspaper articles and poor books. The books that have been referenced have been critizied by reviewers by not being accurate on the subject and there is a huge lack of news by independent published sources. I feel these articles will clearly fail in the format they are currently in, the subject could do with a review by the project community along with the notability on the subject. Govvy (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would also be very keen to see any WP:RS which gives membership numbers for any of there 'firms'. They were mostly a random and fluid bunch of people who supported the same team. Don't remember each one having a membership number !--Egghead06 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also wanfered already what are the notability rules for firms. It would be good to archive some consensus on this. FkpCascais (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be covered by WP:ORG. Thanks, C 679 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They clearly fail both criteria in WP:ORG and most provide no useful information (especially DLF). I'd remove them all as much of the information is in Football hooliganism. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 18:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Scenarios
One user is launching a campaign against qualification scenarios when it is clear that there is a high consensus (various different talk pages involving a MUCH higher number of other editors) that they should be included. The 'justification' is basically taken from deliberately misreading policy and ignoring others. The three claimed are OR, CRYSTAL, and SYTH. The first clearly doesn't apply - due to the rules on that very page. The calculations involve nothing more complicated than the calculations within the group tables. the second doesn't apply - that's clearly written about "anticipated events" and in any case all it says is the info must be verifiable, which by the first one I mentioned it it. The third one again doesn't apply. No-one is combining multiple sources. He also claims this has been discussed before - however, the discussion was a ridiculously small one - it is clear from the various talk pages that many people disagree and didn't get a change to have a say. Plus "consensus can change" anyway (and as i said, clearly from the various talk pages there is a high consensus and only one objection - with that objection only being from a deliberate misreading of policy) - So the question is is why is this one user being allowed to act in this way? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I too am opposed to these scenarios (or scenaria if you're the type who prefers stadia to stadiums, but I digress) but because they're trivial. However, WP:CALC argues that they are neither OR or CRYSTAL: "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." I think you mean SYNTH, which is sub-section of OR. I advise against them, but will not revert them.
 * Are you looking for someone to discuss this with the other editor or do you want to point that editor to this discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 188.221.79.22, where is this high consensus and these various talk pages you speak of? WP:CALC says "basic arithmetic" or "converting units". Determining scenarios is not basic or simple. It requires taking into consideration several factors and match results. It is easier to determine scenarios on the last two match days rather than in the middle of the tournament. Also, it is more likely that scenarios have proper sources near the end of the tournament rather than the middle. My recommendation is having a source before including them. --MicroX (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial, Walter, yeah. Take the example 2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_AFC_Fourth_Round. There are no tie-breakers included in the article, so when USB and KOR finish tied 2nd, who advances? No way of knowing. So they provided useful info. They are only a temporary problem anyway because they disappear after the next matches. -Koppapa (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As to consensus, the brief conversation higher up this page, the latest of many on the subject, was against them. A significant point was that it referenced this relatively recent dispute resolution that came down against their inclusion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know of those discussions, but still. What about the coloring of teams. Above article or even better this. That's unsourced and OR or whatever the same way, isn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I keep well away from such articles if I can, and the DRN decision was pretty clear. But my personal opinion would be: I don't see the point of including complicated scenarios that are only going to be relevant for a short time. There are plenty of news services. But, if such a scenario were explicitly referenced to a reliable source, where "explicitly" is defined as "risking copyvio if it were included", then I wouldn't remove it. But Wikipedia isn't the place for anything unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification Tiebreaker criteria is on the main page, it could be repeted on all qualification pages. But still without a ref the scenarios are OR. Stigni (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * :-) They are now assigning variables see Confed Cup example. That's too much for me too. -Koppapa (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I love the way they have suggested that Tahiti could still qualify: "Tahiti will qualify if they defeat Uruguay by 8+ goals AND Spain defeats Nigeria AND the total margin of victory of the two games is 20 or greater, or is 19 and Tahiti scores at least 7 more goals than Nigeria." Fantasy football or what! You have to admire User:HatterAlex and User:Pitdood for the efforts they have made for such a transient piece of information. In 48 hours, the games will be played, Tahiti will go home and Spain will probably go on to win the tournament. (WP:Crystal Ball or what?)  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Brian Kidd inclusion on Man City managers Template
Could you please visit the Manchester City F.C. managers template Talk page Template_talk:Manchester_City_F.C._managers and leave your opinion on whether Brian Kidd should be included? I am trying to build a consensus as there does not seem to be any MoS for these templates. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The logic that caretaker / interim managers should not be included is plain daft. By that logic, managers who won trophies during their time in charge (eg Benitez at Chelsea) would not be included. I think the rule should simply be if someone has managed a proper competitive game, they should be included. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My take on this is that this template should show only the official managers of each club. Yes, Brian Kidd was given license to manage by the club, but he wasn't an official appointment, he was simply a guy who was already there who was asked to fill in while the club looked for a replacement. This is in contrast to, say, Rafa Benitez, who was not an employee of Chelsea's when they asked him to be interim (read: not caretaker) manager, and who was signed on a full manager's salary with full manager's benefits, just for a short period. Kidd had none of these. And let's also not forget that this isn't just about Brian Kidd. City have had 12 - yes, twelve - period where either a caretaker was employed, or members of the board managed the club as a committee. I don't believe that any of these should be included. I mean, heck, 12 caretakers to include is excessive on its own. It's probably an English record for the most caretaker managers or something, but that's beside the point. Carrying on this point, I don't see the newspapers saying "Manchester City hires Pellegrini as club's new manager to replace fired Kidd" or "Insipid Manchester City will get antidote to Brian Kidd in Manuel Pellegrini", but they do say the exact same, replacing "Mancini" for Kidd. It's obvious to me that Kidd does not count as an official manager.
 * As I commented on JMHamo's talk page, I believe this has parallels with other areas where a business or entity would appoint stand-ins, such as the way that John McBeath was appointed as a stand-in after Garry Cook was forced to resign over Cancer-gate in 2011 until Ferran Soriano was appointed a full 12(ish) months later, but he would never be considered the official CEO, and rightly so the infobox on Garry Cook's article specifies Soriano as the successor, not McBeath. Similarly, all official sources (though not Wikipedia, I note...) always insist that Edward VI of England was succeeded by Mary I of England, not Lady Jane Grey. Those who have not been officially inducted into their role shouldn't be considered part of the succession. Statistics pages such as List of Manchester City F.C. managers are where we should record the achievements of incidental inclusions, not on concise templates such as this. Falastur2  Talk 13:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said over there... Definitely should not be included. Can be difficult to source for historical figures, they are usually of very limited significance, and I am not sure that any reliable sources out there list caretaker managers in a similar way. It is like putting John Prescott onto the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom template because he used to work as acting PM whenever Tony Blair spent a week at Cliff Richard's house. Also, Micky Adams allowed Gareth Owen to manage a pre-season friendly last summer. Should Own not be included on the template? After all some caretaker managers don't even take charge for one match so Owen's tenure was much more significant than others we would have to put on the templates.--EchetusXe 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how significant the role was in the manager's/club's history. Rafa Benitez was a caretaker at Chelsea in the 2nd half of last season, would you exclude him? We need common sense. If a caretaker is in control for a game or two, then maybe not. If they're there for a more substantial period, or perhaps an important period in the club's history (taking control for a Cup Final etc.) then I'd agree to include them. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbitrarily cherrypicking which caretaker to include is just going to lead to on-off edit conflicts. We need to be consistent and either included all or none, although I'm in favour of including them for the sake of comprehensiveness. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd include them myself as well. GiantSnowman 12:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Before this gets archived, do you think a general consensus has been reached about inclusion of Man City Caretaker managers in the template from the opinions expressed here and Template_talk:Manchester_City_F.C._managers? Can I go ahead and make the change to include them now? Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Nieuwenhuizen - A late hommage?
Don't know if this is a possible article. Definitely not a professional, but received a fair ammount of media coverage for several months (here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/dutch-youth-soccer-linesman-dies-attack_n_2232427.html, here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243084/Richard-Nieuwenhuizen-Three-teenagers-charged-manslaughter-allegedly-taking-attack.html, here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/21/richard-nieuwenhuizen-dutch-death-linesman and here http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/dutch-linesman-richard-nieuwenhuizen-dies-1472175 are some examples). Was killed in front of his own SON, playing for one of the teams!!

Absolutely seething with the "penalties" handed to these animals yesterday or so, ONE year to the minors, SIX to the adult, father of one of the beasts. Guess the Dutch penal system is also a joke, here's this pic i retrieved from the web, "charming" (here http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-shocking-brutal-last-picture-of-dutch-linesman-richard-nieuwenhuizen-being-beaten-to-death-by-three-teenagers/)...

Attentively, RIP Richard --AL (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not worth an article per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Nevertheless, a sad and shocking tale indeed. GiantSnowman 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just like Oksana Makar's life itself was not worth an article, (however) the murder of Oksana Makar was (as established per Wiki discussion). So I personally would welcome a Death of Richard Nieuwenhuizen Wiki-article. Both Makar's death and Nieuwenhuizen's death got international and national widely coverage.
 * I thought it'd be that way, just clearing the doubt i had. Thanks o' giant one! --AL (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer Death of Richard Nieuwenhuizen over Murder of Richard Nieuwenhuizen since it seems there was no intention to kill him (unlike Oksana Makar who was set on fire).

Both deaths where horrible, shocking and unnecessary. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A great suggestion Yulia, let's wait for more inputs! Cheers --AL (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well worth an article (WP:BLP1E "should be applied only to biographies of living people").--Egghead06 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to the recently deceased & their families just as much as it does to you or I. GiantSnowman 19:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BDP not WP:BLP1E and of course anyone considering an article on such a subject should consider this.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Death of..." is incredibly viable as an article given the amount of Dutch news coverage. Thanks AL--I'll get on it; though I don't much like those articles on principle, the WP community writes them up all the time and there is no reason not to do it here. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Now a bluelink. I welcome help adjusting anything that's unbalanced and adding further references, especially from those better able to search and judge reliability of sources in Dutch. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the visiting youth team keep playing on? I remember the B-III Jugend was disbanded at least for the season. -Koppapa (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unable to find out without OR; the club's news archives don't go far enough back and what comes up in a web search is a lot about previous problems with that team. The club did cancel all football immediately after, so I put that in the article for fairness' sake (if I'd found a statement that the team was discontinued, I'd have been happy to put it in too). I'm keeping all the minors' first names out of the article, by the way, although they are in some news sources. I think digging deep on the team or documenting what was later said about it would be similarly problematic from a BLP point of view. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Players being released
Every time someone says "but what's the point in waiting until 1st July?", simply point them at this - "Stoke City have opted to hand winger Jermaine Pennant a one-year deal, 12 days after deciding to release him". GiantSnowman 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your point?--EchetusXe 06:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely Pennant should be listed as having two separate spells at Stoke now? He was released, wasn't he? – PeeJay 09:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we've had this before, with Fabio Aurelio at Liverpool. If it's within the same transfer window then it's just a contract expiry, it serves no purpose to list it has two spells. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Released", in English football, is code for "a player whose contract is due to expire on 30 June next is not going to have that contract renewed". As Stoke changed their collective minds before 30 June, Mr Pennant's contract never did expire, so his being given a new contract after all is no different from any other contract renewal. It's a continuous spell of employment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But even if it happens in July when the contract lapses, it would still be considered one spell - the player was not away from the club for any competitive games, and no-one else held his registration, so to list it as two spells would be a needless and misleading technicality. Quirks like this are best described in the article text. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Technicalities
After a run-in with fellow User:Mentoz86 (which i have briefed about the discussion i now bring forth), here's without further ado:

1 - categories: the player position categories are, as far as i know, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL GOALKEEPERS, DEFENDERS, MIDFIELDERS, WINGERS and FORWARDS (someone mentioned time ago WINGERS should be included in MIDFIELDERS but i don't know what came of that suggestion). Mentoz says that, if a player is a full back (meaning he only plays in the flanks, as opposed to just "defender", which would imply player also lends a hand as stopper), he should get the ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL FULLBACKS category. I beg to differ, if he's a fullback he's a DEFENDER, in the same way a SWEEPER he's a defender. If we start elaborating on the player position categories, then we would also have to have ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL DEFENSIVE MIDFIELDERS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL SECOND STRIKERS, etc, etc; please, whoever may know it, don't forget to say if the MIDFIELDERS category includes WINGERS, so that i: 1 - stop adding it in new articles; 2 - remove it in old ones and replace with MIDFIELDERS.

2 - he told that we, in storyline, have to write "2006-07 (or whatever year) season" ALWAYS, we can't just write "2006-07" without the "season" bit. Does this have to do with the "You have to keep the reader in mind" approach? If it does, i'll quickly give my two cents: someone who knows all the "clean streets" and "dark alleys" of football and reads any soccer-related article will know what "2006-07" means; in the opposite end, anyone who does not care about the sport but just happens to come across one of its articles will not know what "2006-07 season" means unless someone explains it to them, wouldn't you agree?

Inputs please, cheers --AL (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) is a subcat of  and relevant articles should be placed in the former, not the latter, per WP:SUBCAT.
 * 2) we should assume that our readers know nothing at all about football, and therefore we should be as simple yet specific as possible, and yes I agree with Mentoz to use "2006-07 season" rather than just "2006-07". GiantSnowman 09:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 - i tried to be as elaborate as possible, to no fruition, my suggestions are not positive :( Thus, lots of work awaits us, because if we have to write ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL FULLBACKS as the category instead of more encompassing ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL DEFENDERS, then we have to change all midfielder categories (ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL DEFENSIVE MIDFIELDERS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CENTRAL MIDFIELDERS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL PLAYMAKERS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL ATTACKING MIDFIELDERS) and the forward ones (ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL STRIKERS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CENTRE FORWARDS, ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL SECOND STRIKERS). Or where's the coherence then?
 * 2 - if the reader knows nothing about football, then "2006-07" or "2006-07 season" would mean the same to them. That's OK i guess, my sincere thanks for being the only one (as nearly always!) interested in my discussions. --AL (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1)Those categories - or at least some of them - already exist, and indeed should be populated as applicable where reliable sources which confirm specific position are available.
 * 2) Saying "2006-07" implies a two year period of time, whereas "2006-07 season" implies it was a shorter period of time albeit over two calendar years. GiantSnowman 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the vast majority of cases, the "2006-07 season" form is preferable for prose. I avoid it on subsequent mentions in the same sentence though. An example from an edit I made yesterday is "The 1997–98 season was Manchester City's second in the First Division, following relegation from the Premier League in 1995–96." Oldelpaso (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Celtic F.C. and consensus
Hi all,

Please take a look at Talk:Celtic F.C. where there is a discussion as to whether the Old Firm and Sectarianism sections should be joined together or separate.

There is also a discussion over which version should be on the page while consensus is being reached. If users could respond to that issue it would be helpful.

