Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 61#Nationality categories

Strage title. Is the contenst worthy to save? I don't think so. -Koppapa (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

: WP:NOT a sports calendar. We should endeavour to concentrate on documenting that which has happened rather than that which may go ahead in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{t1|Infobox college rivalry}}. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm hoping that there's some kind of Wikipedia consensus view about this question. An editor has been going around to articles of football players and changing "Barcelona Spain" to "Barcelona Catalonia" (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerard_Piqu%C3%A9&action=historysubmit&diff=460607683&oldid=460584338 here]). I know there are complicated and nationalistic issues involved but I was hoping there was a consensus view on which is the preferred form. Any thoughts? (Cross post from WP:SPAIN.) SQGibbon (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

: Barcelona, Spain. Just revert the edits. Nationalists, splitter and other politically motivated editors vandalize topics all the time. Just revert it, and take a look into the contributions of the user, if there is more to revert. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Jonathan, it's "Barcelona, CATALONIA", or "Seville, ANDALUSIA", or "Bilbao, BASQUE COUNTRY", just to give extra geographic info. It's followed in the article's introduction by "is a SPANISH footballer", so no one is; 1 - being politically driven; 2 - vandalizing anything OK? If people choose to remove the geographic region, then they should also not write SPAIN, why should we have repeated stuff like "...born 31-3-1980 in Barcelona, Spain, is a Spanish footballer"? Greetings as well, from Portugal (i'm Portuguese, not a Spanish nationalist, and if i'm seeing it well, the editor who keeps doing the stuff mentioned above is not one either, he's BRAZILIAN!) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm with Vasco on this, it's just extra information about the city's region in the country. However, I believe the usage depends on various factors here. If writing "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" is too long for the infobox, just write "Barcelona, Spain" there. In the prose, either in the lead or in the section about birthplace, it doesn't hurt to have "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain". As Vasco says, it would be silly to have "...Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, is a Spanish...", therefore I believe it's better to simplify it into "...Barcelona, Catalonia, is a Spanish...". Anyway, US-related articles often have the states written between city name and "United States" and even sometimes "United States" are omitted. — MT (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I looked around a bit and here's this from the guideline on opening paragraphs:

3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

:::1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.

:::2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Which indicates that we shouldn't even have something like "Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (Catalan pronunciation: [ʒəˈɾar piˈke]; born 2 February 1987 in Barcelona, Catalonia) is a Spanish footballer,...", but just " Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (Catalan pronunciation: [ʒəˈɾar piˈke]; born 2 February 1987) is a Spanish footballer,..."

This is backed up from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players Football style guide] which gives as an opening sentence:

"Tim Template (born 1 January 1975) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Temp in Templatonia Premier League.

Template was born in TempTown and played youth football with Template Juniors and Template Youth before starting his professional career with Template United F.C. ..."

You can see an example at Wayne Rooney. I guess following the guidelines successfully sidesteps the issue. I will also note that while I would like to think that most readers know that Catalonia is an autonomous region in Spain the reality is probably that it isn't well-known at all and having the line "... born in Barcelona Catalonia is a Spanish football player ..." might actually be confusing in that unless you know what Catalonia is you would think that the player changed nationalities from Catalan to Spanish. I agree that "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain is a Spanish football player" is a bit awkward but at least it's perfectly clear. In any case, editing these articles to conform to Wikipedia biography and football guidelines solves the problem. SQGibbon (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: Hi Vasco & Martin. In the infobox the vast majority uses the country and not the state. The state is used and the country omitted, if eg it is clear goeing in, that this a solely US-related topic, like US Congress elections or something like that. Otherwise you should always include the country rather than the state. Not everybody knows Bilbao is located in Spain, not even everybody knows Basque Country is in Spain, so you shouldn't leave the country out of the infobox, and not every footballer is playing for the country he is born in (Vasco you as a Portuguese probably know Pepe, a Portuguese footballer born in Brazil), so it is not okay to cut short the country of birth assuming it is included in the introduction anyways, because it is not necessary correctly decribed here, the introduction uses the country the player represents in internationals. So given the choice, you would have to choose Spain and not Catalonia. Of course it would be okay if someone wants to be more specific, and wants to add the region or state. "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" is totally fine, no problem here. In my personal taste it's a little redundant, but if the editor wants to do the extra work including the region, fine by me. But if you in the same move delete the country - and thats what the topic starter described - then this is not acceptable and the edits has to be reverted or at least corrected. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I never said that the country should be omitted entirely, just in some cases where it is redundant and the country was already clearly written or clearly known such as in US-related topics. I'm just saying that it would be difficult to create a consensus on whether to use "city, country" or "city, region/state/province, country" or "city, region/state/province" because not every case is similar. — MT (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Just want to make clear that this is not a national issue, because I am Brazilian and I have no relation Spanish. The intention, as Vasco said, just tell the place of birth. I'm only following an agreement that was.

: I some cases, was placed "is a Catalan footballer", and I reverted to "Spanish". So to make understood, my opinion is to leave as it ever was. Example: born 2 February 1987in Barcelona, Catalonia) is a Spanish footballer,..." — Raulseixas (talk) 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::According to WP:MOSBIO a person's birthplace should not generally be included in the opening paragraph. Therefore I've removed it from Pique's article Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It should not be included in INTRO, but it should not be REMOVED SUMMARILY as i often see either. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It shouldn't be removed from the lead without putting it somewhere in the body of the article instead, certainly. MOS:BIO says that "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." I've added Mr Piqué's birthplace to the Personal life section of his article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Hello again.

:::::::@Martin: i understand you wanted to differenciate by explaining how it is okay to add info about the region, but (look at the title) i answered with "Bercelona, Spain" because i felt i was given two options here, and given the two options i think deleting the regional info is more desirable than deleting country info. As you yourself stated "Bercelona, Catalania, Spain" is a bit long for the infobox, and it gets worse with other names that are much longer if you want to include the region.

:::::::@Vasco: So you basicly agree?

:::::::As for that "Catalian Footballer" part: The mentioned nationality is the nationality the player holds or the country he represents. I'm sorry but Catalan is not a nationality, and it is common standard to use the nationality in the short description. Both is okay to me, region + country, but only the region and not the country is not. If some regions / states really think it is important, that their region is represented seperatedly from their country, they will have to apply at FIFA or the continental institution for their own international team, like "Scotland" (UK), "Northern Ireland" (UK), "Wales" (UK), "England" (UK) or "Faroe" (Denmark) that are international teams which do technically not represent an official country. Until that such an exception is granted Catalanian footballers are "Spanish" footballers (whether they like it or not), because otherwise we could face a mass edit warring with every region or nation changing the despription of the player back and forth.

:::::::If that player has a involvement/special meaning/love to his region in particular (like say charity work or political involvement or anything else), or if he for some reason doesn't like the country he lives in or represents, his affiliation to his birth region or his rejection of the country can be further explained in the section "personal life". Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE:This widely used costume of putting the place of birth behind the birth date in the lead should be removed per WP:OPENPARA. The place of birth should be moved to the article body, something like: ...born in Barcelona, started playing football at... FkpCascais (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:OPENPARA and the MOS for football articles I've moved the birth place information from the lead to the main body for the articles in dispute. I left Catalonia in but I don't have a feeling about that one way or the other. I did put Spain back in since it does belong but it no longer has the awkward wording that others have pointed out. Other than cleaning up my edits (and fixing any other articles that have this problem) I think we can say this issue is resolved. SQGibbon (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too, issue is resolved. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Where did i go astray explaining myself? I did not say CATALONIA is a nation, never, when i say "born in Barcelona, Catalonia" i am NOT SAYING the player hails from that "nation", the nationality is explained in "...is a SPANISH footballer who plays for...". Yes, CATALAN/BASQUE/GALICIAN footballers are Spanish 100%, when did i say the opposite?

Again, if you insist in removing the community/province, please leave ONLY the city, not "PIQUÉ was born in Barcelona, Spain", that makes zero sense. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::Hi Vasco. :) Why does "PIQUÉ was born in Barcelona, Spain" make zero sense? 99% of the articles are written this way. Obviously most people want to include the country, not only city or city and region. For Pepe eg this would look like this:

::Pepe (born 26 February 1983 in Maceió, Brazil) is a Portuguese Footballer...

::This would be a standard of phrasing that in a clear way includes all relevant information for almost all possible combinations. I really don't understand why this makes no sense to you, and i would ask you to further explain. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::(editconflict) Vasco, I think the point you are not getting here is that we cannot have, sometimes, vague or unknown regions of countries in the lead. You may know most of Spain's regions but many other people will not. Similarly, there will be many countries where you will not know any of the regions. If we have one standardised way of doing things it makes it a lot easier for everyone to know what they are reading and what it actually means. Adam4267 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:VascoAmaral, I think we're all making an effort to understand what point you and Raulseixas are trying to make but would you please try to explain it again? What is it about including "Spain" in the main body of the article (with the place of birth removed from the lead) that makes "zero sense"? The main body of an article is supposed to repeat everything in the infobox and the lead and then further expound on those points with sources. Help us out here. SQGibbon (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1 (Jonathan): Pepe was born in one country and represents another, so his case is different IMO; 2 (Adam) - yes, coherence is needed, but i see most English footballers have city and borough detailed in their bios (sometimes even in INTRO!) 3 (Gibbon) - i don't know man, even with the bit removed from the lead, knowing the nationality of the player makes me have that "no sense" reaction, why not just have "Born in Barcelona" instead of "Born in Barcelona, Spain", since you folks seem to shudder at the the geographic detail that much (as MARTIN TAMB put it earlier in the debate, it's just extra geographic info, nothing more, nothing else)? Furthermore, i feel the "reference to differ" should be applied when more than one city/town in the world bore the same name (i.e. Birmingham), AFAIK there is ONLY ONE place named Barcelona in the world.

Attentively, with the utmost respect - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:Then let's go with "Barcelona" (a number of articles seem to do it like that) but you might want to mention that to Raulseixas who reverted my attempts to do just that. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

::Completely wrong there guys, Barcelona (disambiguation), in any case users shouldn't have to check whether there are other cities with the same name to decide whether they should put the country down as well. This is why the country is needed so people know in what city they were born and in what country that city is. If anything is to be removed it would be the city because that is not integral to a player's career whereas their country is (I'm not advocating that just saying).

