Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Fb cl templates

There is an edit conflict on the Fb cl templates at the 2009–10 Ukrainian Premier League article. Brudder Andrusha and an anonymous person keeps revert the baseline of the qualification and add a template called "Europe". That's not the usage of the Fb cl templates. The standard league table shows following: Template:Fb cl header Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr |- |colspan="11"|Skipped Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl2 qr Template:Fb cl team Template:Fb cl footer The row of "Qualification or relegation" is showing the fate if the teams reached the place at the final, instead of showing the ensured qualification or ensured European qualification. However, in their knowledge, the row has been used like that. All of the articles except Ukrainian Premier League articles (this did not occur for this year only, it has been occured last year) use the row of "Qualification or relegation" for the baseline. However, Ukarinian Premier League use a different kind of knowledge, which affects readers to understand. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a valid use of the template as of April 10, 2010

The column in Fb is "Qualification or Relegation" and such is the valid situation currently in the Ukrainian Premier League season 2009–10 season when both top teams have qualified for European football for the 2010–11 season.

Again, the template signifies a correct situation for the current state of qualification. The template is used correctly defined in the "Qualification or relegation" column of the Fb template. That is what templates are used for. The use of "Qualification or relegation" in 2009–10 La Liga is in violation of WP:FUTURE where the links are incorrectly directing teams that have NOT qualified yet for those stages of the competition.

Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your template you think that is valid to here. My only opinion is listen to the other's voice to determine which is the appropiate one. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for an occasional reader (and that's what this is all about) I think that putting the tournament/round templates (Raymond's first screenshot) does not necessarily and exclusively mean either ensured or predicted qualification for some of the European tournaments. However, I would say that probably the majority would primarily see it as a predicted qualification, mostly due to other information (number of played games, number of rounds in the season etc.) presented in the article. And, I wouldn't say that inputing (Q)s and (R)s is redundant since it gives the final information even to those who aren't certain about the templates' meaning.

If the majority would primarily see it as a predicted qualification, then the purpose sublimely implies speculation which is discussed in WP:CRYSTAL and that is not the purpose of the information in the Qualification and relegation column.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating in WP:CRYSTAL, okay. Then I have to copy the whole paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL here.

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. In particular:
1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.
2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory.
3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
4. While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

First at all, is that the champions would qualify for the GS of CL, runners-up for QR3 of CL, 3rd-placed for PO of EL, 4th-placed for QR3 of EL, 5th-placed for QR2 of EL? Then it is already followed the Individual scheduled or expected future events, there is no any problem.

But you don't know the team - so that is pure speculation until it happens. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I afraid that you are meaning every posistion should be fixed with the same teams in every year. The fact is the qualification should be fixed with the position, not the team. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And you still did not get what I mean after I repeated at least five times. I hope it is the last time but I believe that it is unlikely. The column "Qualification and relegation" is only to state what the fate of the team if they reached at the specific position AFTER the last match of the whole league. It does not have any intention or purpose or intent or something else to crystalball any team to qualify for the tournament. It is only want to put relationship between the position and the fate, not the team and the fate, which is the common knowledge to read the league table. The format is commonly accepted by all of the press, including FIFA and UEFA. However, only you disagree of it. Then don't use that format if you think that the article is yours. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the intention to put relationship between the position and the fate, instead of the team and the fate which you think of and also an uncommon knowledge, and the fate is already a confirmed information, there should have no any crystalballing possibility - unless anyone replaced the position with the team, which what you did. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And again you are incorrect in your assumption. It is the team that qualifies to the tournament not the position. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the qualification is given to the team which occupy the place after the last fixture of the league, not the team. Team already confirmed could use the (Q) for indication. It solved the problem of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history". 2 and 4 are not applicable as they are about topic naming and science respectively. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You continually want to force the (Q) and (R) when there is column Qualification and relegation. To confuse matters for the reader this is placed by the team who now has to go to the bottom to the footnotes and decipher 6-point fonts what the annotation means. If not confusing then even more farcical. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it does not mean that you could use the template like that. If the column "Qualification and relegation" is useless to state what they could qualify for as you said, then remove it and don't add any qualification despite they are confirmed to qualify. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All in all, I can easily imagine that people see them as a tournament and round teams will be placed in after all the games have been played. I also saw them like that when I first started reading and editing the leagues. Actually, I don't recall being confused at all what the templates and the colours mean. However, there are probably people who don't see it that way. But, since EVERY (I repeat, EVERY) other article has the same scheme, I don't see how they can be so wrong when nobody, as far as I know, ever tried to revert any league table to the Ukrainian format (and, trust me, there were numerous single-handed attempts of redesigning many parts of the articles, but never in the Ukrainian style). Therefore, I must agree with Raymond. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indoctrination and conformity is easily to control, but whether it is displays correct information is very much debatable. This article also has the same standings schema - except that currently does not have links to competition and those stages. In due time it will. No one has changed the previous season's Qualification and relegation so the conflict is not when the competition is in the past. In my mind if a reader selects a link they would expect to see the team in that competition and stage - not some arbitrary statement that some placed team from the competition will be here. That is completely misleading! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No one changed the qualification and relegation? I was strongly oppose to the arrangement already. But I was forced to do nothing as you said "Don't put it in because it will be deleted by my automated script". Okay, then I gave up it. However, it doesn't mean that I agreed of it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm going to remove the league table template only from the 2009-10 Ukrainian Premier League article, as it is using an unique style, and you keeps reverting from the baseline. I'll make a more suitable league table, but it is required to recalculate the goal difference and points now. You could suggest to make a new template for the Ukrainian Premier League article, but I strongly against it as it is just a copy of the Fb cl template. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good enough for UEFA and FIFA good enough for us? chandler 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for the color coordination to be changed, but not putting the link in until actual qualification, or the correct qualification which currently for Ukraine is that both teams have qualified for European competitions for the 2010-11 season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Chandler, obviously you did not get the keypoint here. Brudder Andrusha persist in "not sure, no qualification template". Take it easy. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to consist of some kind of misinterpretation of the content of the "Qualification or relegation" column during the on-going season. Well, I agree with User:SonjiCeli here – if the system of adding the qualification information directly behind the respective spots would have led to a mass confusion, it would have been thrown out of the window the very next moment. Since this is not the case, it has to be assumed that the current practice reflects a widely accepted (to be precise, 99 out of 100 people) consensus for league articles all around the English Wikipedia.

The alternative to putting the information directly into the last column would be a explanatory key below the table. This, however, has a number of drawbacks. Aside from the necessity to introduce a separate and small standalone table structure below the content, the association between places and their qualifications would solely happen via their coloring, which should be avoided under terms of WP:COLOR.