Thanks, Adam4267 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1995 UEFA Intertoto Cup
Hello, I'm a user of the Italian Wikipedia. Who exactly won the 1995 UEFA Intertoto Cup? Our article says Strasbourg and Bordeaux, but, according to UEFA.com, also Karlsruher and Tirol Innsbruck (now Wacker) are recognized as winners... --VAN ZANT (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * UEFA at their official website goes as far as the quarter-finals and doesn´t go any further, meaning that all 4 wining teams are winners. However, RSSSF lists semi-finals in which Strasbourg and Bordeaux won... I would go with UEFA official website as for winners, but seems strange that the semi´s were played, according to RSSSF, and didn´t count for deciding the winners... Strange at least. FkpCascais (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like the semis weren't feeded into the uefa website system. Text mentions them, Wacker and Karlsruhe didn't enter the UEFA Cup and don't list the win on their pages. I'm sure there only were two winners. -Koppapa (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an error. Karlsruhe and Tirol Innsbruck lost in the semi-finals, and didn't enter the 1995–96 UEFA Cup. Walls of Jericho (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've found out the "truth" about the 1995 Intertoto Cup. If you please take a look at the video of the game Strasbourg-Tirol Innsbruck 6-1 exactly at this moment, you can see that a Strasbourg's player is grasping the Intertoto trophy. For this reason, the match played on August 22, 1995 was valid for the Intertoto Cup: Strasbourg conquered the trophy, and not Tirol Innsbruck. Also, some days ago, I contacted the German club Karlsruher Sport-Club and they confirmed me that they only won the 1996 edition, not the 1995 one. --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Same category?
Are Category:Sarmiento de Junín footballers and Category:Club Atlético Sarmiento footballers the same category? For the same team? Xaris333 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have merged the categories at . GiantSnowman 12:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. Xaris333 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football club - position last season
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering what people thought of changing the way last season's position is represented in the club infobox. Currently we generally use "Premier League, 7th".

However, I've never really liked this, for two reasons. A minor gripe is that "7th" isn't particularly formal language, but more importantly, I don't think it gives much context. Finishing seventh in a 20 team league is very different to finishing seventh in a 8 or 10 team league.

What I'd like to see instead is it presented as "Premier League, 7/20", which gives readers a bit more context.

Thoughts? Number  5  7  13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In principle, I'd agree with adding context. As to format, I'd prefer to use words where possible, like e.g. "7th (of 20)", which is perhaps more meaningful to the casual observer than just numbers/symbols. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I doubt someone completely unfamiliar with football would have any idea what "7/20" was meant to represent - they'd think it was a fraction.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be happy with that too. Walls of Jericho (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally! I would prefer 7th (of 20). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree but do we need the brackets? Doesn't "7th of 20" work fine? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical world cup qualifiers goal scorers
I have a plan to add all goal scorers, among other information, to the past World Cup qualifiers. Who could provide me with a reliable SOURCE? The goal scores after 94' were already added. For 94' qualifiers, the AFC zone scorers are missing. RSSSF only has the last name, which is not good. I want to a source with full names. FIFA.com does not have this information. FootballStatWhore (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. I found it on another RSSSF page. Full names of the goal scorers. FootballStatWhore (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Man of the Match
Hello gents. Over a year ago I made a request for the "Man of the Match" field on Template:Infobox football match to be fixed. Because—obviously— it's not appropriate for women's matches. To date, I haven't had the courtesy of a reply over at the talk page. I wonder if any of the gents here would be so kind as to correct the infobox, to put an end to nonsense like 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup Final (Man of the Match = Ayumi Kaihori). Thanks in anticipation, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We just need a parameter adding  which changes the displayed wording to "Woman of the Match". Unfortunately beyond my technical know-how. GiantSnowman 19:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Player of the Match" would be better, if any techies are passing please. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also good, both seem to be in use - just not for the men's game though. GiantSnowman 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the standard term for it in the women's game.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After a quick Google search, there seems to be a slight preference for "woman of the match".-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a field that allows you to specify an alternate award name? Hack (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Knighton
Is anyone familiar with the Michael Knighton situation at Manchester United in the late 1980s? In the last few days, a seemingly single-purpose editor has come along and decided to remove statements from the Michael Knighton article because the references provided no longer work. Given that accurate accessdates were provide for the refs, I'm pretty sure this isn't kosher. However, this isn't the worst of it; the user has also taken to describing Knighton as an "artist and poet" because he's had a bit of work displayed in Cambridge and published a couple of books of poetry. Now, I will admit that those things could lead to one describing Knighton as an artist and poet, but I get the feeling that he isn't exactly the world's greatest renaissance man and the user is simply stretching the facts to suit an agenda. I would appreciate any input into the situation, especially since the user has added an RFC to the article talk page. – PeeJay 11:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Peru national football team
I plan to take the Peru national football team article to FA review. I still need to finish polishing the last few sections (Olympic record and below) and the references (mainly the dates, but I also added a few refs without formatting them). At this point, I would appreciate any comments, quick reviews, and suggestions. What mainly troubles me is the article size, and I've tried using WP:SUMMARY to truncate events to only relevant parts. If you find any unnecessary repetition, please point it out. Thanks in advance! I hope you enjoy reading the article (at least the "finished" content).-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good news. Everything is nearly finished. I just need to improve the reference format in the "Stadium" section and re-write the "Honored players" section. Everything else is ready for review (comments, suggestions, etc.). All comments are welcome.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Seedings (Champions League/Europa league)
Surely if scenarios that involve working out that 9+3=12 count as OR, then the seedlings projections on the champions League and Europa League pages are also OR - I don't see any sources listed that give any verification to which teams are/are not sourced. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is a seedling projection? --MicroX (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This. -Koppapa (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And the ones for the qualifying/play-off rounds as well. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Europa League play-off round and group stage for example involves working out which teams are transferred from the CL as well - and since that could very well be all the best teams from the relevant stage, there's got to be HUGE amounts of OR into working out that even if all the best teams are transferred, a team will be in a certain pot (EL group) or seeded/non-seeded (EL play-off. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully Professional Leagues Project Page update
After spending some time and effort improving the referencing on the Fully professional leagues project page I've realised that there are a lot of missing leagues and a realisation that the page is not very useful. It's led to this discussion on how to improve it. After a lot of time and effort I've come up with this as a better, clearer and more complete effort.

Unless there is any major objections I'm going to replace the current page with my updated one.

I'm tempted to put in colour coding so it is more obvious which leagues are professional and which are not.

Does anyone have any other suggestions? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 13:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:PKNS F.C.
Could someone take a look at the subcats on Category:PKNS F.C. - we've ended up with footballers and players cats, I don't know which is the convention for Malaysian clubs. Plus they need renaming to F.C. to match the article name. Le Deluge (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have redirect all to purely because that is the older category, not necessarily the 'correct' one. I'd agree with WP:CFDS to rename to match the parent article. GiantSnowman 10:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Squad numbers
I believe that squad numbers remain 'valid' even in the limbo/downtime of pre-season that we are currently in. disagrees and believe squad numbers should be removed and then re-added when they are released in a few weeks - even though many players retain their squad numbers for years. Seeking wider input here. GiantSnowman 11:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed GS - there's no point in removing them and then reinstating most of them exactly as they were a few weeks later. A quick look at most teams websites will show that last seasons's numbers are still published as 'current' - including Bradford's: .Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree. The matter was separately raised with this edit to Birmingham City F.C., when Will bcfc thought it'd be better to remove them, on the basis the numbers would change anyway. I explained why I'd previously left them in (with a note clarifying they were last season's and the new ones weren't out yet) at the user's talk page, but wasn't bothered enough to push the matter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if the official site still shows the players as having squad numbers I see no reason to remove them. On a related note, are pictures of the squad training considered a reliable source for squad numbers? A series of IP editors seem very keen on adding squad numbers to new signings on the Reading F.C. page even though the club haven't published a list for the 2013–14 season yet. T 88 R (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, training numbers and actual squad numbers do not match up. GiantSnowman 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good english in 2011–12 Olympique de Marseille season ?
Hello. I'm french WP user.

Is it good english in the text of the three pictures ? If an english user can see if their is mistakes or not.

Thank you. --Guiggz (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Real Pharm ---> Real Pharma
Can some admin move the current FC Real Pharm Ovidiopol to FC Real Pharma Ovidiopol? There are references for the move which I will make once the admin only move is made.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Page is already moved. And can some admin delete page FC Real Pharm Ovidiopol, cause this is incorrect spelling of club's name so this redirect shouldn't exist? Alex (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The redirect should remain as a valid search term. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is an error in spelling. Alex (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a reasonable error for someone searching for the club to make, then it is suitable as a redirect. Look at Dinamo Kiev and Dinamo Kyiv and Dynamo Kiev and Dynamo Kyiv. GiantSnowman 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response for this fix.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RM related to football club Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F.
There is a RM on the parent student body here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So what do I do with this?
I recently discovered this page: Free Agents with I-League experience. Obviously this page should be deleted but the thing is that I have never deleted pages or lists like this before so I do not know how I can justify PRODing this page. If anyone has the time and knows how to justify deleting this page then that would be excellent. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already been PRODded and WP:LISTCRUFT is fine. GiantSnowman 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A merger proposal
I proposed a merge of West African Nations Cup into WAFU Nations Cup. Please discuss it here. After the merge, I will write up the details of the 2002 edition. FootballStatWhore (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One consequence of sticking to the July 1 rule
I haven't been completely strict in leaving summer transfers until July 1, but I let a few wait so that they wouldn't get reverted, and I know thata lot of other editors have waited. The problem is now there's a backlog of player, squad and template articles that still haven't been updated, because it's impractical to do 2 months worth of transfers in one go, plus all the new transfers that have been made in the last give days. It's all very well requiring strict accuracy with regards to contract dates, but I would say it's much less accurate to list a transferred player with his previous club now, than with his new club on June 25th. My focus is on German football, and there just aren't enough editors to wait half the summer then do hundreds of transfers in one go - the fourth tier starts its season next weekend. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to only make changes after July 1.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of reverting told me otherwise... ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Kagame Interclub Cup
The tournament has already concluded in July 2. Someone interested may update the page.
 * Seems like a minor tournament. Are there really Template:2013_Kagame_Interclub_Cup 5 to 6 pages needed per edition. I'd say 1 suffices. -Koppapa (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The five articles relating to the 2013 edition could and should be merged into one. GiantSnowman 16:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The same is also for the 2012 edition. I think it is a overkill so merge all the pages to have only a page for each edition. Stigni (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I proded the four articles and corrected the teams in the tournament. Group stage results are not that easy to find. -Koppapa (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Need subject-matter experts to look into new article Jordan Older
Greetings! I'm the administrator who declined a speedy deletion request for Jordan Older on the basis of some news stories about his career in Brazilian top-level soccer. I don't think it's a hoax, but I also don't feel fully comfortable about the sources in the article either.

I also can't find a database like other sports have to search a player's career history. That's why I'm here: could somebody with familiarity verifying playing histories for US soccer players and players in Brazilian leagues take a look at the article? Somebody here could probably do in five minutes what would take me five days of Google searches. Thanks in advance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only logged on briefly atm so haven't been able to investigate fully, but at first glance this one could take some time to verify. It isn't a hoax, but his achievements have been greatly exaggerated. It appears he has had trials or contact with the clubs mentioned, but did not necessarily play for them professionally. For Ljungskile, he had a trial but didn't make the grade according to . At San Diego Gauchos he played a grand total of 117 minutes in what was then the third(?) tier of US soccer . Most Google results for Brazilian clubs are drowned out by recent press releases from his company. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yohann Lasimant
Has two articles – Yohann Lasimant and Yohan Lasimant. Someone who knows the subject might want to make a merged article from the two. Currently on trial at Orient. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the latter to the former i.e. to Yohann Lasimant - but purely because it has existed for 3 years more, nothing to do with 'correct' name. I would merge but I'm not sure that's a good idea as they have parallel histories. GiantSnowman 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Conference National
According to the official Conference website, the official/unsponsored name of this division is actually "Conference Premier". That also appears to be the name used by all major news outlets during this period where it is not sponsored by anyone (in contrast "Conference National" seems to get no hits at all in Google News). Any reason why it should not be moved..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been the division's official since the start of the 2007/08 season after Blue Square became sponsors. I'd support it being moved. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nigerian clubs suspended after 'scandalous' scorelines
I am sure that this story warrants an article but under what title? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, there could be grounds for creating a pair of articles (one for each match) or include it in an article about the playoff tournament in question. What surprised me more was that I couldn't find a page on worldwide records in football.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those results don't warrant an article. They mey be fishy, but that happens once in a while. -Koppapa (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think this warrants an article. This is amazingly funny news (79-0!!!!!!) but these teams are also amateur teams which do not even have articles themselves. Also, do we even have match-reports or player names? Just so much would be missing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have Match-fixing in English football and Match fixing in Romanian football and lots of others, yet no article on Match fixing in association football as a general overview (where this should probably be included). GiantSnowman 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not proven is was fixed. And in lower elagues this may be more common than you think. Here is a report from Germany with a 54-1 result. -Koppapa (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While your assertion that there is no definite prrof of fixing (yet) is correct, the fact that the other four play-off games in the first two rounds yielded a total of four goals makes these results highly suspect. I think we really should try and come up with a general "matchfixing in football" article as per GiantSnowman. Madcynic (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Spanish speaker required
Other than "dos cervezas por favor" I no hablo Espanol. Can someone who does please check this - has Jeremie Lynch moved to El Salvador on loan, or is he just trialling as Google Translate seems to imply? GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A better translation than google translate of the opening para would be "This Monday, Roberto Gamarra, the Firpo coach, will advise the board whether Jamaican striker Jeremie Lynch is worth signing." Goes on to say he's played two games for them. Looks very much like he's on trial with them. Valenciano (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to have signed with them - 6 month loan deal according to various Jamaican football forums but I cannot find anything reliable confirming the nature of the deal. GiantSnowman 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea he's been signed according to that second report. --MicroX (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores knockout stage records
The way to record the knockout matches baffles me. We have something like this:

It is quite clear that Olimpia won 2–1 in aggregate over Santa Fe. Why do we write "Point 3:3"? Is it totally redundant? The official site simply records the aggregate score and the penalty shootout if necessary. It does not write "Point 3:3". FootballStatWhore (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also found this strange, even confusing at first.
 * However, it is not totally redundant if you consider games in which one of the legs ends in a tie.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to FootballStatWhore, there was a discussion a while ago as to why we adopted this method instead of the simple aggregate method. On paper, CONMEBOL treats each knockout match-up like a two-team group where teams advance on points, then goal difference, then goals scored, then away goals, then penalties if necessary. Although this points system is completely redundant—as whichever team scores more goals will advance—it is how CONMEBOL has its regulations written up for its competitions. UEFA has its regulations written up to explicitly say that the team that scores more goals advances, ignoring the redundancies CONMEBOL has in place. Although I don't mind if we simply adopt the UEFA-aggregate method in CONMEBOL competitions, some users wanted to "go by the book" and include Conmebol's redundant tie-breakers. The discussion is somewhere in the archives of this project. Also, as you have noticed in that link you provide, Conmebol's journalistic branch ignores the points system in knockout match-ups. So you could have an argument that their journalists also don't care about the points system and we could go full aggregate method. Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --MicroX (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a discussion that took place with regards to this topic. --MicroX (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