::Also, Vasco, I know that many English players have borough and city and many players from other countries have many different regional discrepancies (i.e. Spain with their autonomous regions) but that is no excuse for breaking the rules. If one player was born in Rockingham, Perth, Australia and another was born in Newton Mearns, Glasgow, Scotland and another was born in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain and another was born in Chicago, Illinois, United States. The unsuspecting reader might not be aware that the first two go Suburb/City/Country and the second two go City/Region/Country, thus taking the wrong information away from the page and forever thinking Glasgow is one of Scotland' Regions or Barcelona is a suburb of Catalonia. Nobody wants that, do they? This is why we need a uniform rule that is actually followed by people. Actually we have a unifrom rule, but people just don't follow it. Adam4267 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Vasco buddy, I don't want to personally attack you or slow down your commitment, so please don't get this the wrong way, but you seem a little confused. You ignore the key arguments people give you and don't answer the questions you are asked. I have a respectful request: if you oppose reaching a consensus, then at least do this in a productive way. Okay, answer me this: what do you mean "Pepes case is different"? I make a long explanation and you brush it all aside with that short and unprecise half-sentence? That's not argumention, that's just quarreling. I think Pepe is a good example for this discussion: He is born in a country+region+town and is a footballer that represents a club and a country, so he is in every relevant way not a different case. He fits perfectly here. Also he is good for showing how a good standardisation works because he has three different places relevant here: birthplace, country he represents, club he plays for. We are looking for a standard of phrasing that can be applied in all footballer articles, not just in articles where there is an overlap in some places relevant for the bio. If you say the case is different, does that mean you want to create a different standard for different footballers? This seems unneccessarily complicated, and certainly wouldn't clarify anything for readers and editors. And if this is what you want, where besides serving your odd taste of article design would be the advantage of that, since I honestly only see disadvantages? You have been given a lot of good explanations and suggestions how to handle this here in the discussion, but you oppose it all without coherent arguments or proposing a appropriate solution yourself. Really I don't want to criticise you personally, but the way you interact here is not productive, and your attitude seems highly questionable. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I thought i had presented my arguments to the best of my abilities, i see i did not, still being "almost" insulted (not your intention, but it looks like it), but i agree i am feeling confused, nobody's fault but mine there: i OPPOSE everything? How? I am only quarreling? I thought Pepe was different only because he is BRAZILIAN and plays for PORTUGAL, nothing else (thus, he could have "born in Maceió, Brazil" in his article - even though i prefer "born in Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil"), in no way do i desire a different standard for different players.

Questionable attitude? ONLY disadvantages to what i have said? I had THREE people asking me a question, i tried to reply them all as precisely as i could, you say i "brushed it all aside"? If i was not confused before, i certainly feel now...--Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

: In short, Catalonian nationalism has no place on Wikipedia and certainly not football articles on English Wikipedia.

: At length, the United States of America are a collection of independent states. They are an exception to the rule of City, Country. The nations within the United Kingdom are recognised individually by FIFA and several other bodies. They are a different exception. I have no problems with listing Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or Edmonton (and other Canadian cities) as City, Nation however they are usually listed City, Province because of the American influence on their leagues. German clubs are not listed as City, State, Nation. Pretty sure French, Italian, and other European nations are listed similarly. I suspect that Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian countries with subdivisions are also listed as City, Country. So no, the state should not be mentioned unless you can gain consensus from WP:PLACE, I can't see us making an exception either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: Hi again Vasco. Okay, I really don't want to insult you, and I also really don't want to almost insult you. If I came across there wrong, I apologize. The problem here is, not only i disagree with your view, but also with your way of discussion. Let's keep it simple, we're looking for a standard of phrasing. I stronly suggest to include the country. You want to include the region. My suggestion is this:

::::Pepe (born 26 February 1983 in Maceió, Brazil) is a Portuguese footballer...

::::Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (born 2 February 1987 in Barcelona, Spain) is a Spanish footballer...

:::: And so forth. You prefer this (as far as I understand, you are a little vague, correct me if this is not what you meant):

::::Pepe (born 26 February 1983 in Maceió, Alagoas) is a Portuguese footballer...

::::Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (born 2 February 1987 in Barcelona, Catalonia) is a Spanish footballer...

:::: You immediatedly see, why i wanted the standard with the country included, and why i brought up Pepe as an example. While there is no problem with Pique, because you immediatedly see the country a few letters further, there is a lack of clarification in Pepes case, this looks like Pepe is born in Portugal to the casual reader, which makes your proposal undesireable. So given the choice between country and region, I'd prefer the country included. There could be a case for also including regions (so town+region+country), but then again where does it stop? If there is any relevance for that region to be mentioned in the players article, then put it in another section, like the already suggested 'personal life'. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• No worries mate, no offense taken, i was just taken aback with the "questionable attitude" comment. Yup, i indeed prefer the second (city, region). In Pepe's case, why do you think the confusion is possible? Pepe's piece reads is a Brazilian-born Portuguese footballer. Asking your last question, no, the region of birth almost always (99,999999%) does not have any relevance whatsoever, only further information.

If you say in Piqué the nationality's only a few letters further ("...is a Spanish footballer..."), so in Pepe ("...is a Brazilian-born PORTUGUESE footballer..."). Same goes for, for instance, Liédson. Greetings as well - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::: But your way to phrase it "Brazilian-born Portuguese footballer" has two disadvantages: first it makes the article longer with a more complicated phrase while adding no more info, and second this is not a standard that can apply to all footballer articles, we would have two different standards, which seems less favourable than one needed standard like in the case described above. You can only get your idea into one different standard by using the phrase "Pique is a Spainish-born Spanish footballer" or something like that in other articles, which obviously will not be used since it looks ridiculous. So to this two disadvantages I see no advantage (and you refuse to name one), other that satisfying rare preferences to include regions. And honestly, this just doesn't seem enough. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding PEPE, LIEDSON, Fernando Amorebieta, Julio Álvarez and others, that intricate intro can be solved like this (it has been discussed at length at WP:FOOTY): since those players now represent a different national team than "expected", only that nationality stands in article (so Pepe would have "...is a Portuguese footballer..."), but he gets both the PORTUGUESE FOOTBALLERS and the BRAZILIAN FOOTBALLERS categories.

What you can be sure is that, no matter what the consensus reached is, i will abide by it. Don't know about User:Raulseixas, but i will. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:I beleave X-born Yonian player has been used only for cases where a player is born in a different country than the one that represents. That doesn´t seem to be much of a problem in my view as it is standard only for those cases. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary:

So where are we folks? Here's a summary of views and such as I see them:

1) The lead sentence should only be in the form of "Person (born 1 January 1990) is a Spanish footballer" as per WP:OPENPARA and WP:FOOTY's own guidelines. I think we're all in agreement on that.

2) The main body should contain the additional information: "Person was born 1 January 1990 in Barcelona ...". So far so good ...

3) The question is, should it read A) "Barcelona" B) "Barcelona, Spain", C) "Barcelona, Catalonia", or D) "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain"? I understand that "Barcelona" should heavily imply Spain so "Spain" might not be needed but then what happens with more obscure cities? Should we take that on a case-by-case basis or just stick with one form regardless? And why would Catalonia be added at all (not saying that it shouldn't, just trying to understand the various arguments)? And if Spain is not included then why would Catalonia be?

Personally I think (B) "Barcelona, Spain" makes it the most clear for any reader who happens to not know where Barcelona (or any other city) is. That the lead already states "Spanish footballer" might make it seemingly redundant but again, if the reader does not know where Barcelona is then it might not be so redundant. But I could be convinced that just (A) "Barcelona" is fine as well (and fully list other towns as needed). Obviously if someone is born in one country but plays for a different national side then all the information would be needed. Does this cover everything? SQGibbon (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:To your question 3), I prefer (B) too. I already stated in the second post he minutes after you opened the topic, and explained it extensively later on. (A) is fine as long as the country in some mention immediadly follows somehow. If the country of birth is not the country the player represents, then i would prefer adding the country after the birthtown to avoid the then redundant term "X-ish born" further on. (D) is for my taste tmi, it's just redundant in most cases, and if it is not redundant and somehow relevant it can be added in a later section. And the "various arguments" you say there are for (D), well in this thread i don't see even one argument for (D), even if asked directly the only user who seems to promote that solution ignores the request to explain an argument pro (D), it looks to me as if it just the personal taste of one editor. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

: Again remember that this is not a matter Catalan nationalist. I think it makes the reader the full information of the place of his birth. This is because many players in Spain are known for their place of birth. Therefore, I propose a compromise: we use the model (D) - Barcelona, ​​Catalonia, Spain / Almeria, Andalusia, Spain / Fuentealbilla, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. Can it be? So everyone involved in this discussion would be included. -- Raulseixas (talk) 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: And what would be the reason to include the region? I still haven't read a single argument for that case. That is just redundandly pumping up articles without adding substancial info. No thanks. If someone wants to know which region the birthtown is, he can click on the provided link to find out more. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::For major cities, there isn't any need to include a region. Mind you, for major cities, there's not much point in including the country either, particularly if it was mentioned two lines earlier in context of the subject's nationality. For lesser-known places, including the appropriate region, province, state, or county, might be sufficiently helpful to the reader to avoid their having to navigate away from the page they're on. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::In fact, if context has already established the subject's nationality, which will usually be the case, (Fred Smith (born 1 May 1966) is an English footballer...) and if the subject was born in the country of which they are a national, it would be pretty standard practice to omit the country of birth from the prose whether the birth town is major or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, why the aggression. I'm just proposing a deal. so you NEVER saw an article published in Spanish player. It is always the same story: people who do not even want to edit an article always be right.

: And more ... Spanish players always pick on ... what's the problem? In English or French players have to the district where they were born ... why not discuss it too?

:: Wayne Rooney Rooney was born in Croxteth, Liverpool to Thomas Wayne and Jeanette Marie Rooney (née Morrey). Just saw? Why can Croxteth, Liverpool, but can not Terrassa, Catalonia? If you take the Catalonia, take Liverpool too. Daniel Alves ... born in Joazeiro, Bahia. See, this is not a question of nationalism, is only an additional information ... almost all Spanish players have ...