Again, if there would be mass confusion, the system wouldn't have been a) implemented in the first place and b) adapted for other football season articles created by hundreds of different users all over the English Wiki. Therefore, constantly pointing at WP:CRYSTAL seems a little bit of a moot point. Given that the Ukrainian Premier League season articles are also reluctant to follow another Wiki-wide consensus regarding the structuration for league articles (as having been worked out by the season article task force, see its discussion page), it must also be questioned if WP:OWN is an issue here. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond and Soccer-holic here. We're not talking about a proposed template or format that had not been implemented, or even one that was implemented unilaterally by one user earlier this season. We're talking about something that has been around for 2 or 3 years, and something that is in place, without confusion, on literally dozens (hundreds?) of articles. There's not rampant confusion about any of this, especially since most websites like ESPNsoccernet, Sky Sports, UEFA, and FIFA using similar systems showing qualification to European competition. This wasn't made out of whole cloth, and it hasn't been implemented without broad support for this kind of thing throughout the project. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Grant's comments. This method has been implemented in far too many articles and has drawn no complaints up to this point as far as I have seen. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a TfD here. Please discuss to determine if it is not valid. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Premier League and European qualification presentation, part two

<sarcasm>A radical new idea has popped up in 2009–10 Ukrainian Premier League.</sarcasm> Any opinions on this chart? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a canonical example of over-complicated graphical formatting repeating what could be said in two or three short sentences. But in a way some mobile browsers, all text-only browsers, all monochrome browsers, all screen readers and some colour blind people can't read. And written in code the vast majority of our editors could edit or adapt. I'd be happy to see it go, but far more important is to include the information in a way more of our readers can get at it. Knepflerle (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note – this link has been used to source the content. Question #1: Is this kind of sourcing allowed? I highly doubt that. Question #2: The original source used in this link is this blog. In terms of WP:V, especially sections 2.3 and 2.4, is this source deemed acceptable or not? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article on Wiki that uses webcitation to archive references - 2009–10 Australian region cyclone season. There are many, many references to stored urls in this article. Why would you think that it is not acceptable? There is a section in the cite web template for archived urls. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's no problem with using archive links for pages subject to change, as long as the original author and location are given and it is clearly marked as an archive copy - as is the case here. This method is suggested as good practice in Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving.

However, I share Soccer-holic's reservation on using this blog as a source; we can't be sure about its reliability as regards fact-checking and accuracy. It shouldn't be too hard to find a more satisfactory source for this information if it's correct. Knepflerle (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay. I was just wondering because I haven't seen this method (via webcitation) of sourcing before. Sorry if I may have sounded a little... weird.^^ --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Throw in

I couldn't find it at the article page, and if I posted on it's talk it wouldn't get answered for ages. Quick content/rules question, if you perform a throw in and chuck it straight into the goal with no contact from anyone else, is it a goal? Has it ever happened? SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, throw-ins are like indirect free kicks; i.e. they have to make contact with another player before crossing the goal line for a goal to be given. If no contact is deemed to have been made, a goal kick is given instead. The only time I can remember a goal being given from a throw-in was when goalkeeper Peter Enckelman received a throw-in from his right-back in a West Midlands derby between Aston Villa and Birmingham; the ball rolled under his left boot, presumably catching the studs on the way through, and into his own goal. It was credited as an Enckelman own goal. – PeeJay 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)You can't score direct from a throw-in. If it makes any contact with any player before going in, it's a goal. I once played in a game where a player took a long throw-in aimed at the goal, the keeper tried to save it, but just tipped it into his own net. Goal. If he'd just left it alone it wouldn't have counted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for the Enckleman one too - goalkeeper howler —MDCollins (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. SGGH ^ping! 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a goal scored (by the US, I think) at the 2008 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup where a throw went into the goals. The ref adjudged that the keeper had got a fine touch on the ball and awarded a goal...Hack (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True. Also attributed to the keeper as an own goal.--ClubOranje^T 09:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaise (N)kufo

We have conflicting sources regarding this player's name; can anyone get down to the bottom of it please? Cheers, GiantSnowman 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to reference 6, the player himself has stated that Nkufo is the correct version so that would be the end of the debate for me. If he doesn't know what his name is, there's something wrong. BigDom 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong - according to the two references given in note 1, the player himself states it is spelt "Kufo"...GiantSnowman 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I already posted to GiantSnowman's talk page:

Concerning a Swiss player, whom do you trust more: Swiss media or a Dutch website? This article summarizes a long interview in the SonntagsZeitung and an interview in the Swiss TV sports show sport aktuell. Unfortunately, these original versions are not available anymore. The spelling (correct: “Nkufo”) and the pronunciation (correct: “Kufo”) of his name were quite a topic in Swiss media in August 2007. Before, his name had always been spelled “N'Kufo” (incorrect). You can also consult the official website of the Swiss national team (you have to scroll down and select his entry from the list). --Leyo 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in the Netherlands he's normally referred to as Nkufo, which is also the name he is listed under at FC Twente website. [1] However the name of his jersey is "N KUFO" (without apostrophe). [2] --Angelo (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FIFA has him down as Nkufo. Here it is. – Michael (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, his correct name is Blaise Nkufo. Full name: Blaise Isetsima Nkufo. See also fifa.com and worldfootball.net., [3] and [4]. Greeting --Jorge Roberto (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would move the page back to Blaise Nkufo. – Michael (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, in the spirit of WP:BOLD --JonBroxton (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating navigational templates

Has anyone here considered consolidating the navigational templates used for the various leagues around the world? A user recently tried to do that with the Colombian league. Because it was done very poorly, I reverted his edits. But the idea isn't that bad or far-fetched. Major League Soccer and other American sports league do it (and some other non-American league football leagues do something close, but not so cleanly), and I think it could make things simpler. What does everyone think of the idea? Digirami (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Digirami, just for clarification: Do you propose to change the bottom navigational templates in terms of a combination similar to Template:Premier League teamlist and Template:Premier League seasons or rather in terms of Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio?

And while we are at it, since the conversion to full Template:Navbox width is in full swing – what is deemed the preferred layout of the season templates, the one of the Premier League seasons list (split by decades) or the one implemented in, for example, Template:Fußball-Bundesliga seasons? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio, but the MLS template is a much fuller example.

I prefer the seasons layout similar to the Bundesliga. Organizing by decade leaves a lot of empty space. Digirami (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind, using the Premier League templates as an example. The first is the current Premier League navigational templates as they are.