UEFA Super Cup article names
In the old days, the UEFA Super Cup didn't always take place in August, and was two-legged, so it often took place during the second half of the season. For cinsistency, we usually name the article after the first half of the season (i.e. the 2013–14 Super Cup is at 2013 UEFA Super Cup, but some of the later ones have been moved, such as the 1973–74 edition, which is at 1974 European Super Cup. I think this is misleading - most people (and UEFA) would understand the 1974 competition to be the one during 1974–75, between the two teams that won the European trophies in '74 (although this edition was never played), regardless of when the match was actually played. What do others think? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. As you say, each year's Super Cup is between the winners of that year's European Cup/Champions League and Cup Winners Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League. So the winners of the 1972–73 European Cup and CW Cup contested the 1973 Super Cup, regardless of when they actually played the game(s), both logically and per UEFA, RSSSF, etc. All other language Wikipedias would agree. The 1974 one's the only one that's wrong, though, isn't it? it was moved quite recently. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The year it was played should be respected in the title. This situation has happened quiet a few times in the past. For instance I believe the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship was to be played in 1999 but was postponed to early 2000. The tournament name still reflects the year it was played in regardless of the intended year. The first U-20 Copa Libertadores was intended to be played in 2010 but was postponed until 2011. Although it was meant to be played in 2010, the tournament was called 2011 U-20 Copa Libertadores but the rules with respect to age limits were altered to reflect as if the tournament was played in 2010. --MicroX (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thing is, it's not the job of Wikipedia to decide what something ought to be called, if all reliable sources call it something else. FIFA, RSSSF, etc, call the first club world championship the 2000 CWC, and so do we. Conmebol call the first under-20 Copa Libertadores the 2011 edition, and so do we. According to UEFA's Super Cup history page, "The first UEFA-sanctioned Super Cup matches took place in January 1974, although it was officially the 1973 final." (my highlighting) If UEFA, RSSSF, etc, call it the 1973 Super Cup, so should we. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the 1979 AFC Women's Championship was played in 1980, still the common name is 79. -Koppapa (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * RSSSF does weird stuff sometimes. For instance, for the Recopa Sudamericana, they've been naming the editions by the year in which its champions won the two competitions. According to RSSSF the 2011 Recopa Sudamericana was played by Santos FC and Universidad de Chile but this is not true. It was played by Internacional and Independiente, 2011 Recopa Sudamericana. Santos and U. de Chile played the 2012 edition. --MicroX (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UEFA must surely get the casting vote here. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Islam in association football
I have just started an article on Islam in association football which is perfect for expansion, and I need some help please! Would be good to get it on the main page as a DYK, especially during Ramadan... GiantSnowman 20:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great idea .. however, in my humble opinion, as it currently stands, the article is very EPL and Euro-centric. It is simply looking at Islam and how it has effected/interacted with English/European football. I think it would be better to take a step back and make an outline of what the article is about, and it's "objective", and then adding in the details. Personally, I think an article of this nature should focus more on the effects of Islam in Muslim nations. I'd love to contribute but not sure what sort of approach to take in developing this subject. TonyStarks (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be a bit of both. I know there are Muslim sportclubs and teams, but I am struggling to find many reliable sources about them (as opposed to the impact Muslim players have had on European football), but agree there should be a proper history. GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

More expert input needed
Some guidance may be helpful re whether or not there is any valid consistency argument between Talk:Associação Académica de Coimbra and Talk:Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F.. Naming or not of FC Bayern in relation to English Bavaria has also been mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Found a vandalism user
Found a son of a bitch when I went through the historical COSAFA Cup pages. User Jasonisgek deliberately changed and input much incorrect information. For example, he changed the goal scorers of Zimbabwe in the Final of 2009 tournament to a South African footballer plus a non-exist player, and this misinformation sustained four years. (I already changed it back.) Since all his changes are just nuances (e.g. change the flagicon to a different country), they are very difficult to be detested. Someone please go through his "contributions" and check them one by one. (Good thing is that he didn't make many "contributions" altogether. Should be a quick work.)

FootballStatWhore (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jasonisgek: Contributions: Jasonisgek
 * Jasonboy11 (his alias): Contributions: Jasonisgek

Charlotte Fakeovers
Is the CharlotteFakeovers twitter feed worthy of an article? For the uninitiated, "Charlotte" refers to the registered office of Murray International Holdings who owned Rangers F.C. until selling them for £1 shortly before their liquidation last year. "Fakeover" refers to the ever thickening plot of the reconstituted Rangers club and the grubby behind-the-scenes relationship between oldco owner David Murray, fall guy Craig Whyte, purported "newco" owner Charles Green and the highly irregular administration of Duff & Phelps.

The material (leaked documents, recordings) is apparently all genuine, but according to Alex Thomson (journalist) "beyond toxic ... radioactive" post Leveson. Nevertheless some has made it into the mainstream. Highlights include the Scottish Football Association (SFA) granting the old club a European license over cosy lunches in 2011, even though they knew they were insolvent and cheating. Interestingly for our purpose, all the documents are available under a creative commons 2.0 license ... Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Le Classique
Could someone please take a look at History of Le Classique. The article creater wants to get rid of it but the prod was contested and U1 does not apply, but I have suspicions that the article got created as a cut and paste copyvio. Someone who knows the articles around French football could provide some insight. Agathoclea (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

More eyes on AS Monaco please..
We've had yet another spate of hoaxing/vandalism, this time that went unrecognized for a while. I've re-protected it for a week, but we probably need to keep an eye on it going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography
Hello. I need your help with the Template:Infobox football biography. I use this template in greek wikipedia. I know that wanting help for a foreing wikipedia isn't so appropriate but noone could help me in greek wikipedia.

In the template there is a parameters like. I want to do the same about the parameters clubs1, clubs2 etc. In this parameters we used a template for teams calling Football teams. I want, if one or more parameters of clubs1, clubs2, clubs3 are using, if they don't have the template Football teams, then will categorize in a certain cateroty.

For example,
 * clubs1=
 * clubs2=
 * clubs3=Chelsea F.C.

would categorized because in clubs3 the Football teams template in not used. Xaris333 (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you doing using templates like that? What do they actually do? Just use plain wikilinks, it's really not hard. – PeeJay 13:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Its really useful. Nevermind. I just need someone how know the parameter as i explain before. Xaris333 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Structure Discussion
At the FAC for the Peru national football team, there is currently a discussion on the structure of national football team articles. Please provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Position by round for current MLS and NASL seasons
It seems that another editor is trying to make MLS seasons appear more European. . Since clubs do not play the same number of matches per week or even month, suggesting that matches played equates to rounds is WP:OR in the minds of most MLS team maintainers. The fact that Chicago is in the cellar is simply a coincidence that they are in 16th place at the current time, but that could change. A team with fewer points may have a game in hand after the team being reported has been pegged in their current place and after that team plays and wins, and the matches played are equal, the position would change. I don't see why this should continue. Is there consensus to ignore this sort of comparison or should it be avoided, or something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are websites that provide that particular information for particular teams/leagues in europe. I've not seen one that does MLS or NASL though. In many countries there are matches that get postponed (due to weather or cup commitments mainly) and teams end up with 'games in hand'. This is a page which could be used to provide a reference for the 2012–13 Wigan Athletic F.C. season which includes the result by round.  It was actually a season where Wigan spent a large proportion of the end of the season a game behind everyone else as they were winning in the FA Cup.  For a particular team these stats can be useful as they are generally used to show where the position of the team at the end of the day they played their nth game.  I am very wary though of extrapolating those over a whole league (Read this for one argument on the subject).  It is important that that the information is referenced, if there is no reference for those stats then they are probably not notable enough to be included.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor Walter Görlitz comes to his own conclusions and pushes through his vigilante edits across multiple MLS club season pages wiping out content as he sees fit. As one may see, different club season pages present content in various formats without a standardized consensus, which is OK.  What works for one successfull club may be overreaching for another and vice versa. Khvmty (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be pleased if someone else could make this point on the 2013 Chicago Fire season article as the editor is not only applying round-by-round results for the club, the editor is also incorrectly applying the stack=yes parameter at the end of groups of the template and a few other changes, all are which removed and I'm called a vandal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Walter, it is hard to take you seriously. You come out of the blue to the article you did not create and maintain and start making multiple edits wiping out content and reverting edits.  You act as an authoritative figure and do not provide explanation on what you want to accomplish, rather citing general Wikipedia rules. Bullying will not get you anywhere.  I politely ask you to stop. Khvmty (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not out-of-the blue, I have been making this change on many articles when I notice that they have been applied. And it's not your article (see WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't wipe-out content, I removed material based on consensus and logic. Extreme language like that makes it difficult to take you seriously. Did you read the linked discussion? Do you find round-by-round results in other 2013 MLS team season articles? And when you don't even know how to use templates correctly... it may be time for some experienced editors to start watching and editing that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fabrizio Miccoli
As a result of a poorly worded article in the Australian media, a number of IPs are changing Fabrizio Miccoli's club to Melbourne Victory FC. The club have not announced anything and it seems that he may yet sign for U.S. Lecce. I have undone these changes a couple of times but would welcome some eyes on the articles of the player, the club and the league. Thanks Hack (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now is official that he signed for U.S. Lecce. If vandalism persist we could protect the page. Stigni (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lecce club website says the contract is to be finalised Wednesday - not quite there yet. Hack (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical doubt
I was going to embrace WP:BOLD and move André Monteiro to "Ukra" (noone really calls him André or Monteiro as a professional), but i found this article after typing UKRA in the search engine, United Kingdom Rocketry Association, the initials being precisely U.K.R.A.

In the light of that, should the article be moved to "Ukra (footballer)" or is it just "Ukra" OK still? Thanks in advance, cheers --AL (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Guess i don't learn...did just that (WP:BOLD) and took the matters into my own hands. An admin will easily undo me if i did something wrong. --AL (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

FIFA records of Israel and false information given by another user
Hello everyone, I open this as one user called Uishaki refuse to understand his edits are false and that his 3rd sources are writen by Muslims and Arab that does not recognise Israel such as RSSSF article writen by anti-Israel Hassanin Mubarak who keep posting anti Israel and anti-Zionist claims (you only need to read the first 3 lines to see his biased - Proff - RSSSF, the fact that you can see that even he post that all players were Jewish and played as Israel show you another fact). I told him that FIFA is the most important source as they are the goverment that publish reports related to tournaments they placed. first of all a little bit of history provided by the PFA, IFA and FIFA. The Eretz Yisrael Football Association established in 1928 and played international football since then as Palestine/Eretz Yisrael National Football Team. Almost 99% of the players played between 1928 and 1948 (the independence of Israel) were Jewish and all of those records were given to the Israel national football team. Here is a source that show you that the term Palestine in 1934 was the Palestine Mandate, which is the predecessor of the Israel national and team played under that name have no relation to the 1988 Arab one but to the Israel one.

Please see FIFA PDF source that put an end to the entire issue - FIFA PDF

"Egypt qualified in 1934 after playing against the team representing Palestine (at the time of British mandate - Hitachduth Eretz Yisraelit Lakadur Regel)"
 * Page 28/44 of PDF - Show you that Palestine was played by the Eretz Yisrael FA (they also played with shirts that had Magen David on them and had the Jewish and later Israel anthem Ha-Tikva)

The first Jewish national team, and as such the forerunner of Israel was the delegation from Palestine (at the time of a British madate) which had played the qualifiers of 1934/38.
 * Page 39/44 of PDF -

The modern Palestine, and arab state, has no connection with the Jewish delegation from Palestine (at the time of a British madate).
 * Page 41/44 of PDF -


 * Affected articles affected by this are - Israel national football team, 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification, Palestine national football team results, 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 6/Group 7), Palestine national football team, Israel national football team records, Template:Country data Mandatory Palestine


 * I wish many users will read the above and allow us to post the right information in the articles above without having him reverting to his false versions.

– HonorTheKing (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First thing King, stop reverting him no matter how wrong he is, you could get a blocking over it, even if you are in the right as far as the info is concerned, edit warring isnt the answer. I will red over them after dinner if I get the chance. Murry1975 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Before posting here I reverted to natural edit that was posted nto by me nor him, but you can see his history and see he reverted to his versions, which breaks the rules as he didn't even cared posting here)

HonorTheKing is spot on. The FIFA source is fairly definitive, stating "Palestine entered the qualifying competition for the first time in the run-up to the 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan. The Palestine that had participated in previous competitions in the 1930s was actually the forerunner of today's Israel team, and as such bears no relation to the national team of modern Palestine." Someone needs to correct the Palestine national team article, as its first game clearly wasn't in 1934. Number  5  7  15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an Arb-com ruling on Arab-Isreal articles, his edits may breach it, if not directly at least the spirit, lets be careful and not get pulled in by the POV edits he is continually inserting, lets go by ALL guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom ruling only relates to certain issues - 1RR is applied to certain editors who have been "warned", and there is also some boilerplate text for Israeli settlements. Nothing that affects this. Does anyone know when the modern Palestine team's first game was? Number   5  7  15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A 1RR applies wether someone is warned or not, these arent directly but the spirit of the edits, the POV, is against the spirit and we should proceed with caution. Murry1975 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first offical Arab Palestine played thier first ever game in 1998. They played thier first game which is recognised by the Arabs states and thier FA in the 1953 Pan Arab Games, but all players were infact Egyptian but that didn't bother them to count it as such.

– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Palestine did participate in various tournaments during this period, the first in 1953 at the 1st Pan-Arab Games in Alexandria, Egypt, where a team composed mainly from players from the city of Gaza, which at the time had been under the command of Egyptian authorities after the 1948 war" - According to the RSSSF which the user keep posting. And you can see that in 1943 and later all players were Jewish.

I simply reverted the article to the established state when I saw the edit war. I was in no way taking sides. I would simply be pleased to see consensus achieved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since then Uishaki reverted to his versions without taking part in the talk pages.
 * Consensus is the original statements in the article, but its getting messy, rpp or admin intervention is going to be the only way. Uishaki seems quite determined. Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Uishaki has also changed so that this points to the Palestine national football team. I have reverted him once but don't wish to get into an edit war or enter into a discussion with him. There's enough disharmony in the world without bringing it to Wikipedia.  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have tried to ask him over for some chit-chat, found this on his page, as mentioned above, so he is aware of the nature of A-I editing. Murry1975 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As he still havn't posted here I want to publish another source, this time from UEFA.com - Article


 * "In mid-August 1928, a general meeting was held to lay the groundwork for a national football association and to request affiliation to FIFA. On 6 June 1929, the Eretz Israel – Palestine Football Association was accepted as a full FIFA member."

– HonorTheKing (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Official international footballing contacts started in 1934. Since then, Israel have participated regularly in the qualifying competitions for the FIFA World Cup, reaching the final round in Mexico in 1970. As for the Olympic Games, Israel were among the last 16 for the first time in 1968, also in Mexico, and then again at Montreal in 1976."
 * The problem is that you are dealing with a man on a mission who seems to be totally blind to any attempts to get him to communicate. Perhaps an administrator can have a word with him before sterner measures are taken. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems as though reliable sources are conflicting on this. If you look at the FIFA.com fixtures and results, you'll find the 1934 and 1938 World Cup qualifiers listed under Palestine (PLE). See http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ple/fixturesresults/gender=m/index.html#.  Also, the team is named "Palestine, British Mandate" for those matches, whereas Wikipedia refers to the team as "Palestine/Eretz Israel".  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points must be cleared and understood prior to acting on the articles: Facts & Perspectives: Proposed solution: Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The accusation made against Hassanin Mubarak by HonorTheKing has no grounds. The RSSSF source is reliable despite showing a different point of view.
 * 2) FIFA's information is also reliable, although not infallible, and holds a different point of view.
 * 1) The situation is similar to that of the Yugoslavia national football team. The Mandatory Palestine national football team ceased to exist after 1948. In fact, its last international was in 1940 (according to Richard Henshaw in The Encyclopedia of World Soccer).
 * 2) The Mandatory Palestine team had no important records. According to Henshaw, they only won one friendly game. It participated in the 1934 and 1938 World Cup qualifiers, but did not win a single game (losing to Egypt in 1934 and Greece in 1938).
 * 1) Give both the Israel national football team and the Palestine national football team articles the 7-1 Egypt match as their first international, with a note explaining the controversy.
 * 2) Right after that, place their true first international (as Israel and the current Palestine). The Israel article already has this established, and the Palestine article should also have it in this format.
 * 3) As for World Cup records, again provide both of them with Mandatory Palestine's losses. Add a note or statement along the lines of "Competed as blah blah" (such as in Croatia national football team).
 * 4) If FIFA has an official position on the matter (awarding all records to one team), that should be stated in the article as well (such as in Serbia national football team).
 * What team articles should be linked from 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification and 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification? The edit-warring on Template:Country data Mandatory Palestine has these bouncing back and forth between   and  . Perhaps we need a new article for  .— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your conclusion. Just as we have a Yugoslavia national football team article, we need to create one for Mandatory Palestine. The problem here, however, would be the naming. I think we should use the "official" name (for neutrality standards)...but was there one and what was it? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In my previous edit, my implied suggestion was Mandatory Palestine national football team for the article name and "Palestine, British Mandate" for the link display name to match the FIFA.com results. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll make a draft for it.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * About the RSSSF article you can read the following by the author

– HonorTheKing (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "At the qualifying campaign for the 1934 World Cup in Italy, Palestine took on Arab rivals Egypt, their coach was Polish-born Shimon Ratner “Lumek”, who had immigrated to Palestine after a playing career in Austria with Jewish team Hakoah Wien, while the players, all born outside Palestine, came from Jewish clubs Maccabi Hashmonayim Jerusalem, Hapoel Haifa and Hakoah Tel Aviv. No Arab player was selected to take part. As a result the-so called Palestine National Team that participated in international games where the Zionist anthem “Ha-Tikva” was played out alongside the English anthem of “God Save the King” before a game, was boycotted by Arab, Armenian and Christian Palestinians alike – though they would never had a chance of selection with a Zionist coach, appointed by an all-Zionist board of the PFA. Arab clubs founded a rival association, known as the Palestine General Sports Association (PSA), which lasted until the 1936 revolt against the British occupation of Palestine."
 * Even he say it wasn't the Palestine he try to talk about. The simple fact that players worn White shirt with Magen david, all players and staff were Jewish and played under Ha-Tikva points out that they show it was played like the later Israel team.I am sorry but saying that the source is relible is far from true, have you read the article he wrote?, The use of the word Zionism and what he writes simply make it bias.
 * Here is a PDF article that FIFA publish, this is writen with facts per the FIFA books and records. This article was updated on 18/6/2013 about the upcomming 2014 World Cup.
 * I want you to read the following pages - PDF updated a month ago
 * - Page 9 of PDF
 * "Palestine (PLE)
 * First entry: 2002
 * Notes:
 * The modern Palestine, an Arab state has no connection with the Palestine (then a British madate) delegations that played in the qualiying games for the 1934 & 1938 under the name of Hitachduth Eretz Yisraelit Lakadur Regel."