-- Raulseixas (talk) 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Raulseixas, Liverpool, as used in the Rooney article, is not a region like Catalonia is. Liverpool is the city and Croxteth is a suburb of that city. Many readers are going to have no idea what or where Croxteth is so the addition of the major city it is connected to is helpful. The situations are not the same. With Alves, Joazeiro is a city within the state of Bahia similar to cities and states in the US. If the city is well-known (say Los Angeles) then we don't need to list the state (California, in this example). But for an obscure US city like "Garland" then listing its state (Texas) and maybe even the city it is a suburb of (Dallas) might be warranted. The question becomes if the Spanish city is obscure is adding Catalonia or Spain more useful? Personally I don't think that for the average reader Catalonia is all that helpful but I might be wrong about that. Also, if there are articles for English and French players that contain way more information than is reasonably needed then those should be altered too. SQGibbon (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, per STRUWAY's approach, in PIQUÉ's case, since he was born in SPAIN and represents SPAIN, its CLUB CAREER lead (or PERSONAL, or EARLY YEARS, whatever section is in article's beginning) should read "Born in Barcelona, Catalonia" or "Born in Barcelona", no "Spain" needed. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::I think the just "Barcelona" option then looks good and then if the city is obscure then "Spain" should be added. SQGibbon (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}

Sigh.

1. "Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (Catalan pronunciation: [ʒəˈɾar piˈke]; born 2 February 1987 in Barcelona, Catalonia) is a Spanish footballer,..." is fine. The MoS discourages the inclusion of place of birth, but it's not wrong as such.
2. "Gerard Piqué i Bernabeu (Catalan pronunciation: [ʒəˈɾar piˈke]; born 2 February 1987 in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) is a professional footballer,..." is in some ways slightly better. Again, it would be best of all to leave place of birth out of the first sentence entirely, though.
3. "Pepe (born 26 February 1983 in Maceió, Alagoas) is a Portuguese footballer,..." is egreciously wrong and makes me want to claw my eyes out. Pepe did not move to Portugal until he was 18. Highlighting his Portuguese nationality simply confuses matters for the sake of someone's national pride. Leave the nationality out of the first sentence and explain it more fully later in the lead.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

:I disagree slightly - personally I'd leave the POB out of the first sentence, but include nationality - after all, a more defining charactersitic. So I'd have 'John Smith (born 1 January 1900) is an English footballer. Born in...' etc. GiantSnowman 13:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

:: In the modern game, nationality itself is not actually that defining. It only matters to a very small proportion of footballers, and even then there are a tremendous number of cases where it's not clear-cut enough to just say "English" or whatever. By avoiding it in all cases (even the clear-cut ones) we help to teach editors not to try to make less clear-cut cases conform with torturous phrasing like "Scottish-born Irish" or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

::: It may not matter to footballers but it certainly matters to the media - look at all the reports saying 'Man Utd will sign Brazilian midfielder', 'Arsnenal have secured Czech wonderkid' etc. - not 'Scunthorpe-born keeper moving to Chelsea' (unless it's very local news, but then they have nothing better to report on). GiantSnowman 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Despite understanding Chris´s reasoning I agree with GS. It is inevitable to use the nationality in the lead and removing it for some cases would hardly be a way to teach editors as it will look more like an accidental omission of info rather than a purposly left out info, as it is not explicit anywhere.

::::Chris, sorry to say, but it is really hard for me to buy how nationality is so irrelevant. I know in England the foreign players are so common you hardly follow track of all of them (even so, not so sure about that...) but, for instance, I grew up from young age being very close to Spanish and Portuguese football (top level football, definitely) and as much as in these cases the clubs are "international" for long time now, it is a fact that it is undeniable, even for Real Madrid case for exemple, to ask the first thing when a new player comes the question Where he comes from? as meaning both, nationality with existing or potential NT appereances, and his previous clubs and career. I really cannot see how to ignore this and name it irrelevant, specially for players with NT appereances.

::::I already said this in the past in similar discussions. My experience in a highly problematic area of Central and South-Eastern Europe, where these "nationality cases" are more frequent, is that being precise and including the correct mentioning of nationality is way more productive then leaving a hole which was allways used as prefered area for "smart IP´s" to "complete in their POV" the missing nationality info, obviously mostly wrong or incomplete. So basically what I am saying is that even the unestethic "X-born Yonian footballer" ends up being the only stable solution for these cases. FkpCascais (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} I am not talking about removing it from the lead; I am talking about expanding it from a label in the first sentence to a fuller explanation later in the lead. The effort required to move the nationality data into another sentence of the lead is minimal. I am absolutely not going to be convinced that we have to lower our own standards for reliability thanks to well-meaning editors with such severe attention deficit disorder that they cannot get past the first sentence of an article without demanding to know a player's nationality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:I know Chris, that is why I started saying that I understand you, as for me the issue of the nationality being on the lead or lower is not important, but we could make a test if you want: we do it your way in several cases of those and we see what happends. I bet that for the more known cases it want take long for people to start re-adding the nationality in the lead, but if I come to be wrong, it will definitelly mean that I am a bit too pesimistic about wp users, and I wan´t mind at all to leave things that way. Also notece that I have been advocating to move the place of birth from lead to article body where it can be adequatly mentioned and expanded if necessary, something that is quite similar to what you propose. It is just that I don´t have much faith that users will leave blanked the nationality in lead despite all efforts we do in expanding it further, but we can allways make a test and see how it goes. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article keeps being vandalized - no good faith there, NEVER played for Porto as a senior for example - i'm about to lose it, specially because the "user" seems to have several IPs.

Suggestions please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

:WP:AIV, WP:RPP. Don't start warring. GiantSnowman 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New site launching in December apparently - I await with baited breath. GiantSnowman 13:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Have not fed the troll in any way, just used ROLLBACK. Served me just the same, one "user" keeps adding a chart of STATISTICS of Didier Drogba - what the hey?! - to Hassan's page...People bored until the weekend comes in full blast i see... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss that tournaments shouldn't use template:winners? I've just seen it at :2011 CONCACAF U-17 Championship and :2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

: And a few WP:MOSFLAG violations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

::I can't recall if there was discussion on this, but what was your understanding as to why we said it shouldn't be used. Perhaps this should be discussed on a general template or sports page? I note that football is the first example used at the template. Eldumpo (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, why shouldn't we use it? Personally, I've used it pretty often for contintental or regional club competitions. Didn't know we weren't supposed to. TonyStarks (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone translate the phrase "d'n trainer met ne poot genoemd" {{in lang|nl}} in the last paragraph of the article on Horace Colclough, who was a coach at Heracles Almelo in the 1920s despite having a knee injury. Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

:Something to do with his leg and the fact that was a trainer. It might be slang or a local dialect but it seems to me to be roughly translated as "the trainer with ??? leg", like 'gammy leg' or something not in dictionaries.--EchetusXe 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

::The phrase is rather comtemptuous (and in dialect). Poot usually refers to a limb of an animal. literally: The trainer with that leg. (referring to his limp) Cattivi (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He tried to kill himself yesterday and an IP added that this was "due to the fact that a week ago he saw Jesus which told him if he commited suicide, he would go straight to the heaven". So lets keep an eye out for vandalism on this article, cheers.--EchetusXe 00:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I found you page "Addick Koot". I don't think that spelling is correct (the only external link is National-football-teams.net, who writes "Adick Koot"). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Addick_Koot&diff=319081680&oldid=315902090 The page was moved in 2009]. I apologize because my english is very bad (I'm italian). Thank you. --Aleksander Sestak (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:NL.WIKI seems to name him "Adick", and these articles i have found (also Dutch) do the same (please see here http://www.wereldvanoranje.nl/profielen/profiel.php?id=1052 and here http://www.psv.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwspagina/PSV-eert-gouden-selectie-van-1988.htm). So, it seems the page was not well moved. Ciao! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::Agreed, I've moved him back. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I've been told he's Adick. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Ok, thank you. Bye! --Aleksander Sestak (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that in transfer lists many people have a tendency to put down a player's previous (or subsequent) club despite them having a significant period of time being "unattached" between the two moves. Celtic's current season is a great example. Andre Blackman has just signed and his "From" club is listed as AFC Wimbledon. It is correct that they were his last club. However, he was released by them nearly a year ago. The current layout suggests that Celtic have signed him from Wimbledon, which is just completely incorrect. They signed him from nobody so it should really be unattached. Whereas Adam Matthews and Kelvin Wilson were signed immediately after thir contracts expiring so did actually sign from their previous clubs. Freddie Ljungberg and Andreas Hinkel left and didn't immediately sign for their new clubs but they are listed in the table as having done that. I think this is wrong because if someone wants to know who they went to they can open up their page but Celtic's page should show them as just being released because that's what actually happened. Adam4267 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:its the standard we have been following on all the scottish season articles this year. And also appears to be the case on the list of transfers by season from previous years. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'd say if the release and the signing for a new club is within the same transfer window it should be considered a direct move, otherwise the player should be listed as signing from 'unattached'. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree with ArtV.--EchetusXe 09:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::What I've started doing with Birmingham season articles is put brackets round the previous club if the player joined Birmingham after his contract with that club expired (whether he joined the day after it expired or months later). And for players who leave when their Birmingham contracts expire at the end of a season, I list them as released on 30 June, and if someone adds their next club, it gets brackets round (again, whether they join their new club the next day or months later). With an explanatory note below the table. See e.g. 2010–11 Birmingham City F.C. season#Out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

: A bit of a sticky one this. Even if a player's contract expires, I'm led to believe that his former club retains his registration; the Bosman ruling prevents clubs from withholding that registration in the event that a player wants to sign elsewhere in the EU, but it doesn't negate the registration itself. Case in point, if Sone Aluko signs for Rangers after his current trial then Rangers will have to get his registration from Aberdeen (and I think Aberdeen are entitled to compensation due to development of an under-21 as well) even though he's not actually been contracted to Aberdeen since the summer. However, I think it's pretty rare for a professional player to actually be out of work during a playing season, so it's probably okay simply to rule on these on a case-by-case basis and make sure the article contains an explanatory footnote (with references of course). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right we need consensus on this matter - if a player born & raised in England, capped by England at youth level, makes a senior appearance for Wales, does he "lose" his Category:English footballers? I say of course not, but would like consensus established. GiantSnowman 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Last time around i thought we HAD CONSENSUS, pretty much everyone said that the category stays (Fernando Amorebieta, Liédson, Marcos Senna, Julio Álvarez, etc, etc). Oh, and the guy who removes categories without even one word in summary, User:Kolins, said "talk to the hand" when asked to participate in the discussion (discussions?) and/or being notified... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:(editconflict) No, he is still an English person and footballer. He is just now 'Welsh' in terms of footballing nationality. So Category:English footballers should remain and Category:Wales international footballers should be added after the switch. I don't think Category:Welsh footballers should be added Adam4267 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:?? A different turn now, and not a positive one in my opinion. If the given subject, born and raised in England and capped for the country at youth level, appears as a senior for Wales, he should have BOTH categories (ENGLISH footballers, WELSH footballers - if he appears for the latter's national team, he is a Welsh footballer, albeit a "borrowed" one), the intro should read "...is a WELSH footballer...". Thought this was clear last time round. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::It doesn't make sense that a player should be in Welsh international footballers, but not Welsh footballers. There's nothing controversial about footballers having multiple nationalities, and the categories can easily reflect this. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