This is the proposed change:

Instead of dealing with three templates (or one template with two added on), we have just one template for all related leagues articles. Simple. What does everyone think? (Of course, this is rough draft. I can certainly be refined. But, the example helps get the point across). Digirami (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It really depends how they're used. Do articles typically tack all three on just now? If so, it makes sense to merge them. If articles only use the most appropriate ones, then there's no point in merging them. I would suggest that the merged template is a little ambitious - do users really need direct links to all of those articles from random EPL pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Premier League, the two bottom templates (teams and seasons) were added on to the code of the main one. So, all three appear together in every article. Digirami (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Stevens (footballer)

Can anyone shed any light on this one?

The player does not show up in the current Dagenham & Redbridge squad on their official website [5]. An advanced google search of the official website indicates no 'Ben Stevens'. The edit history for this article seems dubious and has a lot of IP edits

There is a Ben Strevens who played for Dagenhan until 2009 when he moved to Brenford. There does seem to have been a persistent mistaking of Strevens for Stevens - see Dagenham fansite [6] which notes: "Stevens" - The name used by away announcers for a player better known as Ben Strevens.

The Ben Stevens page was created by a user and makes various claims around possible criminal activities so a quick decision needed on this one... Steve-Ho (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a hoax if I've ever seen one and it needs to be deleted ASAP. There's definitely no such player. The only link on the page goes to a profile of a supposed Torquay United player with a different name, a photo of someone in an Everton jersey, and all that on a website with no editorial control Like you say, some of the allegations in the article are also bordering on WP:CSD#G10. BigDom 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember signing this guy on Championship Manager 01/02. He was pretty good. That is all. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ben Strevens is real but he plays for Brentford, the article in question is about someone born 12 years later and who just doesn't exist. There's no good faith to be assumed here. BigDom 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no doubt; it was Strevens I signed. As another random aside I've often wondered if the CM/FM series, with its extensive research, can be considered a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this is a tangent that I can go off at with you. I've seen that some users, especially Simon nelson (talk · contribs) do use FM as a source for player stats. Some editors agree with it and some don't so this could well be a worthwhile discussion. BigDom 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... My initial thought is using a computer game would be madness. But then... CM/FM ploughs a lot of effort into its research and the game lives off its reputation for the accuracy of its information. Could it be that the only difference between CM/FM and say the media is that CM/FM uses its information for data in a commercial computer game, rather than a commercial publication? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue is we all believe they put effort into research - and they certainly do - but we do not know exactly how the information supplied by the on-location researchers is verified. As long as this is not clear, I can't say I'd be happy with using the FM/CM series as a reliable source. Interesting thought though. Madcynic (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point: it was a rogue researcher who caused the Tó Madeira scandal. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an Australian player called Ben Stevens who was a youth at Rangers, but never played in senior football.[7] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Honours of English football clubs

In lists of honours won by English football clubs, should First Division (until 1992) and Premier League titles be listed together, as in Arsenal F.C.#Honours; or separately, as in Manchester United F.C.#Honours? User:DoctorHver obviously prefers the former style, and has been attempting to change the Manchester United article to match it, but I disagree as the First Division and the Premier League are entirely separate competitions. The Premier League may now occupy the same level on the English football pyramid as the First Division once occupied, but they are separate. Aren't they? – PeeJay 02:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honor list should ALLWAYS reflect what level on the football pyramid clubs won during what specification season. Not the name of competitions (names have changed from levels too levels) some fixed point in time doing the later what PeeJay2K3 want to do is confusing and misleading, as competitions that are basically the same pre-1992 and post-1992 can be confused as different level of play as the Manchester United article currently reflects and its look like the premier league is some hove above the earlier incineration of the top-titer of the English football, thus making titles won from 1908-1967 as in case of Manchester United to be won on Level 2 of the football pyramid rather than right full spot which is level 1 Title won in 1967 is thus equal to title won in 1999 or 2009. Thus such listings can makes titles won pre 1992 as some hove inferior to titles won post 1992. So making it 100% clear Manchester United and Liverpool have both won 18 titles. In the same top tier of English football telling other wise is delusional(football league or not, Premer division or not). That is basically way most United was are more interested in winning the league for 19 time rather than premier league for 12 time, and same can be said about Liverpool they are more in interesting in braking there 20 year dire spell with wining the 19 time than winning the premer division for 1st time. The premier league name was only invention to create more money for the top clubs rather than be brake a way in any sense of the word, I mean it current 20 clubs are said to owners of the premier league but at the end of the season they send the Football league 3 rejects and gets instead three new clubs that win "promotion" thus new owner of premer division, thus complete brake a way would have included no promotion relegation as worst club wouldn't have wanted to risk losing money by getting relegated. Thus the Arsenal honor list is more "correct" in this sense. IF we keep that argument of different competition it would be like saying that Newcastle is winning (based on current position as this writing take place) there first title since 1927 they are now in the same "spot" as back in 1927 but no they aren't since they are level lower than in 1927 thus they are not champions of anything and the same case can be made for Wolves. DoctorHver (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea's honours include both Division 1 and Premier League together. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Arsenal format. There was a big deal made last season of the fact that Man Utd had drawn level with Liverpool in the total of English championships won, which gives equivalence to titles from both periods (even Man Utd themselves referred to this). There was a similar change from league to "Premier" league in Scotland; articles which talk about the likelihood of Rangers winning the league this year and their historic total talk about this being their 53rd Scottish championship, rather than it being their 6th SPL title. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whichever method is used, there should be prose or footnotes that explain the changes in division names that took place in 1992 and 2004, so that the reader can make sense of it. I think separating out Premier League and the old First Division is fine, as long as you don't combine old First Division and new First Division (1992-2004) together. Combining Premier League and old First Division is also OK, but only if it says something like "Premier League / old First Division" or "Level 1: Premier League (and First Division up to 1992)". For example, it should be clear that Liverpool have not won the Premier League, only the old First Division. --Jameboy (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to link the following articles, which deal in champions of each tier, regardless of their various names: List of English football champions, List of winners of English Football League Championship and predecessors, List of winners of English Football League One and predecessors, and List of winners of English Football League Two and predecessors. Dancarney (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Arsenal formatting makes far more sense. Even if the EPL is technically completely distinct from the First Division in that the members had to resign from the Football League to join it, it's the same competition as far as every reliable source is concerned. Jmorrison230582's analogy with the SPL is cogent here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hampshire Puma League"