 * - Page 53 of PDF
 * Israel (ISR)
 * "First entry: 1934
 * "Notes:
 * "A Jewish delegation from Palestine (then a British mandate) played at the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938. It was the first Jewish national team, and as such the forerunner of Israel. Was re-located from Asia's to Europ's group in 1954."

– HonorTheKing (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So here you go, how can people say it was the Arab Palestine as so many PDFs relased to newspapers and other keep saying its in fact Israel records. Published one month ago, by the organization that national team play in who make the related tournaments like the FIFA World Cup which is talked about in this talk page.

– HonorTheKing (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not here to judge which side is correct in the dispute. Our purpose is to provide information on the position of reliable sources, not use the encyclopedia's voice to take a partisan position in favor of any side.
 * What FIFA states is important, but not the last word. Andrwsc has even shown there is significant discrepancy on how FIFA reflects the football record. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I just hope once this happen it won't be reverted back by User:Uishaki or rewrite the articles to what he wants and refuse to hear the others.


 * Great! Don't worry about the other user's behavior. :-)
 * The Mandatory Palestine national football team is now created. It's a rough start, and I still need to add specific citations from the Henshaw book, but better than nothing. Please add to it as much as you like. This article should also fix the problems at the 1934 and 1938 World Cup articles. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe O'Neill
Hi, does anyone know about Joe O'Neill. Someone has changed his place of birth from Blackburn, West Lothian to Blackburn, Lancashire and nationality from Scottish to English. Soccerbase just has Blackburn though does have Scottish for his nationality. Keith D (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Mattythewhite should know as O'Neill played for York City a while back. JMHamo (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are my findings:
 * ScotlandsPeople.gov.uk do not have a record of a Joseph O'Neill born in 1982.
 * Findmypast.co.uk lists a Joseph John O'Neill born in Blackburn in 1982
 * TheFA.com list his full name as Joseph John O'Neill TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

C.D. Graneros Unido
I have put C.D. Graneros Unido (and 8 more clubs) up for AfD. It is an amateur-level club which does not seem notable enough to merit its own article page. The project's input is welcome. --MicroX (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , please be aware of WP:CANVASSING... GiantSnowman 10:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Statistics for goalkeepers
Some time ago I asked about Special infoboxes for goalkeepers which show the conceded goals instead of the scored goals. The consensus was quite clearly against it (with several good reason in my opinion). What about the career statistics tables? Should we list the conceded goals there instead of the scored ones? In my opinion not (with mostly the same reasons as for the infoboxes). This stuff already exists at Iker Casillas but I don't want it creeping in further and reverted an edit at Manuel Neuer. Was I correct doing this or are statistics tables some thing different?
 * If it became a thing (and it's a big dubious 'if') then it should be clean sheets rather than goals conceded. Conceded would be like listing 'goals missed' for strikers which for some players would run into the hundreds. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Casillas' stats are completely unsourced there, I notice.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stats for red cards / goals conceded / assists are all just a big no-no. GiantSnowman 10:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Leslie Walter Minter
Hi, I created the article on italian wikipedia, I say it if you want create the article here.. he was a pioneer of italian football, an Azzurro (yep, he played for italian national team but I ignore what team) and he was a british soldier in WWII.. 2.226.65.34 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is here. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the name is right to be honest, there's a William Leslie Minter who was born in 1982 in Faversham, settled in Naples and had a child in 1928, he worked for a Italian shipping firm before returning to Ashford in Kent where he died in 1979. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * errors are always possible, I'm not perfect ;), so I need help from english/londoners users, if in London census there is a LW Minter born in 1890 Rsssf is correct, if there is a Minter born in Faversham maybe there is the error.. anyway thanks for the link, I'll control on neapolitan newspapers if there is something about him in 1979.. if anyway somebody can control UK Army census it would a big help, my sources say in 1943-1945 he came back in Neaples as UK Army officer.. 2.226.65.34 (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I created an article about him at Leslie Minter. I think that there is a 99% chance it's the same person. The link I provided above says he joined the UK Army, he was a 'Pilot officer' and became a 'Flying officer' in 1941. Everything seems to add up correctly, I just think the name is wrong, instead of 'Leslie Walter Minter', it's 'William Leslie Minter'. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably they're the same person but every source in Italy call him Leslie and the Littoriale says he was a londoner.. So I wrote that.. --151.58.31.130 (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

List of FC Seoul players
Further to the recent AFD, where it was generally agreed that the topic was notable but the article was in need of an overhaul, I have attempted to do so - but I keep getting reverted by the page OWNer. Further input at the article talk page welcome as we really need some solid inclusion criteria here. GiantSnowman 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

George Iordanidis-Kaza
Could someone please keep an eye on the above article? I think it was created by the man himself. He keeps adding reserve-team appearances to the infobox for one. Thanks. -  Dudesleeper  talk  23:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the subject actually notable? Looks a million miles off to me... Mattythewhite (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice amount of effort put in here but Greek fifth division and failed to get a contract in the Wessex League? Now in the thirteenth level of English football! How is this guy ever notable please?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A merger proposal
I propose that Brunei Premier League be merged into Brunei Super League. Please discuss it here. Thanks. FootballStatWhore (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Challenge to Articles for deletion/Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament deletion
I'd appreciate some input here User talk:Postdlf, where an editor is claiming evidence of the subject's notability (none of which was presented in the AFD); this is not my subject area. Or I can just tell him to go to DRV. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now listed at DRV here. postdlf (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nike away kits
Can someone with the skills please knock up a batch of basic kits templates for the new Nike half-and-half designs? a la Bradford City away this season - Orient also use a red/white version, numerous other clubs use orange/yellow. GiantSnowman 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Foundational move suggested
The move discussion at Talk:C.D. Chivas USA has swung a bit off topic. The request is to move the club article from C.D. Chivas USA to Chivas USA based on Common Name. Nothing unusual there. However, the second person to respond seems to be suggesting that this should be a precedent and the first of other moves stating that Both Manchester United and Real Madrid should be moved and drop F.C.. Perhaps someone with additional understanding on why we use the full legal names of the clubs and not the common names can respond (and possibly even close the request). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just going to go with what I see from the clubs in countries like India or Thailand or even worse... Myanmar or whatever, where the clubs are named after companies. Dempo S.C. is sponsored by Dempo the company. What would happen if we drop the S.C.? I would rather have S.C. than "Dempo (Football team)" and "Dempo (Company)". It would be silly. Same with Honda FC and Honda. There are many examples where this is the case. So that is my two cents. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consistency is going to be hard to maintain. Leave UK clubs with the F.C. in their names but we don't have to let this practice rule the rest of the world's football clubs. According to WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --MicroX (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consistency isn't going to be hard to maintain at all, because we don't need to make moves like this. Number   5  7  19:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where disambiguation is needed (as with Liverpool), the F.C. is useful as disambiguation, but where it's not, it's arguable that we can do without it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Number 57, yes it will be hard to maintain consistency because we do not all share the same views and the issue is not black and white. Chivas USA is the common name while C.D. Chivas USA (or the act of abbreviating Club Deportivo) is just a poor copy-edit of abbreviating football club to F.C. (just look at this ridiculous title). I know we want consistency which is the reason Manchester United is not in place over Manchester United F.C. but outside of the UK, not all football clubs are just football clubs. Most are sport and social clubs, be it Club Deportivo, Sporting Club, Club de Deportes, Athletic Club, Club Atlético, etc. Since the naming convention of clubs around the world is inconsistent, we should rely on what the reliable sources say. --MicroX (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Each football team article's title should be analyzed by its own sources rather than be used to set as a standard for other article titles. For example, in the case of Manchester United, adding the "F.C" to it is completely unnecessary and unsupported by sources (check GoogleBooks, which shows 217,000 hits without the "F.C." and 3,900 hits with the "F.C." Obviously, here a move to the WP:COMMONNAME would be most appropriate. However, when compared to the case at C.D. Guadalajara, which MicroX proposed to rename (see ), the situation is completely different. In this case, the "C.D. Guadalajara" is actually more commonly used for the team than "Chivas Guadalajara". A more thorough search also shows the name "Club Deportivo Guadalajara" to be somewhat more used than "C.D. Guadalajara", but that apparently did not reach consensus. I hope this helps.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, team names should not be considered on a case-by-case basis. See point five of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."). Number   5  7  20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So Inter Milan should be moved back to F.C. Internazionale Milano? – PeeJay 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The original move was possibly the worst decision I've seen on football-related articles, particularly given the circumstances under which it occurred (conveniently almost immediately after the previous one disappeared off the talk page). Number   5  7  21:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * F.C. Internazionale Milano would be the endonym. Slightly different issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stepping aside from the debate over the other club in Milan, if we're going to stick to Wikipedia's naming criteria, then we should look at them as a whole, rather than as five individual parts. I prefer a consistent approach to selecting a name, rather than a consistent naming formula. A consistent approach in this situation would be to make names as concise, natural and recognisable as possible, without unnecessarily compromising on precision. So for Watford you would probably stick with FC/F.C. in preference to Watford (football club): why unnecessarily be less precise, only to have to add parentheses for precision? For Accrington Stanley you could safely leave it at that: why unnecessarily add FC/F.C.? Cardiff City or Non-League Town... a borderline call, but one which we could make once and then apply consistently. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to MarshalN20, Google Trends shows the complete opposite of Google Books. Don't know why you are only using Google Books when the Google search engine and Google Trends is just as relevant. Also, if F.C. Internazionale Milano was moved to Inter Milan, I don't see why C.D. Guadalajara can't be moved to Chivas Guadalajara.
 * In response to Number 57, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA doesn't specify how large or how small the world of similar articles is suppose to be. I argue that the naming criteria for clubs such as Liverpool F.C., Chelsea F.C. and Manchester United F.C. should be similar per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, however clubs from other countries/associations don't necessarily have to be carbon copies of the aforementioned English clubs per my previous argument on using reliable sources when selecting the article name. --MicroX (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WFC is right, and I support that to be the standard.
 * In response to MicroX, the Google search engine & Trends reflect results from largely unreliable (often personal or forums) websites. GoogleBooks is a better way to find the academic literature on the subject (or as close to it as possible).
 * Also, to separate English clubs from other clubs does not seem to have a valid logic. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should academic literature be the final word on a subject? The common name is used by the common man which includes the universe of bloggers and forum-users. I don't think we should disregard the results produced by Google Trends and Google's search engine. I'd also like to point out that Google Books omits pages from its sources. --MicroX (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Academic literature is a reflection of expert knowledge on a particular topic, hence its level of reliability when comparing it to a random person's post on a public internet forum. While expert sports analysts & newspapers are also reliable (in the realm of sports, of course), finding these results in the general Google search engine is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Thus, it is best to use the search functions provided by GoogleBooks, GoogleScholar, and other reliable databases (JSTOR, for instance).
 * But I feel that this discussion is off-topic, so that's all I will write of it.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To address the original subject of the thread: we've had the discussion regarding "common name everywhere" versus "best fit on a per-country basis" dozens of times, and the broader consensus has always been for the latter. And it's precisely because of that consensus that the move in question makes sense, given that the national guideline we have for MLS in particular is "use whatever's most common, because most of the time the letters don't actually stand for anything". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see at least one example of this type of discussion, if "we settled this before" is to be used as our main reason to all-but-ignore large swathes of the article naming policy. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I remember the matter being discussed, in this case in the specific context of German football, and lead to the formulation of WP:KARLSRUHER. As I see it, the tendency to remove letter extensions is a result of the understandable prevalence of English football on the English Wikipedia. In England, pretty much all football clubs are either FC's or AFC's, which means leaving them in, especially in prose, is kind of redundant. Of course in the case of article titles, they serve as far more effective disambiguators than putting something in brackets after a city name. Outside the UK however, you get a plethora of different letter extensions used for football clubs, which are often of interest culturally and/or grammatically. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Eyes to afd please
I hope this does not constitute WP:Canvassing, but I would like to solicit the projects attention the AfD discussions currently listed on the project page. I do not know why, but there has been marked drop in participation in discussions in the past few days. Since 15 July, there have been twelve new afd's listed, most of which still have not received any comments from this project. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, some 9 PRODs have expired and need admin attention. --MicroX (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the fact that the weather has become much hotter after a very cold winter may have something to do with it. Britmax (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, participation at AFDs from FOOTY members has been depressingly low for far too long. GiantSnowman 11:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources: Expert advise needed
I deleted ENTHOI Lakatamia FC after I closed the AfD. Today, the author showed up at my talk page, saying that the club was playing before 2005/6 in the top division of Cyprus league. They provided two references:,. Are they reliable enough to restore the article? I guess the club playing in the top division should be notable. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, soccerway is a really good source. -Koppapa (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The club's title seems a bit odd with the all caps and the two sources list the club name slightly different: as Thoi Lakatamia FC and EN THOI Lakatamia FC. --MicroX (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles exist on other wikis: e.g. Enosis Neon ThOI Lakatamia (Italy), ENThOI Lakatamia (France), ENTHOI Lakatamia FC (Portuguese) as well as in Greek. As you say, the capitalization seems rather random. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, I will restore the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disputed edits
I blocked this editor 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC) for making disputed edits while failing to communicate. Could someone please advise if his edits are alright since then? They seem to be getting reverted here and there and I'm worried about articles accumulating buried vandalism. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, still adding factually incorrect content. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. I've blocked him for 2 weeks and have left him a message to source future edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples are covered by WP:NCSP. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCSP. Thanks. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  00:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Texaco Cup and Anglo-Scottish Cup duplication
We have articles in existence for both the Texaco Cup and its successor, the Anglo-Scottish Cup. The ASC article, however, currently features information on both competitions and as a result duplicates much of the information from the Texaco Cup article. Would it be better to remove this duplicated content, or to merge the two articles? I would tend to support keeping them separate, but I suppose it depends if people would rather class the two as being effectively the same competition. Any thoughts? Jellyman (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Texaco Cup years were only added to the ASC article a couple of months ago. I'd support just taking them out again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My first thought was to reverse the changes but if you look at the references at Anglo-Scottish Cup there's a suggestion that a number of the reliable sources refer to them as linked competitions. However, if that's agreed then Texaco Cup should redirect to ASC. Eldumpo (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Scottish football league notability at WP:FPL
I recently started a discussion to decide which of the four new Scottish leagues are to be included in WP:FPL here. Feel free to discuss. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On a related note, the creation of List of Scottish Premiership clubs is surely a tad premature........./ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion and move list
I love the list this project maintains on deletion debates and move discussions. It's one of the reasons this is such a good, efficient project. If you're like me, you like to keep it up to date, but you've found it loads a bit slow, since it's on the (fairly large) main project page. Could we maintain the list on a subpage and transclude it onto the main page? --BDD (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Loads fine for me, but transcluding as a maintenance template makes sense. GiantSnowman 08:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail article
When I saw this Daily Mail article about football crests/badges, I thought I might find some interesting information that could be added to Wikipedia articles. I had a look at the West Bromwich Albion section of the article and found that it looked very similar to the relevant Wikipedia section, most of which I wrote. It seems sufficiently different so as not to be plagiarism, but it would be bad journalism if they had taken Wikipedia at face value without fact checking. I will note this all on the article's talk page. Do you think we need to do anything else? My worry would be if people thought that Wikipedia had plagiarised them (even though it can be proved otherwise). I also thought about maybe contacting the journalists involved, to see how their article was sourced. --Jameboy (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The editing history of the relevant articles will out-date the Daily Mail article should anyone raise a complaint in the regard; however as Wikipedia is not copyrighted they could have copied it word for word and it wouldn't have been an issue. I remember a non-league club's official website having a #History' section just copied & pasted from Wikipedia! As for the Daily Mail journalists, the less said the better... GiantSnowman 10:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia as a whole isn't copyrighted, but every piece of its content is copyright of that content's contributor(s), who release it under licence, and republishers shouldn't be copypasting without respecting that licence, which includes crediting the authors who contributed the copypasted content (for online content, generally by a link to the article copied). See WP:Copyrights, and also Mirrors and forks, which suggests what to do if you feel your copyright has been unduly infringed. There's a noticeable (noticed by me, anyway) amount of my writing in Tony Matthews' 2010 Birmingham City Complete Record book: e.g., the last two paragraphs of St Andrew's (stadium), which I wrote in 2009, appear verbatim apart from conversion from prose to a bulleted list, "uncertain" British weather changed to "unpredictable", and the music concerts put into chrono order (page 78 of the book, should anyone care ;-) In such a clear and provable case, maybe I should have contacted the publishers, not for my own vanity (they were hardly likely to search out every copy of the book to attribute that half-page to a list of Wikipedia usernames) but so they might "remind" their authors that WP content actually is copyright and they can't just copy word for word without regard to the licence under which the content is released for re-use. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an example of a growing amount of lazy journalism that goes on these days. I regularly read articles in the local press that use info from wikipedia almost verbatim, half of which I wrote. It's a sign of the times I'm afraid. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete edits
I'm not sure if this is of any use to anyone, but I've noticed a few incomplete edits when making, say, an edit for a player who's moved club - changing the infobox but not the lead, not changing the squad template etc. I've written a brief guide showing the minimum edits for a complete transfer edit: User:ArtVandelay13/transfer ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, might be worth adding it to the player MoS. Though I'd suggest you include adding the reference to the reliable published source confirming the transfer having been completed. Perhaps it's different where you edit, but that's the bit that's usually omitted from pages on my watchlist... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also think it's a great idea. Can we do it for clubs too? I've seen numerous edits where someone changes the league in the infobox, but doesn't update the last season section or the text of the article. There are also numerous examples of league articles and templates containing different information as someone has updated one but not the other. Number   5  7  15:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Panathinaikos F.C. honours?
In the honours section of the Panathinaikos article, it says that the club has only won 2 Greek Championships. However, the Greek league article says they have won 20 and to me that number sounds about right. Is there any reason why the Panathinaikos article only says 2 and lists just the first two? I didn't want to make edits since I'm not that familiar with Greek football and wasn't sure if the titles were maybe given to another "version" of the club since I know they're dealing with some financial issues. TonyStarks (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like PeeJay2K3 has fixed it. Thanks dude. TonyStarks (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Short description in the Persondata
I have another question about the SHORT DESCRIPTION parameter in the Persondata template: For footballers it's mostly something like Brazilian footballer or Football player and manager. Recently I've seen some editors removing the nationality of the SHORT DESCRIPTION parameter (i.e. Footballer instead of Brazilian footballer) while others were explicitly adding it. Persondata is not clear on this, but most examples don't use the nationality. Should we try for some conformity in the short description or can everyone do this according to his or her personal preferences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaellee (talk • contribs) 09:32, 19 July 2013‎
 * Wow. I had come across some cases of just "Footballer," but I assumed those were incomplete. I didn't realize anyone was actually removing pertinent information from the persondata. The short description should approximate what would follow the name on a disambiguation page, usually nationality and occupation. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I always try and out 'English professional footballer' or equivalent. A concise description and claim to notability. GiantSnowman 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the examples given at WP:PERSON mention any nationalities, so I've always presumed we're supposed to avoid including them. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. Of the four examples, there's "German philosopher" and "39th President of the United States." --BDD (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox timestamp changes
The above section on "Incomplete changes" reminded me of problems over people forgetting to update the timestamp in infoboxes when there was a change to the information, or the IP who deliberately puts it in a wrong format.