::I would have thought that Category:Wales international footballers covers the change (I agree with your point about the intro) so I would think it a bit redundant to have both categories as he is a 'Wales international footballer' but not a 'Welsh footballer', technically. Maybe I am wrong and getting too caught up in semantics, I don't know. Adam4267 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:::We should keep the category English footballers and add the category Welsh footballers. We should keep the category England youth international footballers and add the category Wales international footballers. However, the lead should read "is a Wales international footballer" not "a Welsh footballer". What was clear last time round and every time this is discussed is that we shouldn't be confusing the reader by expecting them to guess what any individual editor means by "a Welsh footballer". And I agree with Adam below: we do need a consensuses page... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We should be concentrating on what the sources are saying, rather than coming up with our internal rules. Also, what is the rest of Wikipedia doing? Once all that is sorted we should ensure that all footballer categories have an appropriate intro clarifying the remit of the category in line with the consensus. Eldumpo (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Still referring to Adam (then Kolins): if his consensus was to be the correct one, Kolins is doing the exact OPPOSITE, he removes the category of the "born and raised" stuff, leaves only the "international footballer" category. And, i repeat, NO SUMMARIES!

Addressing Dumpo's query, the intro was also rendered very clear last time round: Amorebieta, for example, due to his international allegiance shift, should have "...is a VENEZUELAN footballer who plays for...", the rest of his intro also explains he represented Spain at YOUTH level. Regards to you all (including Kolins!) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:I think we strayed a bit off-topic there, with regards to this hypothetical player that GianSnowman envisaged. Does everyone agree he should have the categories; :Category:Wales international footballers, :Category:Welsh footballers(I personally don't agree with this one), :Category:England youth international footballers and :Category:English footballers. Adam4267 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::In reply to Giant Snowman's hypothetical question, he should keep his English footballer category and also add Welsh footballer and Welsh international footballer. Just because he represents Wales doesn't mean he stops being English. So yes, I do agree with Giant Snowman. TonyStarks (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm not convinced he should go in Welsh footballers as well, as he's not really 'Welsh', he has just played international football for Wales. However, it comes down to what I said above, that the categories should all have an intro explaining the criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} In the long run the only solution is to mass-move :category: Xian footballers to :category: footballers from Xland and create new and separate :category: players capped by the Xian national football team. "Xian" is simply too ambiguous here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with this proposed approach except I think the first category should be :Category: Footballers born in X land. Eldumpo (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::Perhaps; but for now, I think we can all agree that you don't 'lose' the existing nationality categories? GiantSnowman 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Most biographies are categorised by nationality. We're just somewhat uniquely sensitive to it because nationality has some direct impact on the sport. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Agree with Eldumpo, the first category should be footballers born in Xland, the second is fine. Adam4267 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Maybe it is best to have the "NationX international footballers" categories and the "footballers born in NationX" since those are typically easily verifiable and unambiguous. The "NationX-ish footballers" categories do not have commonly understood meanings, so if we keep them, someone needs to add descriptive text for each that explains which articles belong in the category (i.e., a description of what footballing nationality means). Jogurney (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::But what about those born in X, raised their whole lives in Y, clearly Yish, yet with no international appearances. GiantSnowman 16:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I believe that the "international" categories are the most important intersections (and most deserving of categories). It is interesting to categorize football players by place of birth, passport, or even by their "home town", but I'm not sure how important those distinctions are. Jogurney (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} I don't see any reason to over complicate and mass move and create new categories and whatever else is being proposed. It's quite simple. Taking the example mentioned in the original post, an English player who goes on to play for Wales. He's an English footballer without a doubt, so there's one cat he's in. He's also a Welsh international footballer, that's another cat he's in. To be a Welsh international footballer, you must be a Welsh football, ie. part of the pool of Welsh footballers eligible to play at the international level. Therefore, he's a Welsh footballer as well and has that category as well. I don't see the problem with having all 3 categories. From my experience, plenty of Algerian players are born in France. Their articles all have "French footballers" and "Algerian footballers" categories, as well "Algeria international footballers". TonyStarks (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with Tony. I have been editing biographies using all appliable cats and there has been no problems with that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Funny how KOLINS continues to not drop one single line here... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Following on from what was said above, I think we need to establish a page in which we can list our consensuses and stop having to re-hash old debates over and over. This was brought up before but despite most people seeming to agree nothing happened. Adam4267 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/List of consensuses (that is the correct plural) can this page now be made? Adam4267 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::There's unanimity that we need something. The reason this didn't happen last time was due to concern over the purpose and scope of the page, not least due to the amount of clout that something along the lines of "consensus decisions" or "list of consensuses" would potentially carry. To avoid the possibility of that discussion resulting in another stalemate, I'd suggest that we start the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Perennial discussions, using something along the lines of the template EchetusXe gave in the previous discussion.

If the project later decides to lock down issues by explicitly stating that it has a position which is unlikely to change, it wouldn't be too difficult to adapt the page accordingly. —WFC— 01:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::We certainly need something so it would be worth working on.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/MOS issues. Adam4267 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is extra information available if you are a registred member? That's what I have an editor claiming over at Donaldson Sackey. I have my doubts, seeing as the editor is claiming that Sackey scored 7 in 18 for FC Oss, despite Voetbal International having no record... GiantSnowman 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:No. Being a registered member has only two benifits: You are allowed to edit the database, and vote in polls. Extra information is not available. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks, can you please also confirm that no appearance stats are available for Sackey, apart from his two for Oststeinbeker SV in 2011? GiantSnowman 15:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::: Yep - that's the only appearance data there. U+003F^? 16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Fantastic - in which case can somebody please revert {{user|Ds.andreas}}'s edits over at the Sackey page, as I've already done so three times. GiantSnowman 16:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: Done. U+003F^? 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Many thanks. I have also posted on the editor's talkpage, directing them here. GiantSnowman 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any checking of who becomes a registered member, given that they are then allowed to edit? Can it be regarded as a reliable source? Eldumpo (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure; I have my doubts, seeing as on Sackey's profile a spell in Spain has appeared since I created the article, which I suspect {{user|Ds.andreas}} has added himself. GiantSnowman 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::Transfermarkt's database should not be considered a reliable source, precisely because it can be edited. Articles published by transfermarkt on the other hand are usually reliable. Most of them are written by third party sources. Most of the German ones are written by the Deutsche Presse Agentur, for example. This is also not the first time a user has edited transfermarkt for the purpose of adding fake information to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 47#Attention User:Zombie433 the cheater. It's definitely something we need to keep an eye on. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Indeed. As a user-generated site that doesn't publish its sources, it can't be a reliable source in the Wiki sense: see WP:USERG. When it was discussed at the External links noticeboard, its advocate stated that "In many cases (often Eastern Europe, Turkey, Greece and German leagues) the personal data of a player is entered directly from the player or his agent." As if that were a good thing..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

{{user|Ds.andreas}} is continuing add to add these phantom stats to the Sackey article, again claiming Transfermakt supports him, can someobdy else have a word please? I want to keep assuming good faith but my patience will only go so far, and his user name is slightly suspicious... GiantSnowman 20:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Done, reverted their changes & gave the user a 3rr warning, & reinforced the suggestion they should join the discussion & advised transfermarkt isn’t considered reliable. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Wait a sec. I became registered editor at Transfermarkt and I have to make a correction of what has been said here. There is indeed a filter on Transfermarkt edits, when editing you have to provide a source for all edits and then the changes go to an admin that analises and aproves changes. The way some said it here, you left an idea that Transfermarkt is a site like WP where edits are donne directly without control, but that is not trouth. I made several edits on several players, and only the sourced info was put in place, and usually when you submit a change it takes a couple of days for an admin to check it and do the changes in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though the consensus was made the last one or two discussions (it being that runner-up counts in domestic cups and some national team competitions - thus also third-places for the latter - medals are handed out):

Those "runner-up" positions continue to be removed in FC Barcelona and Real Madrid players (the only ones i follow extensively in that matter), without ONE WORD in summary. Also per summaries, i see i am THE ONLY ONE reverting this situation. Quite off-putting but that's OK, unfortunately i am unemployed...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Vasco everyone has to deal with vandalism. In fact today I got this charming edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgios_Samaras&diff=prev&oldid=461776150]. Seriously, I know it's annoying but you don't need to come here every time. The IPs will have absolutely no idea what our consensuses are they are just making changes cos they think it should all be done their way. Just revert it and don't get so worked up about it. Adam4267 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

:Absolutely right ADAM, you're right, the anon IPs don't follow the discussions here...Wish i did not get so annoyed by it man! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

::Yeh they can be annoying sometimes but that's just one of the joys of Wikipedia. Adam4267 (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_22#Template:Scottish_Premier_League_seasons and the general suggestion there. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 Copa Libertadores Femenina has its group stage finished. There are some contrary reports of who plays who in the semi-finals. Interestingly enough even the CONMEBOL website doesn't seemed to be sure :).

See [http://www.conmebol.com/libertadoresfemenina/Copa-Libertadores-Femenina-resultados-y-cuadro-del-torneo-20111121-0007.html Option A] this wanted to pair the two best first place finishers, that quotes the regulations. [http://www.conmebol.com/contenidos/2011/11/16/noticia_0002.html Option B] was to pair Group B and C winners. Soccerway had Winner A vs winner B set til yesterday.