A.F.C. Aldermaston makes repeated mention of the team playing next year in this league, but I can't find any other evidence of the league's existence, and the only Google hits seem to be scrapes of one BBC report. It doesn't seem to be a sponsored name for the Hampshire League as far as I can see. Any ideas.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sponsor for the Hampshire Premier Football League. Puma Engineering Hampshire Premier Football League. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Club footballers categories

I noticed that someone has created several of these categories for clubs that don't even have an article (e.g., Category:Marcali VFC footballers) and have very few articles that are included (or could be included) in the category. Should these be deleted? I suppose there's no harm in having the category, but it's odd without the club having an article. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Every category has to start somewhere. It's a club in a top-tier league, so it will eventually be populated. The user who created it was active recently, so you could try pinging him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Marcali has ever played in a league higher than the third level. Perhaps that's enough for an article (they do play in the Hungarian Cup). Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal streaming of sports broadcasts

This is presently a dreadful little article, but I can't help but feel that there might be enough reliable sources that it could be saved. Anyone fancy a challenge? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

County cup season articles

I just happened to visit Category:County Cup competitions and I noticed that there are a number of season articles for some of these competitions. The question is do these competitions warrant individual season articles? Thoughts please. Bettia (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this issue was discussed fairly recently. Didn't we come to the conclusion that these articles should be deleted? They are basically just reserve team competitions nowadays (at least, they are in the case of Manchester United's involvement in the Manchester Senior Cup). – PeeJay 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I quickly searched through the archives and couldn't find anything, but then again I was pressed for time so it wasn't thorough. Essentially some of them are reserve team competitions, most others are basically non-league cups with one or two league teams thrown in for good measure. Bettia (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

....and the league teams involved field their reserves or youths. In the case of the Kent Senior Cup, even semi-pro Dover Athletic don't field their full first team. I'd rate these tournaments as generally even less prestigious than things like the Southern League Cup and, while they certainly merit articles on the competitions themselves, I don't believe individual season articles should exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, to AfD we go then! Bettia (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here was the conversation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 40#Notibility of seasonal articles for all cups & leagues in England. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another in HONOURS (for the M.I.A.)

I was just editing Gabriel Milito, when i saw that the honours won by the player at FC Barcelona in 2008–09 still remain there (i am not going to remove them again, rest assured), which brings the question:

I think when a player trains, even if he does not play (a good case could be the third-choice goalkeeper or, in default, the second), he still merits to have the honours inserted in his page, because he was an active part of the squad. However, Milito did not train for one second in the season mentioned above (unless you include fitness sessions in the gym!), that is why i always thought the honours should not be there.

Debate, please, cheers,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Gabriel Milito, rather than his brother Diego, a striker who plays for Inter? There are usually a minimum number of games you have to play in a competition before you get a winner's medal—I know it's ten in the Premier League [8]—so we should probably use whatever that number is for the Spanish league to decide whether it is listed as an honour. Assuming there is a number, of course. – Toon 22:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It was my mistake, i already corrected it, i meant GABRIEL :) . I do understand your approach about the minimum requirements, but please read above, he did not train or play, one second (besides, there are no limits in Spanish football, if a player plays one game, he gets honours). VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't Spanish teams have to register a squad of 25 players for La Liga each season? If this is indeed the case, shouldn't every player who was registered have the same honours for that season? Therefore, if Gabriel Milito was registered for 2008-09, then I think he should have the Spanish league included in his honours. – PeeJay 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I also see your point, PEEJAY. I think he was always registered by the squad, as Carlos Gurpegui was so for Athletic Bilbao, even though he was suspended for two years due to a nandrolone case (Monty Python would be proud of me - something completely different!); Milito was as registered as Lionel Messi and the lot, but i doubt the player, if asked, would feel he played a part in the accolades. Tough matter of consensus indeed... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  It's not really a matter of consensus - it's a matter of whether he did or did not receive a winners' medal. That's what the honours section of an article records. He could put his medal on eBay if he wants but he'll still have won it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Roy Keane does not consider himself to have won the 1998-99 Champions League, but he has a medal for that competition as he was part of the Man Utd squad. – PeeJay 13:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Before I propose an article for an AfD, can someone confirm (or not, as the case may be) that a player who has only played at Conference South or lower does not pass the Notability guidelines. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An argument could be proposed against the deletion if it passes WP:N, but it's more than likely not notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't pass WP:ATHLETE, although they may pass the general notability guidelines if there are enough reliable non-routine sources, but this is unlikely. BigDom 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the outcome of this argument too. 91.106.99.139 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that argument will be relevant. Aren't they trying to make WP:ATHLETE less inclusive? – PeeJay 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

UEFA website

Hi. I posted this here on March 3, and I was advised to mail UEFA. I mailed them on March 7, but they have so far neither replied me nor fixed the links we have on our pages. However, I just saw this discussion and this one. They suggest that it's not UEFA's fault, but rather we have to modify all the references so they can match the new format introduced by UEFA. What shall we do now? --Магьосник (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see a good workaround for this. One productive step would be to email UEFA and express your desire for whatever idiots they employ to run their websites to take some time to look up the meaning of the word "permalink". We're going to have to update articles manually; it would obviously also be a good idea to look for sources other than UEFA for references in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but the easiest way to correct the links is to change the "www." in the old links to "en.archive." – PeeJay 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If this works, we could presumably have a bot do it at WP:BOTREQ. – Toon 16:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodison Park - Peer review request

Hi, I'd like to request a "Peer review" on the Goodison Park article but I don't know how to do it. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow the Nomination procedure at WP:PR. And then wait till hell freeze over for anyone to turn up and review it... Yes, I know, I'm as guilty as the next person :-( cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammed Aburub

Muhammed Aburub seems like a hoax to me (he was a professional football player at the age of 15?), could somebody please check it out? Woogee (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now up for AfD, here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chester F.C. pages

Why have the disambiguation page at all? There is no need to have Chester F.C. (2010) (name "year") This naming convention seems wrong. You don't need that disambiguation page in the middle when it is going to have just two results. Where one article finishes and the other starts via the time-lines. That's how it should be shouldn't it? Govvy (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and amended accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Positions-by-round table