What to people think about having a BOT to check the timedstamps when there is a change in the infobox fields. It could work similar to the existing template dating BOTs of changing the timestamp if the user has not done it or it is not in the usual format while skipping the article if it has been correctly updated by the user.

We would need to define what constituted a change but that could be done later if there was agreement on having a BOT. Keith D (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How would a bot know it was the 'correct' date? GiantSnowman 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The timestamp being the date of the change so it could get the date from the revision history. Keith D (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * could a bot be sophisticated enough to differentiate between updating stats on a match day and other info box edits? GiantSnowman 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I suspect so. If we assume any update in which a player's caps for his/her current club are increased by one are matchday updates, we'd catch most of them. It's not perfect, but surely it's not impossible to program a bot to check for edits like that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Couple of footballer RMs
at Talk:Mladen Ristic, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (See logo left) There's another RM at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association. It seems strange that the parent Associação Académica de Coimbra and the Associação Académica de Coimbra - OAF have exactly the same badge if the football club is supposedly independent? Is it certain the football club still uses exactly the same symbol on its kit? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Division in opening sentence of lead in player articles
Hi, am I right in thinking we are encouraged to avoid mentioning the division of a player's club in the opening sentence of the lead? Part of it being that they often go without being updated after the division changes. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change that much more open than the club itself. Guess it is no problem for most of the top players (enough people on watchlist). -Koppapa (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If a player has been a part of a relegation or a promotion surely we should be more concerned about the fact that this has not been mentioned in the article?--EchetusXe 06:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have it, and personally I think it's helpful information so long as it's correct, please could we use the form "Joe Bloggs plays for Championship club Useless United" rather than "Joe Bloggs plays for Useless United in the Championship". Mr Bloggs doubtless does play for his team in whatever division they're in, but he also plays in other competitions, and if he's only just joined them, he hasn't played for them in any competition at all. cheers, A Pedant. Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of including the division, to be honest. If the club is of the same 'nationality' as the player, I'll just go with "Joe Bloggs is a Fooian footballer who plays for Club X"; otherwise, I'll use "Francisco Futbolista is a Spanish footballer who plays for Italian club Equipo Y". It is true that including the division gives you an indication of the calibre of the player, which may be useful in the lead, but the division may change so often that it's not worth the effort of updating every time. After all, what if someone forgets for a while and a player is indicated to be a member of a Premier League club that is now in League Two (for example)? – PeeJay 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also opposed, purely because of 1) the number of players that don't/won't have leagues updated when teams are relegated/promoted and 2) the numbers of leagues that change their names. GiantSnowman 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

New subpage for deletion and page moves
Since no one seemed to mind when I floated the idea earlier, I've spun off the Nominations for deletion and page moves list into a subpage. It should work like WP:RM/TR, so you'll be able to click "Edit" from the main page and still update the table. This will help for those of us who were experiencing lag loading the whole page, and should allow for smarter watchlisting. Should be easy enough to reverse if everyone hates it in practice, though. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios
I'd like for this issue to be revisited. For background: see DRN case on this issue where the content in question was regarded as unencyclopedic by all three neutral participants, though it should be noted that this resulted in a 5 to 3 consensus which can be construed as rather weak. A subsequent discussion at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification had a different consensus (not acted upon) that was at least equally strong by numbers. The requested DRN was closed for technical reasons. Should an attempt be made to reintroduce "next matchdays scenarios"? (As a reader I find the information very useful, though that is not in itself an argument for inclusion.) I'm certainly in agreement with the editors citing WP:CALC as a sufficient defence against WP:OR claims, as it is "a meaningful reflection of the sources" i.e. the competition rules and results. Only in exceptional cases can the calculations be described as difficult. I consider the strongest argument against inclusion is the claim that the information is inherently unencyclopedic. I certainly see the logic of this argument. I would personally disagree, per encyclopedic: "having comprehensive information or knowledge". In other words, once we have decided that the articles are includable the should be as comprehensive as possible. (Compare notability not applying to content.) Even if not considered encyclopedic in the traditional sense I believe it is covered by Wikipedia's first pillar: "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added). The transient nature of the information would present a problem only to print encyclopedias. It has been suggested that the inclusion runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RAWDATA, but I don't see either of them applying. The information concerns the current chances of teams, and does not predict future results, and the only statistics in the articles are the tables themselves not the qualification scenarios. In the event that it is decided that the information doesn't belong in article space, it could be added to the talk page without violating any rules, as the information would be useful for updating the article on the next matchday. In closing I'll also like to mention the colour coding seen e.g. here. To my mind this only differs in detail not in substance, so why is it more acceptable? 85.167.110.98 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This information is useful for many readers and is often also reported in the media, especially for major tournaments. The fact that the information only is valid for a limited time does not make it unencyclopedic. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply, because it describes the current situation. The real question is for which articles it should be included, because for the World Cup it can be sourced, but for minor tournaments this would not be the case. CRwikiCA  talk 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Useful' and 'encyclopaedic' are not synonymous though. I believe that the limited time for which the information is relevant does make it unencyclopaedic, since notability is not temporary. If information is not useful after the fact, chances are it wasn't that important to begin with, and that is certainly the case here. – PeeJay 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article on the competition remains notable, however the focus of the articles change to show which teams qualify rather than which teams may qualify. As I said, notability doesn't apply to content per WP:NCC. I'm sure the articles on e.g. the Harry Potter actors will change significantly over the course of their careers. A transient nature doesn't make something unencyclopedic (though it may be problematic for print encyclopedias); the terms "president-elect" or "prime minister-elect" are often important in our articles for a couple of weeks. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Next matchday scenarios' are pure original research and should never be used. Are you going to have a 'next matchday scenario' after the first game of the season? "20 teams could win the Premier League!" GiantSnowman 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Next matchday scenarios were used to see which team could secure a qualification (or lose all chance of qualifying) to the next round on the next matchday. They are not always original research as they are often reported in the press for e.g. world cup qualifiers. In any case, the routine calculation exception could apply. For the Premier League, where this format has not been used as far as I know, this would be a sentence or two below the league table saying things like Club X will win the Premier League if they defeat Club Y, or Club X will be relegated if they do not defeat Club Y. Obviously this would only happen at the end of a season. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Pure original research and they have a non-lasting effect. Remove on sight. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the main concern is original research. Do you see it worthwhile of including when it is sourced? Especially for World Cup, Champions League I have seen sport broadcasts and read news papers in which these last match scenarios were discussed. That being said, having a long list of scenarios is not a goal by itself. CRwikiCA  talk 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think original research is the main concern here. It's pretty obvious that "next-match scenarios" are easily worked out using basic arithmetic in combination with the tournament rules. There's no denying that the information is interesting either, but only in terms of manufacturing interest so that viewers will watch particular matches on television and read the reports in the newspapers. But in an encyclopaedia, even one that we can update at the drop of a hat, there is really no need for information that is only valid for, at most, a week or two. – PeeJay 17:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the editors concerned wish to waste their time on these scenarios, let them get on with it. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with DK here. The flipside of it not really being necessary to have information that's here for a few weeks only is that it will be gone after a short-while. If people are willing to do them, and their presence on a page doesn't disrupt it, then let them continue. Technically, unless referring to another source which has already carried out these calculations, then this is Original Research: it is "analysis or synthesis of published material". So, under a strict interpretation of these rules, we should delete on sight. My inclination is that we don't encourage it, but we don't waste too much time chasing it off either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Free agents
Just to remind people updating lists of transfers on season articles etc - if a player is released by club A, but joins club B during the same transfer window, the transfer should be referred to as being from club A to club B, so on his previous club's season article, the 'Released' in the 'to' column should be replaced by his new club when he's found one, and at his new club's season article, the 'from' column should show his previous club, not 'Free agent'. This is common practice in football media and is much more useful and informative to the reader. This edit explains what I mean ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that. If a player is released, he is no longer tied to a club. His registration is not transferred directly from one club to the other, so to imply that he moved directly from Club A to Club B is a little misleading (not much, but enough). If there is no time between his release and joining a new club, then you could say that it was merely a free transfer between two clubs, but that's quite different to if he was released on 1 July and joined his new club on 31 August. – PeeJay 12:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What I do, as here, is to put Released or Free as appropriate, and put parentheses round the player's new/previous club, and a note below each table saying Brackets round club names indicate the player's contract with that club had expired before he joined Birmingham (for incoming) and Brackets round a club denote the player joined that club after his Birmingham City contract expired (for outgoing). Informative without being misleading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin assistance
I need some help with a logo. This is the second time this has occurred. A non-free logo was removed and replaced from Sporting Cristal by an IP in December of 2012. Can an admin please restore this logo File:Cristal.png so that I may put it back on the article page. Thanks, MicroX (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Roster formats
Awhile back there was a (truly godawful) discussion about changing the squad template just to comply with the flagicon manual of style (which, if you aren't aware, inexplicably requires that flag icons never be used without the name of the country the flag represents). At one point someone actually changed the template to include country names, but this was quickly reverted because it was terrible. Anyway, there is an alternate squad list that was briefly considered an alternative. It is currently in use on basically every US/Canadian team article, but nowhere else. I find it incredibly annoying to see because it's absolute garbage and makes reading those pages far more difficult than the regular squad template. Can we get those pages to comply with the actual squad template, please? Also, don't make me regret even bringing this discussion up. I'd hate to see people ruin every single club article in the world just to comply with a the terrible manual of style rules. Eightball (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of changing the MLS rosters to the regular squad template. --MicroX (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the squad templates across all articles should be the same, no idea why MLS editors think they are exempt from standard conventions. GiantSnowman 09:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One template follows a long term standard at WP:FOOTY, the other a long term standard at WP:MoS. Indeed, the latter came into existence after several good and featured article candidacies came unstuck over the MoS. Whatever you think of either template, it's hardly accurate to describe users of one or the other as believing they are "exempt from standard conventions". —WFC— FL wishlist 18:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're intentionally trying to be different, I think they all just jumped the gun when the previous changes were considered and no one ever told them otherwise. It is weird, though, because there isn't a separate WikiProject for North American football, and yet they almost exclusively use the "new" template. Eightball (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So why is it so bad? Sorting by name and position is a nice addition. If it's only for the whitespace to the right, that could be used for pictures. -Koppapa (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I completely agree with Koppapa. That said, I thought the outcome of previous discussions was that we should design a new template, one which does not stick two fingers up to either the MoS or aesthetic concerns, but that in the meantime MoS-compliant variants should not be removed? I seem to remember Bladeboy doing some work on an alternative, and I'm sure there was at least one other version out there. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the point at which I leave the discussion. Frankly, I find it impossible that anyone thinks current squad template isn't objectively better than the "new" one. It's far simpler, cleaner, and easier to read. Please throw the manual of style out the window and just focus on quality, ffs. Eightball (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the template in use at Boca Juniors squad? Seems like a fair compromise to me... GiantSnowman 08:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ummm, how is a template which doesn't accomplish anything that the new style was intended to address a compromise? Frankly I can only commend our US articles editors for having actually managed to get traction in this ridiculous discussion after years of everyone else merely talking about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm, you may have failed to notice that the Boca Juniors example includes country trigrammes, which was a compromise between having no country name and having the full name. Number   5  7  13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I could go into detail on Comparison of IOC, FIFA, and ISO 3166 country codes, the fish example at the top of my talk page, or indeed the wording of the MoS. But I presume people's minds are made up at this stage, so I will just mention them in passing. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Until we have an implementation that meets the MoS and has consensus for universal use, we will have multiple templates, because we can't force articles to ignore the MoS (however hard we argue otherwise). That may be a bit blunt, but that's where we are. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of the MoS is the US/Canadian template exactly following and the standard footy template violating? --MicroX (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The part which points out that 99.9% of readers will not be vexillologists. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at WP:MOSFLAG. In particular: "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, and many flags differ only in minor details." MOSFLAG does seem to allow us to only display the (in this case) FIFA code: "When a flag icon is needed more than once, the flag-and-name template, for example 🇯🇵 Japan [produces 🇯🇵 Japan], or its shorter variant 🇯🇵 JPN [produces 🇯🇵 JPN] should be used first". I'd recommend adopting the table format currently shown at Template:Boca Juniors squad, which incorporates the FIFA code. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Boca Juniors template is a plausible solution. Also, every league season article and every competition article is in violation of WP:MOSFLAG. Why not make the flag itself a link to the respective country? --MicroX (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
The discussion wasn't at all godawful. There's no ruining of articles. Keep the subjective comments to yourself.