During the tournament, on 14 November it seems they changed it the way that if 2 Brazil teams make the semifinals they would be paired automatically together. So the match Santos - Sao Jose seems to be fixed now, FIFA and soccerway confirming that. I put a text above the bracket trying to explain that situation. Could a Spanish speaking person confirm that Option A was indeed pairing the best two first place finisher? -Koppapa (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

:The link you put with Option A says that the three winners and the best second-placed team will be ranked according their points, so that the best of the three top-teams will be #1, the second best #2, and the worst top-team #3, leaving #4 to the best second-placed team. Then #1 would play #4, and #2 against #3. This said, I have to add that the Conmebol rarely gives some accurate info on anything. You just wait, and they might surprise you with 6 classified teams from nowhere... Ipsumesse (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this, but there is a user who constantly removes referenced Stafford Rangers information in the Jason Beardsley article.--95.150.248.89 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:Maggy1992 claims to be Beardsley's representative (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CumbrianRam&diff=prev&oldid=461945201 this edit]). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• The information he is removing is sourced and i can find others to verify it. Ive added to my watch list. Appears to be a conflict of interest. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, regardless of whether Maggy/Dave who he/she says he/she is, or not, we have rules on Wikipedia and a supposed representative of a player removing sourced information about him violates at least 2 of our rules. Adam4267 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago I brought a table of my userspace to everyone's notice. Judging from the subsequent lack of comments by other contributors, it did not then receive much attention. Having meanwhile updated the table to reflect the outcomes of the Euro 2012 qualifying play-offs, I now once again offer it to your attention and ask you for any opinions about how and where this table could fit in the article namespace, if anyhow and anywhere. I'll be glad to hear anything, and not even in the slightest would I bother if someone comes up with a "not now" or "not at all" judgement. --Theurgist (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

:I apologise, I wasn´t much active by the time you posted the question the first time. With regard to the table, it looks great in my view, and I like very much your attention to detail, such as the group places for the teams not qualified. I find your table very usefull, complete and informative. There is only one catch: sources. In my view, if you list them at bottom, your table should be ready to go. FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

::It's a good idea but I'm gonna be a little less positive. It takes quite a lot of decoding and could do with a quite a bit of simplification. Remember that these tables are summaries - they do not/should not need to contain everything. This table is not intuitive enough. Specific comments:

::*Just blank out all the inactive/did not enter/non-U stuff in the same way as you have with the non-existent countries. The only exception I'd make is where teams have withdrawn or been suspended. Where this is the case, write the text in normal colour font.

::*Only use the red box for people who qualify as hosts. This removes some of the complication, and the need for the 'Qhost' stuff - just put 'Q' in a red box. This standardises the table with others on Wikipedia. Highlight the hosts as well as other qualifiers - it means someone scanning through can quickly pick out all the qualifiers.

::* In the years which ended with a knock out, just put 'sf'. The fact that they qualified is indicated by the highlighting

::* Similarly, in the qual group + knock out years (68-76), remove the details of the qual group. There's no need to add information about earlier rounds and this simplifies things a little.

:: Hope that helps and sorry for not noticing the original post. As for where: why not add it to the info currently in the subheadings 'Participation details' and 'General statistics' at UEFA European Football Championship#Statistics, and create a new 'National team appearances at the UEFA European Football Championship', or some such name. Pretty Green (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, that undoubtedly helps, thanks. I'll explain in detail some ideas I had in mind, in case they're not sufficiently obvious.

:::*I was aiming to present a summary of the teams' performances in the qualification tournaments only; the table has no interest in what happened in the subsequent final tournaments.

:::*I was also aiming to distinguish the successful completions of campaigns (denoted by golden backgrounds) and the eventual participations in the finals (red boxes) as two different things that do not necessarily come together in all cases. Automatic qualifiers (hosts, that is) and Denmark in 1992 have the red box but not the golden shading; Yugoslavia in 1992 has the golden shading but not the red box. The table treats "Q_host" essentially as a non-participation in the qualifying cycle, not very much unlike "inact", "non-U" and the others.

:::There is actually a little problem with the red boxes, because they make certain cells appear bordered when in fact they are not (Romania in 2004, Sweden in 1996, Switzerland in 2000). More of those are likely to appear in the future when the 24-team format comes into effect. A solution could be to get rid of the red boxes at all, as the final tournaments are irrelevant for the table, although this wouldn't make a great contribution to the table's informativeness.

:::The inact/DNE/non-U information, if it clutters the layout too much, could be represented as sourced footnotes, and long rows of separate cells (Andorra 1960 through 1996) could be merged as one to improve readability. I think this information is, after all, valuable, because for example each of Croatia, Liechtenstein and Israel had fundamentally different reasons not to enter the qualifying tournaments until 1996.

:::As for the sources, they are arguably a necessity, but I observe that this article (of which I'm planning to make a UEFA Euro analogue) doesn't have them in abundance, and this table doesn't cite a single one, not even for the goalscorers, and all figures there appear to be obtained just with straightforward calculations. So if I make 53 calculations like this one:

:::

:::then can I take out the results and use them to construct a similar table for the European Championship qualification tournaments?

:::My idea was to eventually create a new article at UEFA Euro qualification, which is now there just as a redirect (and is linked from Template:Qualification for championships (UEFA)). I think the two tables will suffice for the skeleton, and the rest can be filled in with some text and sources. All this is likely not to happen very soon as I'm kind of busy these days, but we're not on a schedule, and the significant expansions of the UEFA Euro topic are expected only next summer. If someone feels like doing any of that work for me, please feel most free to do so! --Theurgist (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm in general agreement that I don't think you need sources to start with: you only have to be able to provide them if challenged, which we could easily do. As for the red boxes v gold colouring - I see your point. If you put a box around the hosts only, but don't highlight them then: you remove the problem of boxes which appear bordered but aren't; and you show that a nation has qualified, without competing in the qualifying tournament. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Well, I just mention sources because wp generally incentivates their usage. Not sure about templates, but generally sources are used, and not only when things are challenged. In this case it should not be difficult, I guess UEFA official website has all the results avaliable, so just mentioning a source where all this can be confirmed wan´t heart no one. But, even I created unsourced templates in the past, so I am OK anyway. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Of course, all will be open for further improvement after it's been posted in the main namespace - we needn't get everything perfect right now. Here are all other tables analogous to the above one. Anyone who feels like filling them in can do so. By the way, am I recalling correctly that while FIFA considers both the Czech Republic and Slovakia to be inheritors of the Czechoslovakia team, UEFA on its part attributes Czechoslovakia's records to the Czech Republic only? --Theurgist (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I beleave you are right about Czechoslovakia being succeded by both Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czechoslovakia national football team confirms that at the end of the first paragraph, althouth it is unsourced. If I recall well, initially only Czech Rep. was recognised as successor, but Slovakia protested and got to be recongnised a well. I´ll try to confirm that and bring some source if I find it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone with a bit of time to spare check, and undo as necessary, the edits of User:Joe 9. This account, and others I'm sure, were a persistent nuisance at Leandro Damião for some time and this person was warned on several occasions. It involved adding statistics other than the league to the infobox and even they appeared to be inaccurate. After almost a month of inactivity this person has returned with rubbish like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandre_Pato&action=historysubmit&diff=461835472&oldid=461335107 this]. The career statistics table on Pato's article is correct so not only is it annoying, it's false. I don't have time to go through them all right now, but I did revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andr%C3%A9s_D%27Alessandro&action=historysubmit&diff=461833699&oldid=454013179 this pearler]. If it carries on then a block is in order. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:I've had a look at some of them, and fixed some where the figures were wrong even where I was sure what he was counting. But I don't know what leagues should go in the infobox: do we only count the Brasileirão, or should other league competitions go in the infobox as well, e.g. Campeonato Gaucho? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for helping. I've only been including Brasileirão because it's the national league. Gaúcho is a state championship and there are lots of them. I notice that Joe updated Pato's infobox correctly the other day – albeit without the datestamp – which is good. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just bringing it up that the image on John Barnes (footballer) has been removed by User:Jprw. This user feels the quality of the image to be substandard, but I don't think it's all that bad. Not to the extent that the article is better off without it at least. Anyway, what do others think? Here's the image. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:It's not that bad a picture, definitely should not have been removed. Adam4267 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm afraid I would probably want to deem that as not really of publishable quality. Technically (is if I know anything about the technical side of photography), it looks rather soft focus/lacking in definition; composition wise, it lacks the football context that makes Barnes notable, and has someone else's detached ear hovering suspiciously to his left. I probably wouldn't have removed it (though I have just this evening removed a photo with lots of shake from Marlon King, and took one down from Jonás Gutiérrez some time ago) but there again WP:images is rather undemanding. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::You can still clearly see what he looks like though, unlike the other two that you removed, and while it's not great I would say that a decent picture is better than no picture at all. Adam4267 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Unless there is some higher Wiki-wide policy that I am not aware of, the acid test should surely be whether or not the image is clear enough to be confident that it shows what it claims to show. On that basis I can see why the Marlon King one might be deemed inappropriate, but not the John Barnes one. If we had a better free image of Barnes we should of course go with that instead, but that's true of absolutely all content. —WFC— 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I took a usable one of Mr King the other week, will upload it when I'm a bit more awake than I am now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why "club" is treated as a singular noun in Liverpool & Man U articles (both FAs) and not in many others?. "The club were..... " sounds very tabloid newspaper. Tabloid usage should be discouraged. Does this project have an MoS about this? 92.40.59.202 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:Both articles use a mixture of the singular and plural as far as I can tell? 'Club' is generally plural in British English, and singular in American English, though both are recognised. I'm not sure what the standards are elsewhere. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:: It's the discretionary plural. I tend to use Liverpool/the club/the team are, but it's a matter of preference. Nonetheless, there should be consistency across an article. U+003F^? 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::: In British English, "club" when used to mean the singular structure or legal entity that is Footown Football Club takes the singular verb; "club" when used as a synonym for "the team" or "Footown" to mean the players who represent it on the field, as in "the club were FA Cup-winners in 2022", takes the plural. The discretionary plural section specifically mentions use of place names referring to sports teams as taking the plural. Personally, I find "the club were" an uncomfortable usage, so tend to restrict use of the word to the singular entity: "the club was founded in 1892", and when I mean the team, I use "the team" or Footown, or restructure the sentence to avoid the problem. In American English, they'd all take the singular, a simpler approach. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I was about to post exactly what Struway2 wrote! Number 57 16:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::My only problem with that is when you have "Manchester United Football Club are the reigning champions. The club has now won 19 titles." One is plural, the other singular yet both meet the grammar rules. That's an extreme example, but I'd rather see consistency of singular/plural throughout an entire article, rather than flipping between the two, even if club sometimes suggests a singular/plural meaning. Then again some of that is the English language's falldown which would rarely happen in other languages. Brad78 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Why should there be consistency on here when there is none elsewhere? I have no problem switching between the two uses, and don't think that many readers see it as a problem. English has no rules (there is no equivalent of the Academie Francaise) but I think most native writers and readers would instinctively recognise when a plural or singular use is out of place without being able to explain 100% why. Number 57 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Unfortunately we don't have a strong consensus to use the plural form even in English clubs. I try to ensure that articles use the plural consistently when I can, but in cases like Man U and Liverpool (where the vast majority of the fanbase is outside the UK) it's far harder. For what it's worth, the British media are extremely consistent in using the plural (although several sources, including the BBC, consistently use the singular instead when referring to a club in the context of the business). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm doing a bit of work on James Forrest (footballer born 1991) and there's a dead link because Celtic re-structured their website a while ago. I haven't been able to find another aource but I found a random forum with the article copied on to it. [http://www.soccer24-7.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-169647.html] Can it be used? Adam4267 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:The Internet Archive has the article, at http://web.archive.org/web/20100111015611/http://www.celticfc.net/news/stories/news_020909125702.aspx . For me, it comes up in white print on a white background, which isn't particularly helpful, but if you do Edit-Select all, it becomes visible. If you're using cite web, leave the original info in place, and put the archive url in the archiveurl= parameter and set the archivedate= parameter to the date contained in the url, which is the 20100110 bit. On the general question, I'd guess you shouldn't really use a forum copy, because there's no guarantee of a forum posting being an accurate copy of the original, even though 99.99...% of the time it will be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::I did that and it worked. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An unregistered editor has made himself very busy changing the highest achievement of national teams, as recorded in the infobox, from text to a graphic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portugal_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=462366779 sample differential]. Personally I'm not a fan, but I've suggested that he desist from doing any more until there is some sort of consensus here. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:Well, it is not as unesthetic as I first imagined it while reading your post, but there is a catch: the numbers 2 or 3 in the case you presented may not be as obvious as should, thus perhaps betten not going that way. I mean, we know what they mean, but less infomed may wander if the {{Bronze3}} means 3th place, 3 appereances, 3 times... FkpCascais (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not a huge fan of those medal symbols replacing the normal text. Eldumpo (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::MOS:IMAGES#Avoid entering textual information as images says that "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image", and that "Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text." So if the MoS says we shouldn't use images instead of text, and that if we use images that contain important textual information, we should use explanatory text as well, there's not really much point in using the images. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} {{tl|gold1}}, {{tl|silver2}} and {{tl|bronze3}} are intended exclusively for use in tables where the sorting order must be preserved. They are not for general use to indicate first- to third-place. Kill with fire. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with others, these aren't appropriate and should be undone. Camw (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is bizzare, someone changed the infobox name from Jamie Vardy to Varney, so I thaught fair enough ill revert it but occupied with other things at the moment (Im a Celeb!) so I come back and a different user has Moved the page to Jamie Varney. Can someone help, im confused! Cheers! LiamTaylor 22:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:I've moved it back and corrected the spelling in the article, and added a note at the talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal took it up a notch, now not only the box goes, but also the reference in PERSONAL which i provided last week. Clearly trying to get me to feed him, OK, i'll handle the "beast" my way... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:I know that you won't but it's worth saying anyway; don't let them get to you. Revert, warn and if they continue then request a block. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No real reason for me to write this other than to get it off my chest. Have you ever been involved in an editing dispute with someone and want to hold your head in your hands? Yesterday a former player returned to the club that I support on loan, but the [http://www.pafc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10364~2526054,00.html article] about it on our official website was poorly worded. The loaning club, the BBC and Sky all said it was a loan, however one user steadfastly refused to believe it. Insisting he had been released and joined us as a free agent, I explained that if that were the case then he wouldn't have been able to join another club until January because it had occurred outside the transfer window. Still not accepting it, the main article was changed again, along with giving him a squad number that hasn't been confirmed, and a message was left on my main page, not the talk page – I undid both.