I shall gladly make a positions-by-round table for the 2009–10 A PFG article, just like this, this or this, but there's something I'd like to ask first. The match between Levski Sofia and Litex Lovech was due to be played during the 3rd round, but was postponed for one reason or another. This was the league table after the 3rd round was held on August 21-24, 2009. All teams had played three games, except Levski, who remained 3rd in the table, and Litex, who remained 11th. Levski and Litex were always one match behind until November 25, 2009, when the postponed fixture between the two teams was held. Here's what the table looked like just before that game. Levski and Litex had played 12 games while all the other teams had already played 13; Litex were leaders in the table while Levski were 5th. After the match ended with a 2-2 draw, all teams had already played an equal number of games. Litex retained their first position, but Levski moved up one place thanks to the point they earned. So my question is: given this situation, can a positions-by-round table be made, and if so, how should I make it? I can see there's no such a table in the 2009–10 Premier League article, which documents a season when many games were postponed. --Магьосник (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These are exactly the reasons why such tables should not be created in the first place. In an ideal world, where every match in every round of fixtures is played on the same day, these tables might be a good idea, but in practical terms, when you get fixtures being moved around willy-nilly, these tables simply become a nuisance. There are just too many things to consider in their creation and maintenance, so I would suggest that you not bother. – PeeJay 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay - as far as the league is concerned, there's only one table that matters and that is the final table. Trying to track intermediate "rounds" is not useful, is potentially misleading and in some cases virtually impossible due to fixture changes. --Jameboy (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that as well, also pointing to WP:NOT#STATS. Since three people of one opinion is not the broadest consensus to have for a removal of these tables, are there more users sharing the opinions above? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Are you (soccer-holic) proposing removing all pos.by.round tables? They should be included where possible, i.e. La Liga, Liga I and other leagues where fixtures are not moved around and postponed as in EPL. The fact that EPL changes fixtures all the time doesn't mean that nobody should have a table. Regarding misleading: that's subjective. A topscorer list is similarly 'misleading' as to who's the better player. Sandman888 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandman, are you suggesting that "position-by-round" tables are encyclopaedic? In my opinion, they certainly aren't. In encyclopaedic terms, the positions a team occupies in the league table during the season are irrelevant. As Jameboy says, the only table of clubs that matters is the final league table. Furthermore, you cannot compare a league table to a table of top scorers. The table of top scorers does not show who is the best player, only who scored the most goals during the season. – PeeJay 12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed my proposal. Besides, you just say that such tables should be included, but you don't explain the reason why. As PeeJay said, it is pretty irrelevant in encyclopaedic terms if team X was in 13th place on matchday 5 and in 9th place on matchday 29. All that matters is the final position of each year, anything beyond this is trivial and perhaps even pointless information. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not supportive of such table, per WP:NOT#STATS at first, but also because of the fact league game weeks regularly get postponed due to different kinds of reasons (European competitions, bad weather, etc.) --Angelo (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the vast majority here - they are definitely undesirable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Add my voice to this: not encyclopaedic per WP:NOTSTATS. Am I happy to see them go? Sure, just like anything else that doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. Knepflerle (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the general sentiment that "round by round" positions are not notable, except to note that in some leagues (particularly Germany) there is a concept of "winter champions"; ie the team that is top of the league after the first full round of fixtures. Every team having played each other once, after which there is a long winter break. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. During the course of a season there is much information which is worthwhile and relevant to the article. Chronological events of the season are just as important as the final outcome. Games get rescheduled all the time and it is a matter of following when the rounds occur to update them. The English Premier League fixtures are originally published by round. But because the teams play in so many competitions (League Cup, Europa, CL) and also because of weather and because games are moved for TV it is not always apparent when the games of a round are played. Again this seems to be a move to control what is being displayed in an article, so that ALL season articles look the same rather than allowing concise innovative material. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the chronological events of the season are important, position by round tables are definately not the way communicate that information because they fail to do so. Precisely because of the reschedualing of fixtures these tables fail to do what they are intended to do, and as such they sould not be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. There seems to be two issues here: 1) if PBR is considered useful/good information and 2) whether it is possible to make it. There's plenty of leagues not suffering from the rescheduling that occurs in EPL, so I don't see why the lowest common denominator should be enforced. Therefor I suggest that PBR only be removed where it is hard to define, i.e. EPL. Sandman888 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above. I use the information in the PBR to decipher how a team performs and later when the season is finished where and when the improvement was and where and when downfalls occurred. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that everyone else thinks these tables are unencyclopaedic, and that is a far more pressing issue than fixture scheduling. – PeeJay 22:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, lets delete "Results", because that's just taking up more space and its statistical. Let's not stop there. Get rid of 95% of the infobox, because that's just more trivia. Also get of the manager information and stadiums because that's already in the team's list. Now get rid of the standings table because statistics are just lies. Also what's the map for? I'll invite PeeJay and Soccer-holic to write up an encyclopedic articles on all the seasons and let's keep it down to 5kb maximum. But don't hold your breath with these guys. I've seen how productive they are in this area of being "encyclopedic". And sorry my spellchecker is based in the US. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the strictest interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, the results' grids probably fall outside our articles' remit too. The whole point of writing an encyclopaedia article on a club (as opposed to an almanac entry) is that is supposed to be writing: there's a good reason the first two words of the the very first good article criterion (1a) are "the prose", likewise in our featured article criteria. Outside list articles we should be telling the story of the subject, not just providing kb after kb of tabulated statistics and asking our readers to crunch numbers to extract it for themselves. Including statistics in separate articles such as List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics or 2006–07 Fußball-Bundesliga is not a problem; the problem is that in so many articles it is used as a substitute for real encyclopaedic content in the main articles themselves. It's cheap padding which doesn't display reliably and correctly on mobile browsers, and furthermore nearly always reinforces the recentist bias of our article.

For an example, take Slovakia national football team - in 35kb of "stuff", we have only eleven sentences of content about the team (as opposed ot the stadium), followed by reams of tables most of whose contents relate to just the last qualifying campaign. When the World Cup kicks off, our articles on competing nations are going to be read thousands of times, and are we really happy that eleven paltry sentences is all we can offer?

In summary: if you desperately want detailed statistics, create standalone supplementary articles to contain them. If you want to point out that club A collapsed after January, and club B won ten in a row at the end of the season to steal the title - then write it, in the article text. That's what it's there for. Knepflerle (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The write it aspect of the article is where the dilemma is. Especially for non-English based teams and competitions. How many people are really going to sit down and spend some real dedicated time to produce an article written in superb Muther Englysh about the 2009–10 Georgian Football season ??? (At least on the volunteer level which is what us Wikipedians are all about). I'm also going to also include the added work of adding citations and references which seem to be neglected on so many articles. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How good does an editor's English have to be to write "Dynamo Kyiv and Shakhtar Donetsk occupied the top two places for almost the entire season. Chornomorets Odessa spent almost the first third of the season in the relegation zone but recovered to 13th place."? It doesn't even matter if the English isn't perfect, most English speakers can read imperfect English better than half a spreadsheet. Knepflerle (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see a lot has been written here since I was last available. Maybe a positions-by-round table is inappropriate for Wikipedia considering the above arguments. I took a look at the 2009–10 Premier League article and found much content that could be classified as pointless as well. If everything that matters is the final positions in the table, and if everything related to chronological events throughout the season is to be deprecated, then why does the article contain the following sections?