The point, however, was focused on whether screen readers can accurately describe the flag's nation to the visually impaired. At the time of the first discussion I was convinced that this could not be done with the template used for most non-MLS club articles. I have reconsidered that over time. There's no proof that which template is better for the visually impaired. One negative side-effect is the WP:OVERLINKing that is introduced, even with the other templates.

With that said, I still don't understand why a player's flag is important to show. Most rosters will have a few non-nationals and more than a dozen nationals. If the point is to demonstrate that the players are imports, perhaps a different way can be found.

Boca Juniors squad template is an elegant solution, but it only addresses the current season's player and will cause a nightmare for season articles.

I do not believe that either template is great and would like to find a better solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And one part of the reason why I am so adamant that we should not simply go back to the old template is that it is almost impossible to change a universal standard – even when there is general agreement that change would be for the better – and literally impossible when something as contentious as nationality is involved. For as long as there is not a universal standard, there is that faint glimmer of hope that we will one day move towards a better solution than either of the current ones. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current roster template. It displays the necessary information in a clear, simple, concise manner. Any reasonably intelligent person can see that is obviously the template we should use, yet we we still have this stupid discussion because you guys...I don't know. I really don't know. It's not hard. Rather, it SHOULDN'T be hard. But it is, for some reason, and this encyclopedia is shit because of it. You should be embarrassed, frankly. Eightball (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Manual of Style rules are better. I don't really understand Walter Gorlitz's point about season article though - could he expand I wonder? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Boca Juniors squad template appears to have evolved from the one use on the page of all current players. It also appears to be a squad template when the appropriate parameters are used.
 * Boca Juniors don't appear to have any season articles. My point was (is) that if a season article is created, and the template has been substituted into the 2012–13 season, what happens when player transfers are applied for the 2013–14 season? Or was the purpose of the template to illustrate that a screen reader-friendly version of the nation could be created? If it's the latter, I missed that point until now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I presumed the latter! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus for keeping the current format, but replace the 'Nationality' column with an fb-icon link, rather than the nation flag. Does anyone know how to make this change? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for anything. We have a proposer who believes that we should kill the second template with fire, tear up the MoS and "focus on quality, ffs", because no "reasonably intelligent person" could possibly disagree with his decree. We have participants who believe that we must use one template immediately for the sake of consistency, others who believe that neither template is up to scratch and therefore that we should go out of our way not to settle for one or the other until we have a better one. We have at least four explicitly expressed views on how nationality should be displayed (flag only, flag plus FIFA code, flag + country name, not at all) and for the record my view is that we should only post nationality where a player has represented his/her country at some level, rather than going by place of birth for non-internationals under the euphemism of "FIFA nationality"). Heck, until this morning there wasn't even agreement on what articles the templates under discussion should be used in. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? There was an agreement in what articles the templates under discussion should be used? I missed that completely, but I did catch the inference that I was not a "reasonably intelligent person", and after missing the agreement I must admit that I may to wear that hat for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Positions by round, second kick
Apparently, I'm starting an edit war when I implement a removal of unreferenced position by round in an MLS season article. Could someone please explain to this editor, who appears to be suspicious of my edits as to why positions by round make no sense when the teams do not play the same number of matches in a week. He appears to be reporting position after this team has played x matches and does not take into account the "round" at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Walter, there is a need to take the "round" into account, what is your proposition to calculate it? Khvmty (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To calculate position by round one would need a spreadsheet or possibly a computer program that kept track of
 * matches played
 * point total after those matches
 * compare point between teams comparing matches played
 * using MLS tie-break rules to discern position
 * What you're doing is looking at a single teams position after it had played a certain number of matches and not taking into account the position of other teams after that many matches had been played.
 * Someone tried to do that for the USL three years ago. He created a Google docs spreadsheet and shared it with a number of other editors. By mid-season, he gave up because tie-break rules made it difficult to calculate position by round. At least MLS doesn't use head-to-head results. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't explain this very well. What you would need is at least 20 spreadsheets (or sections in one spreadsheet). That is one for each team in the MLS and a master standings per round table. On each club spreadsheet you would record the pertinent statistics for each match and keep a total of points, goals for, goals against and calculate the goal differential. Then on the standings spreadsheet you would be able to display the points the team had after playing a particular number of matches. Beside that, you would have a second cell indicating the place for that round only when the math makes sense to do so. So with my example below, you could indicate that they were in first place until the end of the season five games before the season ended, but the lower numbers might be so clear. I don't know that this is any more clear now, but I think it's approaching clarity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to be a bully, Walter. If more editors come to a consensus, then we can remove the round info.  The idea is to show where the club was at after each game.  We can recalculate the standings after each actual round, which is more difficult since clubs play uneven schedules. Khvmty (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bully. Consensus was somewhat clear last time that it's not easy and probably not possible to calculate position by round in a league where the teams do not play the same number of matches week by week and month by month. Right now the matches played is close but if you look at the top of the table, you'll see Real Salt Lake with 37 points, Sporting Kansas City with 36 points and New York Red Bulls with 35 points all after 22 matches played representing first, second and third. However if you say that after round 22 they are in position 1, 2 and 3 respectively you might be wrong because in fourth place sits Montreal Impact with 35 points with two games in-hand. If they win either one of those, they're in first place in round 22 as they'll. Draw and losses complicate things.
 * We can't predict the position by round accurately because of this unbalanced play. Again, that's not usually the case in Europe where teams play their league matches most weekends. In fact, most European clubs don't even report their position by round until they know how the movement of the teams whose matches are still unplayed will affect them. Only in rare situations, like FC Bayern this last season who finished a ridiculous 25 points ahead of the second-place team (more than eight wins), would you indicate position by round in advance.
 * So allow me to demonstrate. Your edits list Chicago in 15th place overall after "round 20". After they played 20 matches they have 25 points. On the date that Chicago had finished its 20th match San Jose was in 14th place on 27 points but with 22 matches played. Since San Jose won their last two games, they would have had 19 points after 20 matches, which means Chicago is actually in 14th place in round 20, one position higher than you demonstrate. I'm not sure where they were in earlier rounds as the math becomes even more complicated as you must keep track of all the teams around them, not just the one above and below. Are you willing to keep a spreadsheet like that? One that makes a comparison after each "round" rather than when Chicago has played 20 matches? Are you able to keep stats for tie breaks (goals for, goal dif, etc.) to deal with ties round-by-round? Without that, keeping a table like that is inaccurate at best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Position by round is a nonsense, especially in countries where not every club plays on the same matchday, and often involves original research. I'd remove it on sight. Number  5  7  11:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is why I'm here. I have been removing it from MLS season articles for the reasons you stated, and have received a bit of push-back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability
I just realize that the article on Omar Er Rafik was deleted this morning, and I am not to contest the deletion because he is not notable by our criteria. But how a player that scored 5 goals in CL qualifying phase is not notable? I ask if is possible to add in some way CL and EL to notability criteria. Stigni (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because they're not notable just for appearing or scoring goals in it. Remember that tiny semi-pro clubs from countries like the Faroes and Andorra enter the qualifying rounds, and players at clubs from those countries are not notable. Number   5  7  11:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that IF he play for an pro team in a semi-pro league, and IF he play in CL-EL; he is notable. Stigni (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD precedent suggests otherwise. I've seen this issue come up about two dozen times at afd, and the result has always been delete, and not without reason. The early rounds of the of the Champions League and Europa League do not receive all that much coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List of football clubs in England by major honours won
I'm requesting that someone take a look at the formatting on this article and the diffs listed here. I'm loathe to request edits be made on behalf of a blocked user, but I don't want to overlook a legitimate request to address a malformed article. If further clarification is required, please leave a note on my user talk. I won't be watching this page or the subject article. Thanks  Tide  rolls  22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please can someone do something about this? The page no longer fits its purpose as it currently stands. I note the above comment "The consensus is the fact that we've used the same style for at least five years and now someone else has come along and decided to create their own separate articles because they didn't like what was in place" and believe this is highly accurate for this situation, with edit the article to their own format, instead of create separate articles. 109.152.18.244 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Footy - Members Page
I was just taking a look at the members page and it appears that someone has made a mistake at some point while editing it. It currently lists nobody under active members and has everybody under former members. As I'm new to Wikipedia I'm not sure whether this is something which requires attention or if it is possible to fix it as it might not be known who is active and who is now a former member. I thought it's just something I should bring up anyway. Username of a generic kind (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem now fixed by User:Sir Sputnik. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It just goes to show how much damage a single hyphen can cause. In any case, anyone who added themselves to the list in the past few months should check that they're on the right list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

HELP: Modifications done on the "List of English Football Transfers Summer 2013"
Before the page was displayed in chronological order, so you could scroll to the bottom and see the latest done deals. Now it features a table for each team's ins and outs, which is not so useful. Please bring back the chronological configuration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.84.245 (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I believe User:Skyblueshaun isn't taking the above discussion very well. – PeeJay 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My version may not have dates and fees, but like German football transfers, this version shows each teams ins and outs all in one place. Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous version also shows all the teams' ins and outs in one place, you just have to re-sort the table by the appropriate columns. You are removing info from the page for no reason other than to add info about divisions lower down the league. Not really worth it. – PeeJay 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Persekam Metro FC
An I.P has heavily edited the article about Persekam Metro FC, an Indonesian football club. This came to light when he suggested that Jim Magilton had been appointed their manager, despite his recent appointment as Technical Director to the Irish FA. I see that the same IP has been making similar edits to the club article on Indonesian Wikipedia. As most of the edits are dubious to say the least, can this article be protected? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The corresponding article on the Indonesian WP has been reverted and protected because of introduction of false information, so I've reverted this one. Introducing false info to Indonesian football pages is a popular sport at the moment, probably because they're not well watched. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Israeli league table design
Hello everyone, In the last couple of days, there is a disputed issue about the design of the 2013–14 Israeli Premier League table. The Israeli league contains two stages - the regular season of 26 rounds, and than the top 6 club are promoting for the top playoff. The other teams are playing in the bottom playoff to avoid relegation.

In mostly every league in Europe, the league tables are similar - green color representing the teams who qualified for UEFA Champions League, blue color for UEFA Europe League, and the red color for the teams who relegated.

In the Israeli league, as I mentioned above, there are two stages, which means that only the teams who qualified to the top playoff can actually gain a ticket for UEFA tournaments (of course the winner of the State Cup will also gain a ticket, but you've got the point). Therefore, I think we should use the green color in the top playoff table, and use different color in the regular season table, in order to make the distinction between the two stages.

Apparently, User:HonorTheKing doesn't agree with me, so we had to give you the option to help solve the issue. Flags-Chaser (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Green is used arround wikipedia football season articles in all leagues that leads to Championship playoffs such as the Israeli one. Belgian, Cypriot, Sammarinese, Georgian, Welsh, Russian, and more. As you can see Flags-Chaser want the Israeli league colors to be a almost white-blue color which is not used in any of the UEFA leagues above. Not to mention previous Israel season articles included green like the above, Israeli article.

Notability reminder please!
Just a quick question, if a player appears for a club in the Capital One Cup (i.e. the League Cup), does he gain footy notability, as it's a professional competition appearance? (I only ask because I can't remember how many times this has been discussed and what the outcome(s) have been). Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From an NFOOTBALL basis I'd say yes, as it is a competition which only features clubs from fully-professional leagues. As for GNG... GiantSnowman 18:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, and thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

List of teams and Competitions in PES 2014
I realise List of teams and Competitions in PES 2014 is more closely aligned with the video games project, so I have made a post there also, however if anyone could let me know their opinion of whether this article meets notability guidelines or not, it would be great. I also suspect the info is completely made up as there are no sources. Plus, Konami have never had the budget for this sort of licensing before! Any opinions welcome. Spiderone 14:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-notable, redirected. GiantSnowman 14:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested articles
Just a quick reminder - if anyone is bored / looking for something to do then I'd like to point you in the direction of both this and this. Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When were these pages created? This would have been perfect as there are so many pages I have that tried to create but never really have the time for. Like, this needs to become a more "popular" place to go to somehow. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this for real? List of mustached players to play football for England. --MicroX (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * F*** YA IT SHOULD!!!! 3,000,000 results on google. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like tthe content of a tabloid, not an encyclopedia. What if there was a player who had a mustache but the ONE time he was called up to England, he shaved it for the match. Then what? --MicroX (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All silliness aside, if a requested article is non-notable or un-encyclopedic then feel free to remove it from the list. GiantSnowman 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

SFL1 / Scottish Championship
The age old debate - fully-pro or not? Input welcome here. GiantSnowman 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

NK Varaždin
Can an admin help out? The problem is that someone made a mess with all these articles. Situation is this: NK Varaždin was suspended in the 2011–12 Prva HNL and were forced to withdrew from competition and were kicked out to regional league. Then was founded NK Varaždin ŠN which is second youth team of NK Varaždin and competes in lower leagues. Someone moved NK Varaždin to NK Varaždin ŠN and then created NK Varteks (1958–2012) and moved the content there stating that the club was dissolved in 2012. But, now the suspension of NK Varaždin dating to 2012 was lifted and the Croatian Football Federation "generously" decided to give them a spot in the third level, Treća HNL, for the current season.