I come back now to find that the edit on my own page was reverted and the loan parameter on the squad list had been removed again before the user restored it a couple of minutes later. To round it all off, the messages I left on his talk page explaining the situation were removed and the edit summary: it is a transfer he was released no debate needed facts are clear :). Awesome, isn't it? If I ever have to provide someone with a reason not to get involved with Wikipedia then this would be right up there. Incredibly pointless. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

: And yet there's nothing on either the article or the player talk pages from either of you. For such trivialities there should be no need for edit warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::You're preaching to the converted here. There was nothing to debate so I addressed him directly with evidence to back up what I was saying. It was met with hostility. Very silly indeed. I'm currently going back and forth with IP's who are in denial about Jake Cole's full name and height, despite it being referenced. Fun. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Simple question: Can someone explain why the FA Cup season articles list the matches in draw order rather than in alphabetical order? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter which way they are. -Koppapa (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it's perhaps not a major issue, the matches should really be listed according to the common sources. I see that in 2009-10 [http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/eng2010.html#facup RSSSF] listed them in alphabetical order. If the current format continues, there ought to be some explanation that 'Tie No' relates to when they were drawn out of the hat. Eldumpo (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

With the article on Tommy White, a milestone has been reached for the project: every player who has ever appeared for England now has a Wikipedia article. A large number of the articles in :Category:England international footballers are still stubs however, along the lines "XXX was an English footballer who played for Y and Z, as well as the English national side" so there's still plenty of work to do. Happy editing! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:Congratulations to all those who worked on them... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a disagreement with User:Pointer1 at Clayton Donaldson and would appreciate any feedback on the best way forward. I've left him a message on his talkpage but he's yet to reply so thought I'd bring it up here. I'm arguing that the title of reference number two should be "First Team" rather than "First Team - Clayton Donaldson", so as it more closely reflects what the webpage actually gives the title as (only a minor point really, but nonetheless). Also, I'm saying references published by clubs should end with "F.C" rather than "FC", so it reflects what clubs' articles are actually titled as (e.g. the Wikipedia article for Crewe Alexandra is "Crewe Alexandra F.C." rather than "Crewe Alexandra FC"). Finally, I say that references published by The Press should be called that, as it's the newspaper's name, rather than York Press, which doesn't exist. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If it was me, I'd call ref#2 "First Team: Clayton Donaldson". The webpage title bar has "Crewe Alexandra | Team | First Team | Clayton Donaldson", and the page content doesn't really have a title. But if a dash is preferred as a separator, it needs to be an endash rather than a hyphen, per MOS:DASH;
2. I use "Crewe Alexandra F.C", with a full stop after the F but not after the C, thus keeping the dots, which are still common usage (or we'd be changing the names of all the football club articles) but avoiding the double full stop in the reference list;
3. newspaper=The Press is unquestionably correct. We're citing newspapers which happen to have a convenience link on a website, so we use the name of the newspaper, not an invention based on the domain name. See WP:CITE#Newspaper articles. Including location=York would be helpful, and encouraged by WP:CITE.

:You'd best let him know you've raised the matter here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::For 1&3 I always use the same approach as that taken by Struway. For number 2 I tend to leave out the full stops but I have never really considered it, and if someone came in and put full stops in all the refs I wouldn't revert it. Adam4267 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:On an unrelated note, there's some really wacky linking in that article. "....and was educated at a school in the city" is seriously excessive, and piping "relationship" to Human sexuality is just bizarre...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::Probably me going linking crazy during my noob days. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Also, what about the publishers that have been added e.g. Newsquest Media Group; is it particularly important for the readers of this article to know who publishes these newspapers? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Heh, we've all been there. I agree with Struway on what you should do. Including the publisher depends on the editor really, if you do then it needs to be uniform, which it appears to be. It's disappointing that you have been reverted; the York Press isn't a newspaper. Great article, by the way. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm going to play a little of devil's advocate here; or perhaps be a pedant. However, taking reference 3 for example, it says the newspaper is "The Press". However, The Press was called York Evening Press or was it The Evening Press, but certainly not "The Press" at the time that story was printed. Brad78 (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to make a note here of my disappointment and frustration with editors in the footy project for what I see as the tendency to assume new articles about players should be deleted. I understand that some of you are frustrated that so many clearly nonnotable players have articles created. But sometimes it actually swings the other way. Bradden Inman was recreated after a mention on this very project's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_49#Bradden_Inman] It was given the go ahead but it was requested that an admin take a look. A look at the deletion log for the article shows that an admin did review and pull the trigger on allowing the article. While many young and maybe "promising" players receive some coverage, Inman received in-depth coverage from global sources discussing everything from his childhood to present day. Unfortunately, the first two versions of the article did not have those sources and I assume that swayed some people's assumptions. I spent the 10 minutes to find the sources and created something that was at least a little better than a stub while not being a fan page. That is what editors are supposed to do, right? An argument could also be made that FOOTY is met are damn close with him being on the bench for a premier league match and a Carling Cup tie. At the time the article was recreated, the guy was even shown as a first team player at NUFC's webpage. I feel a little bad for ranting but wanted to throw it out there since so many editors are bent towards being deletionist since so many poor articles are written about nonnotable players. The recent version that was just deleted was meant to be much better than those and it sucks that editors here have become so jaded that they won't even consider it (well, four editors if you include me thought it might be OK but we didn't pay enough attention to make comments at the deletion discussion while it was poo pooed). Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