• Managerial changes
• Ownership changes
• Results
• Monthly awards

Also, with what are the following parts of the content more important than the PBR table, and with what do they satisfy WP:NOT#STATS more than the PBR table does?

• Infobox showing the biggest away win, the longest losing run, the lowest attendance, etc;
• Personnel and kits section;
• Season statistics section - all of it;
• even Results section (again);
• maybe Stadia section.

Moreover, I agree with Brudder Andrusha that a PBR table could give the reader some idea about how a team performed during the season. But I also agree that it will be misleading in the event of games getting postponed. --Магьосник (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's get serious. I just checked a couple of other, international wikis (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Ukraine, to be exact) for their versions of both the Premier League and La Liga articles. Exactly ZERO of them have implemented a concept even distantly related to the PbR tables. I further checked some copies of the German kicker football yearbook, which is usually a good reference, with the same result. I would also assume that you wouldn't find anything like that in Rothmans or other similar publications. So, if even well-established writing capacities do not employ such a concept, why should the English wiki? Do the articles gain anything USEFUL from adding these tables? I leave this question intentionally unanswered.

Which leads me to your list above, Magyosnik. Results is a must keep, as a) this is where the league table comes from and b) this concept is well-established in both printed and online media. The top goalscorers are usually included in these publications as well, occasionally accompanied by a list of hat-tricks in the dedicated football yearbooks. Managerial changes and yearly awards are probably keepable as well, since these are noteworthy events of the season. For stadia, you could argue either way, so in dubio pro status quo. Ownership changes are borderline and should only be included if they had an impact on the season. Finally, the "personnel and kits" (or similar named sections) and "season statistics" sections should go as soon as possible as these are violating WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#STATS imho.

If this turns into a discussion what should be included into a league season article and what should not, so be it. A guideline for these is long overdue. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that things such as "personnel and kits" and "season statistics" are fairly trivial. Stadium information is only really worth noting in a prose format, for instance if a club changes ground, or a major development (e.g. new stand erected, becomes all-seater) occurs. Dancarney (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; see my comments above on preferring prose over tables where feasible. Knepflerle (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on league season article format

I'm up for the discussion. Seeing the 2009-10 EPL page I agree that all more or less static information should be axed; the map, stadia, kit(!) and various dubious records. Sandman888 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be for keeping the map. I find them useful when looking at seasons for leagues where I don't know the footballing geography. The kit details are total cruft. Dancarney (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's go into it; this is what I feel to be right:

• Managerial changes: yes - they are quite related to the season, and often depending and affecting the results;
• Ownership changes: not as a section, as not strictly related to the league season itself; can maybe be considered useful as a prose, however;
• Kits and sponsorships: WP:TRIVIA - kill with fire;
• Monthly/yearly awards: yes, but only if officially awarded by the League Committee itself;
• Results: yes, of course, that's where the table comes from;
• Stadia: I would say to keep them, venues and capacities are not really such static info;
• Map: yes, it is quite nice to have and adds information about the geographical distribution of the league teams. Geographical representation is actually a matter of debate in several countries, including Italy.
• Infobox with lowest attendances, longest winning run, etc.: no, to me it's just additional WP:TRIVIA, especially when it's featured when the season is still ongoing;

Have your say. --Angelo (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree except Stadia. They're not really static? Capacity is hardly volatile. Axe 'em. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Info about stadia should be kept for club season articles. – PeeJay 16:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandman too. Knepflerle (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is becoming an editor's hack fest rather than focusing on what the occasional reader, browser or information seeker who is going to use Wikipedia as a source. The dramatic rise in usage is because there is a wide varying source of detail for which admins now want conformation. Firstly, its called guidelines - later it will be call Rules. As long as the source is verifiable that is a pretty good reason for inclusion. (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability - intro of first sentence! WP:Verifiability) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"As long as the source is verifiable that is a pretty good reason for inclusion" - no, no, no. And fourthly no. Verifiability is necessary for inclusion. It is not sufficient. This is a fundamental of Wikipedia, and precisely why we have WP:NOT and WP:N. This cannot be emphasised enough. Knepflerle (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course - NOT! That's why we have admins here who keep on shouting "NO! NO! NO!" Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see many admins around in the discussion. This isn't an admin matter anyway, no tools are required to decide as a group how we want our articles to look. Knepflerle (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brudder Andrusha, the other point to remember is that we are not just considering the complete removal of information; another alternative in some cases is to move it to dedicated statistics articles. This is what I did in some tennis articles; I created Daniela Hantuchová tournament progression and career statistics, so that the biographical article Daniela Hantuchová was not swamped with the tabular data and blow-by-blow accounts of every single tournament she had competed in. Knepflerle (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, would pave the way for articles where every single league match is listed with complete goalscoring, cards and possibly even the color of the referee's jersey. In other words: 240 footballboxes for a 16-team league, 306 for a 18-team league, 380 for a 20-team league and 552 for a 24-team league, together with countless occasions of Template:Goal and its likes. It is very questionable if this is indeed the way to go, especially since we had a couple of these articles taken to AfD in the past. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, we can and should put limits on what goes in these articles too. I agree that more quasi-auto-generated 230k template-junkyards in the "model" of 2009–10 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round is the last thing we need. To put that size in perspective, our article on World War II is 167k. Knepflerle (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sympathy for Brudders sentiment that WP is a fine source of information for football nuts, but when you have to skip two screens of trivia to get to the league table, it's too much. Maybe we could also have a discussion of the ordering of trivia on the seasons pages? Sandman888 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We can have everything since 0s, 1s and the data devices they are stored on are very patient. But in order to actually achieve anything, this discussion must now be carried on until its final conclusion. (Ladies and?) Gentlemen, everyone of us knows what a sandbox is (and if not, click the link ;-)). How about a couple of example proposals which can be discussed? "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." (quote taken from Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut/Yogi Berra). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since nobody took up the loose ball, how about this proposal? As for the choice of the league – sorry, could not resist.^^

Some annotations:

1. The tons of uncited material in the "Season summary" section are intended to be preferably sourced by native pages. If these, however, should not be available, the respective kicker matchday league tables can easily be inserted as they contain both results and a "snapshot" league table (Example: [http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/intligen/intwettbewerbe/wischa-liga/2009-10/23/0/spieltag.html UPL, "Round 23" and following mid-week matches)
2. The "Changes from last season" sections were merged partly into the lead, partly into the season summary. Any remaining sections considered keepable as per the list above have been moved below the goalscorers list. The order of these sections is, of course, subject to further discussion if desired.
3. Note that any qualifications for European competitions before the end of the season are cited in the season summary. The benefit: Precisely formulated information a la the notes currently to be found at the bottom of the 2010–11 UEFA competition articles without the need for additional templates or fancy graphics. By the way - the reluctance against these is rather a technical aspect than a personal dislike. To quote User:Knepflerle, "some mobile browsers, all text-only browsers, all monochrome browsers, all screen readers and some color blind people" are not able to read any information which is solely based on a non-textual visualization. I hope I do not have to explain it any further.
4. Finally, and on a more minor note, the infobox has been cleaned up since less information is more information in this case.