So, in short, the content from NK Varteks (1958–2012) should be moved to NK Varaždin, and NK Varteks (1958–2012) deleted afterwards. The history of edits from NK Varaždin ŠN should be merged to NK Varaždin, and NK Varaždin ŠN deleted since the club is not notable. NK Varteks (founded 2011) should also be probably deleted since only criteria for notability could be some press coverage relating to the being founded by the supporters. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bluegrass Warhorses
Hello football experts! I found this article in which the creator had added some references, but messed up the submit template. I fixed the template, but I don't know anything about football, so could someone look at it and see if it's ready for the encyclopedia? Thanks. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved the post over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

New Member/Proposal for an article creation
Hello,

I'm a new member of Wikipedia and I would like to which tiers are notable for the Wikipedia article? I'm planning to add the article called "TSV 1865 Dachau" as my first created article which is in the level 6 of the German football pyramid in the Fußball-Landesliga Bayern-Südwest. TSV 1865 Dachau has an article in the German Wikipedia.

Hisakiwa21 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * , are you talking about player notability or club notability? GiantSnowman 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Club Notability, but it may possibly be a player notability because of Fabian Lamotte, a ex-Schalke player who is now currently playing for TSV 1865 Dachau. Hisakiwa21 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Most important is WP:GNG i.e. has it received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? Then we turn to sporting notability - has it ever played at a higher level? Has it ever played in the German Cup? GiantSnowman 15:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't investigated about WP:GNG yet, but after translating and reading the article on the Deutsche Wikipedia, I think that TSV 1865 Dachau can be created as a new article, but probably not as a sole football article of the club itself, but maybe in the broad spectrum as a sports club based on their success in taekwondo with 5 German championships, a gold medal in the World Cup of Taekwondo, with the success of Reinhard Langer, Michael Arndt, and Faissal Ebnoutalib, so what do you think? Hisakiwa21 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the sports club has won world championships in other sports, then creating an article on the sports club as a whole makes sense, it is more than likely notable. If the football club deserve its own article then that can be spun off at a later date. I'll do some investigation myself tomorrow. GiantSnowman 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll go ahead and set up the article now if you want me to begin today or wait till tomorrow. If it's not notable, then it can be put up for "AFD" nomination process. Hisakiwa21 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Haris Duljevic
I asked about this on the general wikipedia help chat, and I was directed to ask this here, so here it is:

There's a particular player whom I think is covering the criterias for wikipedia notability in general while he has not yet played in a league which is fully professional, and I'm wondering if somebody could help evaluate these articles(though many of them are in Bosnian, there are some video interviews with him in Bosnian as well) about him to tell me if he does or not. Because here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability

It says: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

I believe he fulfills all of those criterions, I've seen plenty of independent sources speak of him a lot(i.e. independent sources + significant coverage criterion fulfilled) :

http://sportsport.ba/bh_fudbal/bili-smo-bolji-zasluzeno-smo-savladali-albaniju/106889

http://sportsport.ba/bh_fudbal/duljevic-ostajem-u-olimpicu-i-narednu-sezonu/107415

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?p=2507166&langid=11

http://bhfudbal.ba/bih-vijesti/bh-telecom-premijer-liga/item/2619-haris-duljevi%C4%87-zadovoljan-sam-ali-bi%C4%87u-jo%C5%A1-bolji.html

He plays for the country's U21 so far, has been doing very well, started off the new season with 2 goals in 2 games, been sought by Borussia Dortmund, Anderlecht, Hajduk Split: http://scsport.ba/vijest/48065

http://scsport.ba/vijest/38503

http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/haris-duljevic-zu-bor-dortmund/topic/ansicht_154_991356_seite1.html

http://sportske.jutarnji.hr/haris-duljevic-o-interesu-bilih---hajduk-je--veliki-klub--a-posebno-me-fascinira-torcida-/1074703/

http://www.klix.ba/sport/nogomet/olimpicov-haris-duljevic-pred-odlaskom-u-dortmund/120606107

And there is much more about him. All of the articles ought to be independent and reliable, except possibly the forum links, but that link only serves to add to the coverage criterion, while there are plenty more forums discussing him, but of course they wouldn't be solid sources but as stated; people have an eye on him quite a lot, he impressed even more in the last game, so I think it is about time his article is added, if the notability is sufficient. Azrail Kabir (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1. FC Nürnberg or 1. FC Nuremberg
I've noticed that an editor has been renaming pages about 1. FC Nuremberg to 1. FC Nürnberg. I can't see an RM discussing this anywhere, but I think the name of the articles need to be standardised one way or another. Is it preferable to use the English name or not? The English language section of the Bundesliga website uses "1. FC Nuremberg", but there are also examples of the latter in English media. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say. Borussia Mönchengladbach uses the double overdots too. --MicroX (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We should use the name that is most common in English sources. That means that if English sources call the club 1. FC Nürnberg, we should use that as the article-title even though the name itself is not English (just like Bundesliga isn't a English word). Personally, I haven't heard the name "1. FC Nuremberg" being used much, so it would be interesting to see how a RM would turn out. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's a bit misleading to lead off by saying that the Bundesliga uses one version of the club's name and then marginalise the number of English-language sources that use the other. In actual fact, I was able to find 11 sources that use "1. FC Nürnberg" or "Nurnberg" (including the club's own English-language website, the Guardian, FIFA, UEFA and many others), as opposed to three or four (at most) that use "1. FC Nuremberg" or just "Nuremberg" (aside from the Bundesliga site, the only high profile source to use "Nuremberg" was the BBC). Plus there's the fact that Naming conventions (sports) says we should use the name the club uses on the English-language section of their website provided it is not ambiguous and it is both recognisable and used by a significant (not necessarily a majority) of the media, which "1. FC Nürnberg" or "Nurnberg" is. – PeeJay 23:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And these are arguments I will support after you've opened a RM. But all the other article-names should be consistent with the parent article, so they shouldn't have been moved before a discussion about 1. FC Nuremberg's name had taken place. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason I didn't move the main article was because the target title is a redirect page with more than one edit in its history. It's a pretty uncontroversial move, tbh, so we should just be able to use the db-move template to sort this out. – PeeJay 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

2.HNL/Croatian Second League - Professional or not fully? & U21 teams notability?
I was wondering, since it isn't named in either of the lists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues

And is a player in the U21 of a country notable enough? Why? Or why not? Azrail Kabir (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The first point should be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues; regarding your second point please see WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw the WP:NFOOTBALL, but I wasn't sure whether it was or wasn't considered good enough, because the country whose players I'm involved in writing about has a lot of players who play for the U21 but have no article except the ones who played in a fully professional league. So I was under the impression that the U21 wasn't sufficient. But I guess it is safe to say that they are notable enough if they play or have played for the U21? Or even U19 or another national level team, correct? Just making sure I didn't misunderstand anything. Azrail Kabir (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if a player meets WP:GNG then WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant - but youth international footballers are not considered notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

List of English football transfers summer 2013 vs. List of English football transfers summer 2013–14
I noticed yesterday that we had two articles pretty much reporting the same information but in a slightly different way: List of English football transfers summer 2013 listed all transfers involving Premier League and Championship clubs between 1 February 2013 and 2 September 2013 chronologically in a sortable table, which is the way all similar articles have been for the last few years; whereas List of English football transfers summer 2013–14 listed all transfers from the Premier League down to League Two in separate tables for each club. Not only was the latter article poorly titled, but the format is not conducive to informing the readers, nor is it particularly readable. I also noticed that a merger proposal had been put in place, so I was bold and simply redirected the latter to the former. Given the amount of editing traffic to the latter, I expect this to be reverted soon, but since no one here was actually aware of the issue because no one thought to list the merger proposal on the WP:FOOTY main page, I think it's only fair to inform you all now. – PeeJay 09:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such solution. The same problem with List of English football transfers winter 2012–13 and List of English football transfers winter 2013. Second article was written by one user only. The consensus on the talk page was merge to List of English football transfers winter 2012–13. NickSt (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be much of a debate on the proposal (which has already been implemented) certainly not enough to be considered a consensus. I agree that only one article is needed but a consensus is required (or at least something that can be called a full discussion). =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 16:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is the fact that we've used the same style for at least five years and now someone else has come along and decided to create their own separate articles because they didn't like what was in place. I notice that User:Skyblueshaun is the one who has been editing the new article the most; why didn't he raise the issue on the original article's talk page and try to form a consensus that way? In the meantime, we should not have two different articles covering the same topic. – PeeJay 18:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The issue was somewhat discussed on the last transfer window's article, at Talk:List of English football transfers winter 2012–13. To repeat what I said on that talk page, the "summer 2013" article (that which I have been editing):
 * Follows the format of all previous instances of this article in regards to article name, transfer window and inclusion of only the top two division's transfers
 * Uses a general reference (the BBC's transfer page) rather than specific references for every single transfer – perhaps a matter of debate as to which one is preferable, however with specific references for every transfer, the "summer 2013–14" article was reaching 600 references before its redirect, which seems excessive or unnecessary in comparison – also in keeping with previous list of English football transfer articles
 * Includes only transfers from the Premier League and Championship (again in keeping with previous editions of this article). Including transfers from four divisions is unheard of in any other article of this nature (i.e. lists of transfers from different countries), and creates concerns over the length of the article
 * I believe one of the reasons for User:Skyblueshaun's creation of a differently formatted article was a concern of lack of references on the regular article, however I would hazard a guess that Skyblueshaun noticed the lack of inline citations, and incorrectly assumed that all those without inline citations were unreferenced, failing to notice the general reference format (my evidence for this assumption can be seen here: Talk:List of English football transfers winter 2012–13). I don't believe there is any purpose for the alternate article and I agree with PeeJay's decision to redirect the page to the main, more consisent article. — Limabeans (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the proposed deletion/merger, but can anyone enlighten me as to why the 'accepted' transfers article only deals with Premier League/Championship clubs? All of the clubs in leagues 1 & 2 are notable, the players who play for them are also notable so why no include their transfers? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of sheer numbers, I imagine. If this article included all four divisions, it would go well over the suggested 100kB article size limit. If people think it would be wanted, I would not be opposed to the creation of a separate article for transfers involving clubs from Leagues One and Two. – PeeJay 21:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They could have their own page. We already do that for the American transfer pages in which the MLS, NASL, and USL Pro each have their own transfer page (I think mainly because of the different player rules in each league). Just a thought. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam Mitchell DOB
Adam Mitchell - the club say 1994 but his Twitter handle implies 1993. Any clues? GiantSnowman 19:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see two different dates in the article, one in the infobox on in the lead too. Murry1975 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Having done a quick search most references use the date on the official site (02/12/1994) but I can't find any that use the date in the page (18 October 1993). I did find a reference to 03.04.1993 but the site got bounced by the spam filter.
 * I'm no closer to understanding which date it is but I now believe that it is not what is one the page. I'm tempted to suggest that we use the date from the SAFC official site until we can determine which is correct (it's the most reliable of the sources at the moment).=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've reverted and asked the editor who added the 1993 DOB for a RS. GiantSnowman 10:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only registration in 1993 of an Adam Mitchell, without other names, is in August 1993 so looks like the 1994 date is correct. Keith D (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...unless the ENFA is wrong and he wasn't born in England - I've seen him described as "Irish" so could have been born over there. GiantSnowman 14:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about player categories
Just a quick question. I started to create Category:Indian footballers by state and have started to fill it with categories from various states. Now I also have Category:Indian footballers, which I would guess is the main category in this chain. Now, with most players who have the Category:Footballer from State/Region, I also find that they also have the Category:Country Footballers at the same time so I thought that was the norm and that is the way I went with it when it came to Indians. So for say, Alwyn George, I would use Category:Footballers from Maharashtra (as that is his state) and Category:Indian footballers (as that is the country he is from). Another reason I add both is just to make it easier for the readers who want to see who the players are from their state specifically and for the readers who don't care and just want to see the players in one category. To me that makes sense because I also see that elsewhere but when I did this with Bruno Colaço by adding the category for Category:Footballers from Goa and Category:Indian footballers, User:Peroxwhy2gen removed the Indian footballers category stating that "Already in subcategory". Now I understand what he meant and it makes sense but at the same time I have seen this before with other articles and I always thought this was the norm.

I guess what I am asking here is this: Should I add the category, Category:Indian footballers if I also use the Category:Footballers from State/Region or should I not? Now also note that a third reason I add both is because there are cases where there are players who, when their article is created, don't have a place of birth revealed or available. I would rather not have players who's home state is known be their categories and then the 20 or so state unknown players be in the Category for overall Indian players. I might as well have them all in the one category and then once the unknown state players state is known I will just add the category for him. Cheers and sorry for the long and complicated "question" I just asked. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would always include players in Category:Indian footballers. There's nothing more frustrating that going to a national-level category and finding someone has taken out all the articles and put them into sub-categories (this seems to be increasingly happening with clubs). Number   5  7  15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources have you used to determine which player is from which state? Note that place of birth does not determine that in the slightest. GiantSnowman 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this is India. Not many people, specially the footballers who don't come from the best of areas, move that often to different states. So my criteria is basically the state you were born in but if say for example a player was born in Kerala but raised in West Bengal then I would add that he is from West Bengal as that is where the player spent most of his time and what he represents. Of course it has to be referenced that he was raised in West Bengal. Also it is made easier by the fact that almost every single player in professional Indian football has played in either the Mir Iqbal Hussain Trophy, B.C. Roy Trophy, or Santosh Trophy which are all state based. So for that footballer who was born in Kerala but raised in West Bengal, he has a choice between representing either side in these tournaments. So which ever one he chooses I will say that is where he is from because he is eligible enough to represent that state and that is the state he chooses to be recognized by. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, what reliable sources are you using for your determination? Not just OR based on city of birth / where they are 'likely' to have grown up. GiantSnowman 16:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Club profiles, club articles on their official websites, goal.com, soccerway, and online newspapers that do not require subscription. Place of birth can always be found in these and the 3 tournaments I named above have always been covered by plenty of papers with the earliest group I found coming from around 1994-96. I do not use unreliable sources like facebook or blogs. The club profiles, specially for teams like Shillong Lajong and Pune are generally very detailed (Example 1, 2, 3, 4). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do these "club profiles" confirm where a player is 'from', or just where they were born? Again, the two are not the same! GiantSnowman 10:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While you are absolutely correct, I would guess (without doing any research) that most footballers, probably in excess of 90%, have their "From" category based on their place of birth, which is generally easily found, rather than where they were brought up or have the strongest connection with. Outside football, even Sir Bradley Wiggins is categorized as from Ghent, where he was born, and Maida Vale, where he was brought up. -  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that such categories are populated with players who were 'born' somewhere, and that's one reason why I dis-like them so much. GiantSnowman 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * GS, did you even read the 4 links I gave to you? The first source for Prakash Thorat says "the third player from Pune to ever figure in the main squad" meaning that he is from Maharashtra. The whole article talks about his career going back to youth which all involved clubs within Maharashtra. Nothing suggesting that he ever even lived outside the state.
 * The Shillong Lajong website states what state the players represent. That should be more than enough. The Dempo page goes over the guys life going back to his youth. All being based in Goa. While the fourth source says "from Nuvem" and "from Areal" where they even put down what clubs these players spent their teenage years at. That should be more than enough proof that these players are from Goa.
 * What more do you want me to do? I already stated the way I decide where the player is from, which I think is more than enough, and I have shown you 4 sources which do not even mention state of birth but rather what state the players are from or represent. This should all be more than enough. And I don't even know why you dislike these categories. If there is a source that says that a player had spent the majority of his life in a different state or province then that is where he is from unless quoted from himself, fine, that is all okay, but if there is no source other than place of birth is the best we can do. It is not as if the player will come onto wikipedia and see that there is a category linking him to some state and he will have a problem with it and sue or something like that. Its like if we have some Ghanian born footballer who makes his debut with a Canadian team. We do not know if he is a Canadian citizen now or how long he has been living in Canada so we put down Category:Ghanaian footballers as that is where he was born. You see what I am saying here. We will work with what we have.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hull City Tigers
The BBC report on the name change implies it hasn't been implemented yet; will it be best to wait for it to become formal before moving the article? Mattythewhite (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I thought it was just a proposal at this stage? GiantSnowman 09:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for a couple of weeks to give us time to decide on what we are going to do rather than have the IPs keep changing it. Keith D (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in this club statement, the club confirmed that the business name has already been changed (from Hull City Association Football Club to Hull City Tigers Ltd), but a new badge will only be launched next season. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of the company behind the club, or what's on the club badge, are largely irrelevant. GiantSnowman 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That source seems a bit hazy about whether the name of the actual club/team (as distinct from the holding company) is even changing at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Especialy as the article is signed off "by HCAFC".  --   Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe jumping a little ahead with this one?, but do you all propose we go about naming the club within the career section of the player infoboxes? Are we starting a new line as "Hull City Tigers" or changing the exisiting name to include "Tigers"? Footballgy (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the club's name has been changed, yet. As detailed here, under Affiliation of Clubs 3 (l): "A Club competing in any one of The Premier League, The Football League, The Football Conference, the Southern Football League, the Isthmian League and the Northern Premier League shall not be permitted to change its playing name (i.e. the name under which the Club competes in a Competition), as recorded on Form "A", save with the prior written permission of Council. Any application for a change of playing name must be received by The Association before 1st April in any calendar year in order for it to be considered by Council for adoption in the following playing season." Whether the club's owner applied to have their name changed to Hull City Tigers (cringe) before the deadline is not yet known. Philip Buckingham of the Hull Daily Mail has asked for clarification so it would be worth checking there for any update. Walls of Jericho (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And for info, even if it is confirmed that the club is changing its name for this season (which I don't believe will occur) we would definitely not start a whole new line in the infobox, as it's the same club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WSC's take on the matter. GiantSnowman 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article name and infobox aside, there's zero mention of the name change saga - it seems like there's enough sourced information that we can at least talk about it - I've found this article to be pretty comprehensive. Mosmof (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, I should think it will hopefully be a few decades before we can think about changing the article's title anyway. BigDom (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why I said "aside". No matter what the article name is, it should mention the controversy. Mosmof (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The BBC report has an interesting quotation: "'AFC is redundant, it is not used by the club. The fans never mention AFC, nor do the media.'" True, and germane to some recent discussions about how we title club articles. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Zoltan Gera
Hello all, as you've probably seen, Zoltán Gera has rejoined WBA for a third stint at the club after becoming a free-agent on the 1 July, so my question -- should the Infobox be updated to reflect that he left the club and is back or should his 13/14 apps and goals be added to his 2011- ?? Diff

Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's one spell, as he left and re-signed in the same transfer window. GiantSnowman 08:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BigDom (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Football transfers
Hi, all! As we all know, the transfer window has begun, and this will lead to vandalism, and/or incorrectly updating pages of footballers who are only rumored to be transferred. So, I ask the following question to establish consensus amongst all us WikiProject Football members regarding WHEN we should update the transfer of players. As we all know, clubs usually confirm when they agree a fee with the player's club, like this diff, but this does not indicate the transfer of the player, since the contract is yet to be agreed. But, André Schürrle's Wikipedia page has already been updated, citing that he's now a player of Chelsea, which is not true. Although similarly, while Liverpool have agreed a fee for Iago Aspas, we don't see his page updated stating that he's a player of Liverpool. I would also like to point out the situation regarding Neymar, where a fee has been agreed, contract has been signed, AND the player has been unveiled, but the page still says that he is a player of Santos FC. Therefore, this situation clearly lacks uniformity. So I write to establish consensus regarding when the transfer of a player should be updated, when a fee is agreed, or when the contract is signed and the player is unveiled, or on July 1, when FIFA ratifies all the transfers. If such a consensus has already been agreed, kindly give me the diff of the agreement, so that I can link the diff in the edit summary when reverting edits such as the one on the page of Andre Schurrle.

When contract has been signed, and the player has been unveiled.

 * 1) Support per above. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 09:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It's the most reasonable approach if you ask me. There are simply too many people unaware of the 1 July for it be practical. I'm currently watching the 36 1st and 2nd Bundesliga clubs and have had make some 60 reversions in the past ten days. The project's resources can be put to better use than fighting the inevitable. I would add the caveat though that both clubs involved in a transfer must have no matches left to play before the transfer window opens. I distinctly remember there being serious issues last year with people "updating" the current squad sections of Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, and Real Madrid, in particular, before the season was even over. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with the caveat that it only applies when both teams' seasons are over, i.e. the last match has been played in all the competitions they play. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support casual editors and IPs will constantly change them anyway so there seems little point wasting time fighting a losing battle just for the sake of a few weeks between the end of the season and July 1st - there's enough problems rolling back articles being updated based purely on paper speculation let alone trying to stem the tide against a change that will happen anyway. The same goes for players being released by their clubs.  That said, this should only apply after the season has finished, not when a pre-contract agreement has been signed as mentioned elsewhere in the discussion.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support As per ArtVandelay13 and  Sir Sputnik as 'unveiling' is a little unclear. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Yes, bearing in mind what Sputnik says about games left to be played.--EchetusXe 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This option is a nonsense - under the Bosman ruling players can sign for a club during the final year of their contract with another, and remain on that club's books (and continue playing for them) until the transfer. If this option was preferred, then we'd have had Mario Götze in Bayern Munich's squad for a period of time when he was still playing for Dortmund. Number  5  7  23:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Either I was not clear or you've horribly misunderstood what I meant. In any case, the purpose of the caveat I proposed was specifically to avoid the type of situation you just outlined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Number57, this option states that the information of the player only be updated once the contract has been signed and/or the player has been unveiled by the club. The case with Gotze is that even though Bayern Munich have agreed a fee for the German international, and an agreement in principle is in place with him for the contract, he has not officially put pen to paper OR been unveiled by Bayern as one of their players. Hope this option seems more clear now. :) —Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how Bosman works - it allows players to sign for a club during the last six months of their contract with another. Gotze had indeed put pen to paper - he had signed for Bayern whilst still playing for Dortmund, but his transfer doesn't actually happen until the transfer windows open. Number   5  7  20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bosman rules allow players to sign a 'pre-contract agreement' that is completely different to being a full contract and players will not be unveiled (by this I mean unveiled at a press conference) by the signing club while still at the other club. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

On July 1, when all the transfers are ratified by FIFA.

 * Yep, it ain't done till it's done. GiantSnowman 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I've always thought this was the existing consensus, and I believe it is the best way to do things. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It's the official day. --Jaellee (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Makes sense. --MicroX (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Seasons and most contracts start on 1 July. Things get agreed (signings, players released etc.) before this date however so the reality on Wiki is that articles will get changed before 1 July.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Wikipedia shouldn't compromise its accuracy because other people are impatient. Number   5  7  09:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Wait until all burocracy are done. E.g. Neymar play the Conf Cup as Santos player and not Barcellona one... So if he will win it on the page of Santos we can say "Player that have win the Conf Cup: Neymar 2013" and not on Barcellona page. Stigni (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My only worry about this decision would be the fact that different associations have transfers windows at different dates. It's only the "Big 4" leagues which have the transfer window beginning at July 1. So I'm concerned this won't particularly be a worldwide view of the subject. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 12:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, July 1st is the official date for FIFA (Europe) so if for exemple CAF is June 30th (i don't know, I say a random date) we use that date. I said to use the date that the Continental Confederation retified the transfert. Stigni (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Not always 1 July (even for clubs in Europe), depends on the official transfer window. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No transfer to be updated till July 1, but all transfers since to be updated as and when the contract has been signed, and the player has been unveiled in his press conference.

 * 1) Support I believe this option is better, since it's inclusive of both the above options. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean all transfers after 1 July to be updated as soon as a player has been officially announced? Doesn't that happen anyway? GiantSnowman 11:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the exact point. Since the transfer window opens on July 1, FIFA ratifies all transfers simultaneously. Most of the times the transfers are updated as soon as a fee is agreed. So, I'm looking to fix that. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As Struway says, we need evidence of the 1 July FIFA ratification date. GiantSnowman 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How important is this "the player has been unveiled in his press conference" aspect, given that probably 90% of clubs don't hold press conferences to "unveil" new players? I know that my club never does........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment
I do believe that a consensus is needed here, because I have had my Rollback rights removed and access to Huggle denied because of situations like this. Therefore, we need a crystal clear consensus. Regards. —Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The main question here is, I think, practicality. Is it fewer edits to revert editors who write in transfers before July 1st, or to undo changes where players are retained after having been released/transfers fall apart at last minute? I would suspect it is the latter which would require fewer edits, and is therefore preferable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we value "practicality" over "correct data"? I think that's the main issue here.--Jaellee (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I do, in this instance. It's a balance, which will have different answers at different times. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If we adopt the date that FIFA ratifies transfers, what will the procedure be for transfers that take place after July 1? Does that make all transfers after July 1 official once the club ratifies a transfers. --MicroX (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FIFA begins to ratify transfers only on July 1. It continue to does so until August 31 (although the date is September 2 this year since August 31 is a Saturday. So, after July 1, the data of the players will be updated as and when they sign a contract and are unveiled by the club. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 11:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about transfers between clubs in the same association that don't require FIFA ratification? BigDom (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like the raise the issue of time zones. While in some places it may be July 1st, in others it will be June 30. --MicroX (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What happen if a player got injured during a international match? Which team receives the Fifa insurance? And if the injury is very serius that end his carrier, the second team has already pay for an useless player? Stigni (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does this matter? --MicroX (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

By and large the casual reader is not going to be familiar with, or interested in the 1 July rule. While not updating transfers is accurate in a technical, legal sense, a transferring player's affiliation with his previous club is for all other intents and purposes over after the last competitive fixture. Many, if not most, players transferring before 1 July start training with their new clubs, even playing matches, albeit friendlies, for them before 1 July. Trialists notwithstanding, it makes little sense to me to have a player listed in the current squad of one club while he's playing for another. Ultimately, the question is what do we mean by "current squad". Do we want a technical, legal definition or a more practical, common sense approach? Personally, I feel the legal approach is a lot of work, leading to a lot of counter-intuitive situations, for little to no gain for the encyclopedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Template
As we head towards agreeing a consensus (although it looks very close at the moment), let's also figure out how exactly will we try and prevent users from updating the said data before the date which we will soon agree upon. I suggest that we include a page notice, which will warn users not to update the data or their edits will be reverted. Better suggestions welcome! —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 11:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A template is a good idea - something along the lines of "the player is not officially an X FC player until the transfer window opens on 1 July" or whenever it is. Perhaps we also need a list of affected pages that admins can keep an eye on and semi-protect if they're getting a high level of incorrect edits from IPs. Number   5  7  14:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're jumping the gun somewhat. There is absolutely no consensus, as the opinions of those who have commented is split 50/50 so talk of generating templates and list for admins to roll back edits is somewhat premature. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions
I've been away for a week so have missed most of this discussion, but I'd be grateful for clarification of a couple of points. 1. Please could someone point out to me where it says, in the 2012 FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, that transfers can only be "ratified" on/after 1 July? Or if it isn't in there, please could someone say where in the FIFA regulations this is specified? 2. As far as I'm aware, FIFA don't have to ratify transfers between clubs in the same national association, so presumably this discussion is only concerned with transfers between national associations? This was mentioned above, but hasn't yet been answered. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. It doesn't say it in there, or anywhere that I can find. I've looked around on the web for some evidence of the 1 July date but to no avail so far.
 * 2. Since I asked this above, I'm also interested to see what the proponents of the proposal have to say about it.
 * Cheers, BigDom (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not to do with FIFA ratification, it's the date of the UK English transfer window, confirmed by this among others. GiantSnowman 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So why do people keep harping on about FIFA ratification? And shouldn't the option above that seven people have supported be called "July 1, when the UK transfer window opens" not "July 1, when all the transfers are ratified by FIFA"? This idea that FIFA don't "ratify" transfers before 1 July is clearly bollocks. For a start, what about summer leagues that have transfer windows from say February to April/May? BigDom (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording should be "when the transfer has been completed and approved by the relevant FA(s) and the transfer window(s) have opened." GiantSnowman 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "UK transfer window". Scottish clubs were allowed to sign players from June 10th "Despite the outstanding bill, the Tynecastle club still unveiled defender Wilson last week after he signed a three-year contract. However, as the transfer window hasn’t officially opened, Wilson’s documents haven’t yet been lodged with the SPL and SFA. The earliest the Jambos can do that is June 10 and while they haven’t broken any rules, the SPL can block signings if they feel a club has acted improperly.". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the 1st July claim is nothing to do with a transfer window but rather based on a notion that gets bandied about that all players' contracts run from July 1st to June 30th and therefore they don't technically change clubs until 1st July. I'm not sure I've ever seen any reliable source to support this claim, though....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that may still be the case with top international players, as clubs will want to claim the payments that are made by FIFA/UEFA to clubs for their players being used in international tournaments. But at other professional levels, clubs are typically shortening the length of contracts to 31 May to save wages over the summer break. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's good enough for Football Manager...which is probably where most people get it from. GiantSnowman 10:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion remains open but no consensus has been reached. Any new ideas? --MicroX (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevant rules and regulations
FIFA regulations permit an association's transfer window to begin straight after the last match of the season, see here, where Registration of Players Article 6.2 says "The first Registration Period shall begin after the completion of the Season and shall normally end before the new Season starts", and Season is defined for the purpose of those regulations as "the period starting with the first Official Match of the relevant national league championship and ending with the last Official Match of the relevant national league championship" (Definition 9, and the explanatory note at the bottom of page 5 of the PDF). Registration of Players Article 6.2 also says that each national association should notify FIFA of the dates of its transfer windows. In England, the Football League, section 41.6.2 of their rules defines the Transfer Windows as "(a) the period commencing at midnight on the last day of the immediately preceding Season ... and ending at midnight on the 31 August next following; or (b) the period commencing at midnight on the 31 December and ending at midnight on the 31 January next following," where Season is defined as per FIFA, i.e. "the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match and, for each Club, ending immediately after the completion of the Club's final fixture of the League Competition or, if the Club is participating in the Play-Offs, the final Play-Off match for that Club." The Premier League rules say much the same: "The first Transfer Window in any year shall commence at midnight on the last day of the Season and shall end on 31st August next if a Working Day or, if not, on the first Working Day thereafter, at a time to be determined by the Board." (Rule V.2 page 180), where "Season means the period commencing on the date of the first League Match on the fixture list of the League’s first team competition and ending on the date of the last" (Definition A.1.123 page 84) of a 500+ page PDF file. There may well be national associations whose summer transfer window opens on 1 July, but that's their choice. There's no general FIFA requirement for that date. And for transfers into/within the English national association's remit, that date certainly doesn't apply. Transfers of out-of-contract players under the Bosman ruling are a different matter. They do generally take effect on 1 July, because contracts generally end on 30 June, but that's the only reason. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thread archived
This thread was archived yesterday, but I thought this issue is too important to let it be archived after 7 days and that it shouldn't be archived until we reach a consensus (So now the bot wont archive this in the next 30 days). From my point of view it seems like there is no consensus to wait for the "arbitrary" date of 1 July, when the season has ended - but I like to point of that during seasons this arbitrary date is very important (1 January for most leagues, 15 July for the Norwegian), as some players in Norway played matches for their "old club" on 14 July even though they had agreed to transfer one or two weeks before. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)