: Agreed that in this case, there's certainly sufficient claim to notability GNG-wise in the revision which went to AfD. However, the simple fact is that this project is almost uniquely burdened by BLP and that it's hard enough to keep on top of that for players whom we can guarantee will be in the news every week (through NFOOTBALL); simply put, it doesn't really make sense to work on article for players who aren't at that level yet in mainspace because they're always going to be subject to deletion nominations from editors with a particularly strict approach to bio notability. It makes sense to work on these in userspace and move them once NFOOTBALL is met. Another good example is Paul Pogba, whose (very good) article was deleted again not long before he made a Champions League appearance. It was then worked on in userspace and recreated when there was no chance of it being re-nominated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::Re:Inman]], the last AfD had zero keep votes, even from you Cptnono. If you're still upset, then WP:DRV is your best bet. GiantSnowman 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:: For starters, I'd just like to apologize again to the OP for not making you aware of the AfD, I usually have no problems with Twinkle informing users but for whatever reason it didn't do so that time. As for the player in question, I would have to disagree with you. For me, if he's going to be notable on Wikipedia for being a football player, the bare minimum is for him to be playing at a notable level. There's tons of articles, interviews, reports, etc. done with youth team players that have huge potential but as you probably know, not all go on to become professional players, for whatever reason. Using your logic, every single one of them should have his own article .. and for what? For being good at the amateur/youth level? It would mean guys that might have quit football and gone on to study in university or work some odd job having an article, without being notable (as per our definition) for what the article is about. Now, if the player was a youth team player and went to have a huge showing at say the FIFA U17 or U20 World Cup (like Souleymane Coulibaly), then I'd have absolutely no problem with them having an article .. but a youth/reserve team player with 0 professional appearances is pushing it for me. That's just my opinion, I'm sure some will agree while others will disagree. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet, but I'm worried {{user|123bogdan123}} might be a sock of a user we've had problems with before. bogdan began editing about a month after dragosh's block went into effect. He/she has created four articles, all four of which were previously created by dragosh and subsequently deleted. (Note: Sergiu Muth has since achieved notability per WP:NSPORT.) Just wanted to give the project a heads up. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• SOCK, no conversations with the "folks" whatsoever (DRAGOSH that is), recreating articles which have been deleted? Maybe another BLOCK (not that they'll learn anything)?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No talk here about Gary Speed's untimely demise? Would have been a good thing to collaborate on and feature as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

: Good idea, count me in. Happy to start by tidying up the Everton section. U+003F^? 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

: Wikipedia is not a news service. That people did not immediately clamber over each other to report this is a massive positive in my book. The same applies to any other tragic death, or indeed any other current news article at all. If people want to be journalists / eulogists they should write to their local newspapers inquiring about open positions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::Sorry, perhaps you misread, I think it would make a really good featured article. If you want to promote some other point of view, go for it. This is about an opportunity for us to shine as a project, you clearly see it another way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::: I didn't misread: you miswrote. The subject of your first sentence is "Gary Speed's untimely demise". Your second sentence refers implicitly to that subject. Leaving that aside, the article in question certainly could be WP:ITN-worthy. On a different note, I've been numb for most of the day after this news: utterly tragic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Chris, get off the high horse and start assuming the good faith that maybe my six-odd years of contributions warrant. Perhaps I should have been more overt: let's get Gary Speed to WP:FAC as soon as possible. I regret the fact that you thought anything different and anything clamourous or eulogistic. Let's do the article and him justice. It's already been ITN-screwed (it's not a US-article) so we should focus on getting it fixed up and featured. I'm very proud to be a member of this project community and I think it would be amazing if we could all pull together and get his article to featured quality. Putting it plainly, a modern footballer has many easily accessible references and with the sad and ongoing coverage, we should be able to make a good attempt to cover his life as best we can. Note, this is not a plea for a memorial, it's merely a request that such a good and able project take on the idea of working together to get this article up to featured status. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::It would be a fitting tribute from members of this wikiproject to expand his article. I'm kinda amazed about the quality of his article, only 4 sentences each about his Leeds and Newcastle career. He is surely more notable than that and his wikipedia article doesn't reflect that. I'll be happy to help, but I wasn't into football until the 2000s so I know almost nothing about his early career. RIP Gary Speed. — MT (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the best folks with that project! RIP Gary Speed! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:*We need to concentrate on his wonderful career, not his tragic death. GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

::* Had a go at expanding the section on his time at Everton. Whilst I think it's a great idea to get the article to WP:FAC, is that likely given its instability now? U+003F^? 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*I suspect it'll take a good couple of months before we could get it to FAC, so not a real problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to upload this [http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=1967+european+cup+final+programme&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=shR&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1366&bih=601&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=ohONdSB-sNW-zM:&imgrefurl=http://www.collectsoccer.com/acatalog/European_Cup_Finals_Champions_League.html&docid=yqxBdSRXt_EZfM&imgurl=http://www.collectsoccer.com/acatalog/Celtic-Inter-25.05.67-L.jpg&w=316&h=448&ei=ndPTTtGzKM60hAeg85jEDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=376&vpy=112&dur=1123&hovh=267&hovw=188&tx=116&ty=171&sig=109409050042310690781&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=91&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0] picture, (1967 European Cup Final programme) and I can't seem to do it the normal way on Wikimedia commons. Anyone know how to do it? Adam4267 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not an expert on images and Wikimedia Commons so I might be wrong on this but from what I understand, you can't upload non-free stuff on Commons. You have to upload them to the English Wikipedia using fair-use rationale. Click on the Upload file button on the left menu and just select fair-use rationale and fill in all the information as required. TonyStarks (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks that worked. Adam4267 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've come across the stub Scottish League XI article, which I am going to work on mainly using Bob Crampsey's centenary history of the Scottish Football League. I was just wondering how we would name a category for players who played in these matches, as obviously "Scottish Football League players" or "The Football League players" are already used by the general categories for anyone who has played in a match in the relevant competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:How about :Category:Scottish Football League representative players and :Category:The Football League representative players? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::Is there need for a category? Those are just friendlies, right? -Koppapa (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::: I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo :Category:Scottish Football League representative players and :Category:The Football League representative players would be appropriate. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:::No, they were proper games and caps were awarded. For a long time they were effectively treated as trial international matches, before the nations had "B" or youth international teams. Some pretty significant figures in the history of the game received their only international honours in inter-league matches (e.g. Jock Stein). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::::How about just simply Scottish football league XI players? Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::You don't need the "The" in "The Football League Players" - it's ungrammatical; makes them sound like a theatre troupe. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::hehe.--EchetusXe 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I agree with ArtVandelay except that this would not be consistent with other categories such as :Category:The Football League players, :Category:The Football League managers and :Category:The Football League seasons. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Then they ought to be corrected, I think - it's a mistake to add incorrectness on top of incorrectness in the name of consistency. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:On a vaguely related note, is Denmark League XI national football team correctly named? Surely by definition a "league XI" is not a national team? Having said that, though, the article claims that the Danish League XI can include players not playing in the Danish League....!??!!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move war between {{user|Faycal.09}} and {{user|Eldumpo}} over the title of this tournament and its 2011, 2013 and 2015 versions. There is now a requested move on the master article but neither side has produced much evidence. As I am getting rather tired of messages on my talk page about the whole issue (and am not inclined to get involved as I am currently busy with the very important issue of 19th century elections in Belgium), I invite everyone else to pile in and try and work out who is (more) right ([http://www.cafonline.com/football/news/11470-caf-committee-meetings-three-caf-committee-met-on-20-september.html this ref] refers to it by both names...). Cheers, Number 57 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:Well there is plenty of evidence at 2011 African Youth Championship that the most recent tournament was referred to in sources as AYC. It may be that the 2013 tournament will end up getting referred to as u 20, and if that happens there will be justification for a move. Eldumpo (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently deceased, first ever manager of the Lesotho national team, per [http://allafrica.com/stories/201111280657.html this] - could be a potential DYK if people are willing to help out (my time is limted these days I'm afraid). GiantSnowman 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:I've attempted to add some information from a few sources, but there is limited coverage before 2000 except in the South African press. I am confused that a few sources report him as Lesotho's first manager, yet other sources indicate he first managed the team in 1979 (despite the country participating in a 10 internationals from 1970 through 1973 according to FIFA's records). Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for your additions. Were the 10 internationals 'official'? I presume so if FIFA has a record of them. Did they have a 'manager' (by modern standards) back then? GiantSnowman 15:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I believe the matches were official since FIFA lists them on its website, but perhaps the team didn't have an official manager at that time. I think we should stick with the source that directly states he managed the team from 1979 to 1995 until something surfaces that indicates he managed the team beginning in 1970. Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Yes, there could have been a committee, just as England had prior to Walter Winterbottom taking over in 1946. They were playing matches looong before that! GiantSnowman 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This article was deleted a month or two ago and it has now been created again. It appears again as a collection of quotes from players, does not describe the events of the match, as articles on matches should do and is not notable enough to be an article in its own right. I was wondering what other members thought of the article, personally I don't think we should have it. NapHit (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly not worth of an article all for itself, in my opinion, that also sets a "dangerous" precedent. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::Just to clarify, the article was userfied following the AfD, and then had various edits and was put up for review at AfC (not come across this before), and someone has reviewed it. Eldumpo (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::: have you got a link for this please? would be interesting to read the review. NapHit (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Not sure about a link, I looked through that WikiProjects archives and only found a link to the articles talk page which has nothing on it apart from the WP banner. The, User:Jprw, who wrote the article in all likliness wasn't aware of the fact the article had been deleted or that our notability guidelines and unfortunately has done alot of hard work on an article which should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::The creator made their opinion known at the article's AfD in September, as did the person who has "reviewed" the recreation. As Vasco said, if it's allowed to stay then it sets a dangerous precedent. There is nothing there that sets it apart from any other semi-final. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::I would agree with you there Argyle. This is an incredibly nondescript match. I did not realise that the creator of the article had known it had previously been deleted. Surely he should have checked here before re-creating the article. Adam4267 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::: Ye it should be deleted, but as I nominated the article last time and have had a few run ins with Jrpw who also edits this article which is currently at FAC, I don't want to nominate the article this time in case he starts editing the LFC in Europe article disruptively as he did last time. Would greatly appreciate someone taking the matter to AFD, seeing as it was deleted before I'm fairly certain it will be deleted again, especially as it is essentially just a load of quotes from autobiographies! NapHit (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::I understand that, I will nominate the article later tonight then. Make sure that if he is disruptive you come here immediately and don't try and deal with it on your own. Sabotaging someones hard work because of a disagreement on another article is IMO, one of the worst things you can do on WP and I've had it happen to me before. Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok, I've Afd'd it. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::Cheers, greatly appreciated. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

:Apparently this is all part of some gigantic anti-Graeme Souness conspiracy amongst fans of teams who don't like Rangers. Sheesh. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::I like how people who give valid reasons for deleting the article are rounded on by the creator, who accuses them of being biased and uncivil. This should've been G4'd when it was found, but the AfD has been open for a week now and there is clear consensus, so let's end this farce. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to share this interesting list. A 09-10 version exists as well. Perhaps a little too crufty since league articles exist? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'd say yes. -Koppapa (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

::Be WP:BOLD and nominate it for deletion. GiantSnowman 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Also lists of football clubs in each season exist too. See List of Iranian football clubs in 2011–12 season, List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season, List of Iranian football clubs in 2009–10 season. Although they repeat information given in the main articles, they do provide an organized and clear results summary of every club in a season. In other words, each one is essentially a synthesis of the league page, the cup page, and international competition page. Still appears a little crufty though... Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This well known figure in the history of Chester City cropped up on my watchlist, but I don't have the appetite to deal with a BLP matter alone at this point in time. None of the material added to the article since 27 February is sourced, indeed reliable sources have been lost since. Also, a lot of it is POV – "almost defeated Manchester City as the score was 1-1 with 11 minutes left" is certainly one way to describe [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/fa_cup/561578.stm a late 4-1 defeat].