Any comments, ideas, thoughts on this are gladly welcome. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Image showing league positions

Hi, is it a good idea to include this in FC Schalke 04's article? A similar image was included in Hertha BSC's article. Personally, I think that these images are ugly, but I would like to know what others think. --Jaellee (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, a couple of years ago, User:Pone created a series of images like this, which I think should be included in this discussion. Should we keep them? Perhaps they are only appropriate for articles like this or this? – PeeJay 10:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nottingham County

I was wondering if anyone has come across a team called "Nottingham County"? One of my books makes reference to this team - specifically they appear in lists of West Bromwich Albion friendly matches (in 1887, 1888, 1893 and 1894 - I can give dates and scorelines as well if that helps). My first thought was that it is a typo and should be Notts County, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, particularly as "Notts County" appears elsewhere within the same pages. Another thought I had was that it could have been some kind of representative team. I can find no reference to it elsewhere though. --Jameboy (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These friendly matches were against Notts County. (source the official history of Notts County 1862-1995 by Tony Brown) There seems to be some disagreement about the result of the match played on 4-1-1894 (3-0 or 3-1) Cattivi (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. My source (Albion! A Complete Record of West Bromwich Albion 1879-1987 by Tony Matthews) has that match as 3-0 to County. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Johnson

Ok, I'm having a battle with someone regarding Ryan Johnson's page. Grk1011 is telling me that he moved the page to Ryan Johnson (soccer), which I don't really get because he's Jamaican, he played for the Jamaican national team, so I don't understand. But he was saying that he moved it because he's an American citizen, which is true, but doesn't nationality come first? – Michael (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on the matter should be presented here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox controversy

I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the soccer/football position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumed accidental page blanking.

One of our internal discussion pages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, got somehow blanked when a new section was created. Can an admin restore the deleted content with the new section at the bottom? I assume that's possible, but it's beyond my knowledge of how. matt91486 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I don't think it was accidental. I'm no admin and was able to restore it. Someone just reomved all closed disscussions when they added a comment. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong questions

I recently proposed an AfD for Sheffield United (Hong Kong) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield United (Hong Kong)). During the discussion, someone pointed out that the team is listed as having played in the Hong Kong First Division League 2008–09 season. However, my concern is what happened to them after that. According to Hong Kong First Division League 2008–09, Sheffield United (Hong Kong) finished high enough to avoid being relegated for the 2009-10 season, yet they aren't playing in the 2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League season. What happened to them?

By the same token, Hong Kong First Division League#Exceptions says that two clubs were exempt from relegation, the Army and the Police football teams. However, neither of those clubs is actually playing in the HK First Division now. What happened to them? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Austin Speight

Despite this reference [9] I can find no statistical evidence that Speight played in the Football League for either Stockport or Rochdale (checking Neil Brown and allfootballers). Can anyone confirm whether he played for either Chicago Sting or Finn Harps. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He played a couple of league matches for Finn Harps in the 1981-82 season. He didn't play any matches in the NASL (Chicago Sting) or the conference (Northwich Victoria) And I'm not sure newspaperarticles should always be considered as a reliable sourceCattivi (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you got a source for him playing at Finn Harps. It seems the other 3 clubs should be removed. Eldumpo (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the news article doesn't technically state that he actually played for any of those clubs, only that he was on their books..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A source for Finn Harps is this: [10] Cattivi (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source though, anybody can submit stats to the Playerhistory website and the editorial controls are almost non-existent. BigDom 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else got a view on the accuracy of the playerhistory site or an alternative source to show he played for Finn Harps, else he may be a candidate for deletion? Eldumpo (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that Finn Harps were fully pro in 1981, even if the appearances are taken as verified. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the search results I get from [11] (21 and 28 september 1981) playerhistory is probably correct. I agree with Kevin that this doesn't make him very notable. Cattivi (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Never played in NASL - he is not listed here. GiantSnowman 01:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding categorization of domestic cup season categories

As you might have noticed, the league season article categories have recently been renamed in order to match the changed naming structure. Next up in line are the cup season categories; in relevance to the moves, there were two questions raised by Theilert (talk · contribs), which I hereby copy and paste from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Feel free to comment. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Should these categories be categorized in Category:Seasons in association football by year as well? Or should we create new parent categories like; Category:Domestic association football cups by year and Category:Domestic association football leagues by year, and finally categorize the two new parent categories into Category:Seasons in association football by year? lil2mas (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Independent of the outcome above, should we rename Category:Seasons in association football by year to Category:Association football seasons by year, and do the same with "by country" and "by club" to match Category:Association football seasons by competition? This would match the parent category Category:Association football seasons, but if "Seasons in" is more correct we could do a reverse rename. As long as we gain consistency, I will be happy! lil2mas (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure there's a need for a separate cups by year category. 2. I think the 'Association football seasons by year' is better. Eldumpo (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about number one, but for number 2 I agree with Eldumpo on this. By supressing the word "in", the category title becomes, in my opinion, a more commonly used phrase. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I would then first setup the process of renaming the "by season/country/club" categories (pending any objections) and afterwards file the cup season categories in Category:Association football seasons by year. A restructurization can still be made at a later point if desired. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

Is it time to revisit/refresh the Football Notability criteria in the light of discussions at [12], which seems to show broad support for the individual sports defining notability. I would question the use of 'fully professional' without an agreed definition, although perhaps any specific comments are best at the FN talk page? Eldumpo (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above some postings have been made at WP:NSPORTS and I would welcome comment at [13] Eldumpo (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Professional L

Hi, I contribute to Wikipedia in French and I came accross this page: Professional L (redirected from Professional Leagues). The original page was European Professional Football Leagues, that's actually the page linked to the article in French (fr:European Professional Football Leagues). But it's been moved twice and then deleted. The Professional L page has aslo been moved, it seems a bit messy. Is this normal? Shouldn't the "right" page be European Professional Football Leagues? fr:User:Ben5 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.243.232 (talk)

That was a bit of a mess. Lots of page moves had left a trail of double redirects which I have now fixed. I have also merged the history of one of the redirects as it seemed to be the basis for the article. The article as a whole needs cleaning up considerably. Thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I'm afraid the article is now a copyviolation of the official website but that can be fixed easily I guess. Sorry for not helping on this (going back to French). Cheers! fr:User:Ben5 87.67.243.232 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Club season articles

Two questions:

1. What is the correct naming convention for Football Club season articles? In Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season, most of the article titles have the club first, season second; e.g. Arsenal F.C. season 2009–10, but a few are the reverse; e.g. 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season. As all the articles in Category:Seasons in English football take the form 2009–10 in English football, shouldn't the club seasons follow the same format?
2. Is there a "manual of style" for club season articles? There seems to be a different presenation for each and every club, covering the order of the content and what should be included. Taking three clubs near the top of League One for example, Norwich City F.C. season 2009–10, Leeds United A.F.C. season 2009–10 and Huddersfield Town F.C. season 2009–10, there is very little similarity between them. The infoboxes are all different, the squad tables are different, some have an appearance table, some don't; likewise with disciplinary matters. Should the summary of the season take the form of a diary of key events or should it be an essay? Etc. etc.

I await your comments with interest. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. All season articles used to have the year(s) at the end, but recently a few articles have been moved so they are at the front. I think we should continue with this in order to, as you say, make them consistent with the categories, etc.

2. Personally, I can't stand season articles that are just full of statistics. A diary of events is practically WP:PROSELINE, and I prefer seasons written as proper encyclopedic articles, with background information, a few paragraphs of text about the matches, etc. My points are made clear in the two season GAs that I've written, 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season and 1922–23 Nelson F.C. season. I don't know of anybody else who writes seasons in this fashion, but this is definitely the kind of thing I aim for.

Like you, I'm also interested to see what opinions other people have on the matter. BigDom 16:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) IIRC, we decided at WT:FSATF that since the season comes first in competition season articles, it should be the same for club season articles; therefore, 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season is correct and Arsenal F.C. season 2009–10 is not. I would also suggest that 2009–10 English football season would be preferable over 2009–10 in English football. They use a similar format at WP:CRIC, with season articles titled as 2010 English cricket season, etc. – PeeJay 16:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Year first.

I think we need to have a discussion on the structure of the club season articles in the WT:FSATF talk page. You'll be hard pressed to find two club season articles from two different clubs with the same general structure. Once a structure is established, we can move on to how data should appear (i.e. tables, charts, whatever) in support of prose. Digirami (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is an italophone, here..

I work on italian wikipedia and I'm creating some pages (Serie A players from the past, 50 or more years ago), if you're interested in translating them in english I can list them.. I can also write you the updated voices..93.33.3.66 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tull's Billingham

In a recent book I read [Gods, Mongrels & Demons (London: Bloomsbury, 2004), p. 363] the author Angus Calder says that a Private named T. Billingham, who tried to recover Walter Tull's body, "had played soccer with him for Northampton Town." Does anyone know the identity of this enigmatic player, and if he was related to another Northampton Town player born in 1914 (son, nephew?) called Jack Billingham? GiantSnowman 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

England national under-18 football team

The England national under-18 football team article has not been updated since April 2008 and, as such, is rather pointless. Is anyone interested in bringing it up to date? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Think it's been updated quite alot since 2008 and according to the FA website is not far different from the players they list as in the current squad. I will remove those not listed on the FA site.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible hoax

Is Marcos (footballer) real? If not, can anyone delete it, or request for it to be deleted? Thanks. — Martin tamb (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be related to this load of rubbish.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeap, just yesterday I reverted his vandalism on the Brazil national football team article . I don't know how to request for a speedy deletion. Perhaps anyone here familiar with it could do it, it would save a lot of time rather than wait for me to read the instructions on WP:CSD. — Martin tamb (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the latest one of these serial sockpuppet/vandals. If there's any admins about could deal appropriately, or I'll report it to WP:AIV. The footballer article can be speedied as blatant hoax/vandalism. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've speedied the article. About the sockpuppets, I suggest you to report them to WP:AIV indeed. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have done, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FC Inter Wehnen/RFC Wehnen

I see quite a lot of footballers being listed as playing for either of these clubs [14], but with nothing on the web to back this up - I'm not entirely sure that either club actually exists. Can anyone shed any light? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax. Wehnen is a tiny district just outside Oldenburg, Germany and the "club" doesn't appear on any German club databases. The "club" appears in only two places: firstly, this blog whose team play in the "Russian league of Germany" contains such teams as "Spartak Lübeck", "Zenit Saarbrücken" and "Rubin Kiel" [15]. Notice that all the players involved in the related edits from the IPs introducing Wehnen (Special:Contributions/88.71.245.147 and Special:Contributions/188.96.191.187) were out-of-contract players with stronger or weaker connections with Russia or Eastern Europe, and often have played in Germany. The IPs themselves resolve to Germany.

The only other mention of this "club" is on the site "football-talents" (it's on the spam blacklist so I can't give a direct link; it's easily found by Google) which lists two players - one appears to be a genuine Russian U17 player, and the other appears to be the writer of the blog who has allegedly received invitations from all of the national squads of Georgia, Uzbekistan and Serbia [16] for his scoring prowess [17].

Overall this is nothing more than the product of a rather fertile imagination. Taking a look at the global contributions of the IPs (e.g. [18]), the hoax seems to be spread over en.wiki, de.wiki and ru.wiki at the very least, so some interwiki cleanup is in order.

I'd say something now about the endemic lack of explicit referencing of sources in infoboxes making this sort of hoax all too easy to perpetrate and repeat, but I think you can fill in the rest of the details for yourselves.

Good spot by the way, ArtVandelay.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike McCulloch

Does anyone have any sources for Scottish League players that could be used to add the stats for Mike McCulloch who played for Falkirk between 1913 and 1921, and Hearts between 1921 and 1922. Cheers, BigDom 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Falkirk 161-22 Hearts 0 matches. Source is the Emms-Wells book and the rsssf site, because goalscorers from the 1917-18 and 1918-19 season are missing in the book. No stats for St Bernards 1925-26 because that was Scottish second division.Cattivi (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no record of him playing for Hearts on [19], which ties in with Cattivi's written record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)