There is no question that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Smith_%28football%29&oldid=416188164 27 February] version is a stronger base than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Smith_%28football%29&oldid=463255903 30 November] one, in terms of POV and sourcing. I have reverted on those grounds, but a few things make me uneasy about leaving it at that. The first is that however blatant the POV I have removed, and however solid the sourcing I have restored, the version I have reverted to could reasonably be perceived as being negative. The second is the fact that I was heavily involved with the version I reverted to ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Smith_%28football%29&oldid=408980402 how it looked before I got involved]). The third is that however clear-cut the POV appears to be, I haven't looked into whether the things written about his American football career were factually correct, and indeed some of the material added about Chester might also have been true.

Thanks in advance to anyone who has looked at it. —WFC— 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

:Well the line 'Barrow managed a respectable ninth place and won the Conference Trophy in the 2000-2001 season' had me stumped for a minute. I'll change that sentence, heh.--EchetusXe 11:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

::I like how losing 6-0 to Villa becomes 'lost only 1-0 to Aston Villa on a late handball penalty kick in the 2nd Round of the Worthington Cup'.--EchetusXe 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Why did Salamurai remove six reliable sources? Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

::::I think Salamurai was trying to tidy up the mess that User:GB Lions left behind in his attempts to re-write the article and big-up Mr Smith. Perhaps "GB Lions" is Smith's agent; it wouldn't be the first time an agent has tried to sanitise his client's article on Wikipedia; e.g. Michael Wilde (User:212.9.31.246) and Michael Knighton (User:Factmaster07) are two that come to mind. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

::Haha, just read that there. What a guy, if only the current American owners in the Premier League took a leaf out of his book. It would be much more entertaining. Adam4267 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at his statistics chart? The last entry (2009-10 ONLY for the cup) does not merit "its own" section, it has to be inserted in the previous entry for the 2009-10 season.

Attentively, ty in advance, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:No, it should remain seperate - one 2009-10 section is for Barca, the other for Barca B; they are two different clubs. GiantSnowman 09:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:How come i did not notice that?! Silly me, sorry to have bothered "the commission" with that... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a deletion review 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season here. Anyone can join the discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I noteced User:Jojhutton has done a series of edits where he removes the pipe from football to Association football. I beleave we had agreed a long time ago to use the extensive form (association football) only for players that have links with countries where other types of football are popular. As I noteced, the user is American so for him it makes sense, however the articles he made this edit have no relation to USA, Australia or any country where that situation could exist. Exemples: Pál Dárdai, Kostas Eleftherakis, Harold Dean, etc. I reverted him at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P%C3%A1l_D%C3%A1rdai&curid=2577252&diff=463063371&oldid=462936914 Pál Dárdai] but I will like to consult you all to see if I proceded well. FkpCascais (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, I think it should just pipe to football unless the article has a strong connection to a country where other codes of football are prominent. Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

::Who uses the term 'association footballer'? No-one. It is either 'footballer' or 'soccer player', depending on where you come from. Have you directed the editor in question here? GiantSnowman 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

:::No, I wanted to check it with you all first. FkpCascais (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Apparently the goose and the gander are not are not on the same page. Mostly this comment: The general consensus with most football codes is has been to list the full name of the code, and thus the full link, at its first mention in an article, and then to use the unlinked "football" in the remainder of the article, per ENGVAR. I don't see any reason to change that approach here. by user BilCat. There is also a year old discussion here: Talk:Football/Archive 16#Naming Standardization In Different Codes, about the same thing. Really I don't care which way this goes, but for consistencies sake, it would be nice to have it be either one way or another. Either simply state Football, or use the entire code. But one type of football should not own the term football over another.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I definitelly support your call for consistancy and understand your view. I apologise for not notecing you about my post here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::The consensus on the discussion that you yourself have linked to is that we should use ENGVAR. The fact that "American football" is a commonly used phrase is a red herring – note the prevalence of phrases such as "English footballer" or "English football club" in articles under this project's banner. —WFC— 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Not quite the same reference when English is used to describe the person's nationality, and American is used to describe the sport. Whole different ballgame.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

These issues are increasingly affecting footballers - the deaths of Gary Speed, Robert Enke, Dave Clement, Alan Davies and Justin Fashanu, as well as the large number of players using the Sporting Chance clinic for gambling + other addictions. Are they worth of an article (or articles), and if so, what should we title them? We already have articles on other issues - Racism in association football and Homosexuality in association football. GiantSnowman 13:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:Personally, I'd say not. The two existing topics deal with the particular relevance to football of the social issues of racism and homophobia. Suicide, depression and addiction are personal issues with no relevance to football other than that footballers suffer from them just like people from all other walks of life. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:But then again Struway, racism and homophobia can also afflict non-footballers, and in fact it does. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::I didn't say otherwise. The existing articles are supposed to deal with the effects of racism and homophobia on and within football, although they do seem to be turning into lists of incidents more than a discussion of the problem(s). Depression and addiction affect the sufferer, who may be a footballer, and have knock-on effects on their friends and colleagues, who may be footballers, but I don't see that they have particular effects on and within football as a sport. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Personally Struway I disagree, these issues affect ordinary people, usually more than footballers. I don't think there is enough coverage on suicide/depression for it to warrant it's own article. Maybe a category could be created for "Footballers who have admitted to having suffered from depression" or a more elegantly worded equivalent (Not "Footballers who have suffered from depression", though, because we only know the ones who admit it) there is already one for suicides as well. I definitely think there should be one for addictions; gambling, alcohol, drugs, prostitutes. There are LOTS of footballers who have had any one of these vices and there is an extremely large amount of coverage whenever it is found out. One suggestion though, why not call it "Addictions (There could probably be a page for each vice) in association football in the UK". Because, lets face it, apart from a few high profile foreign incidents. That is what it is going to be. Adam4267 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Adding: i do not feel an OWN article is warranted, but the mention of the personal situation being inserted in the player's article individually instead (i.e. George Best, or as i once did in Omar Oreste Corbatta). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:*Struway, I see where you're coming from - but what about the Sporting Chance clinic, set up to deal wholly with these issues? GiantSnowman 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::Found this article on depression in football [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2067774/Gary-Speed-death-PFA-send-guidebook-players-suffer-silence.html]. Maybe there could be enough coverage to have an article on that as well. Or we could just have one "Mental illnesses in football" which could cover addictions, depression etc. Adam4267 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::"Mental illness" sounds a bit iffy re:BLP, and also doesn't cover gambling addiction. Something to do with 'Psychological issues in association football' would be better perhaps? GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::::(Not sure where to indent to, replying to several bits)... The existence of the Sporting Chance clinic allows sportspeople to receive treatment for their problems tailored to their needs, in the same way as the Priory does for other celebrities, and the NHS and others attempt to for the rest of us. Its existence doesn't mean that the issues have any special relevance to football. But that's just my opinion. If multiple reliable sources for the subject " in football" exist, then it may (but not necessarily should) have an article. But we need to be very careful that we don't end up with a list of sportspeople with little or no encyclopedic value under the guise of an article on " in football". The second paragraph of the WP:BLP policy is worth a look (or 3rd, the one that begins "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively"). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't see what's wrong with a list, in theory, (although there would be a fair amount of prose as well I'd think). When the media reports on these things they rarely take an in-depth look at the social problems faced by footballers. They usually just say something along the lines of "Gazza's booze binge". Adam4267 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::But we'd need an in-depth look in order to justify the existence of the article. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I think we could quite easily establish an overview of these issues. But what I was saying was that the media tend to report these things as a "list of incidents". Adam4267 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Freddie Steele took some years out of the game due to depression and came back to be a great player and manager. Tommy McLaren killed himself after he was released by Port Vale. Gary Roberts has had great difficulty controlling his alcohol and gambling addictions. I see the concerns are probably correct. All I can do is list examples, I cannot offer any explanations or anything worthy of putting into prose.--EchetusXe 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:Also Brian Hill. GiantSnowman 16:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I recently came across Guðjón Þórðarson, who also has three sons that are footballers; Bjarni Guðjónsson, Þórður Guðjónsson, Joey Guðjónsson. According to WP:USEENGLISH, well it's rather self-explanatory. While it does say that use of accents or other diacritics in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged these hardly fall under that category, they are using Nordic lettering as opposed to English letters which makes some of these words unreadable to the average English speaker. Should they be moved, or is there a reason for why they are at those titles. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:We tend to allow European ones because there isn't a will to deal with β in German articles. Wiki-politics, in short. —WFC— 01:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::They should really be moved according to what the English-language sources call them. Eldumpo (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::I say keep them as they are; show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, and strive for accuracy. GiantSnowman 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::So long as, for instance, Bjarni Gudjonsson redirects to the right place, what's the problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::Precisely. If someone's name is written in their native language in the Latin alphabet, we should write it the same way they do, rather than dumb down for the reader like the media do. Number 57 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone here gets too excited by this, please read the lengthy chat at Talk:Marek Zidlicky. This is a bone of contention throughout Wikipedia. Frankly, if a redirect works and points to the diacritic'ed version, great, no-one gets killed, and everyone gets to the article in one move. If someone has a diacritic'ed keyboard and wants to type in the factually accurate name, they don't get redirected and get the factually accurately named article. Again, no-one gets killed and everyone gets to the article in one move. Can't we focus on adding content rather than quibbling about this sort of thing which will never please all the people all the time? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please check club foundation year. --KungFuDuck (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:You are able to edit yourself you know... GiantSnowman 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16017071.stm he's not doing too well in hospital], we should be keeping an eye on his article (which is rubbish right now by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll "bring out the sweeping broom", if not today, tomorrow, cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:And now he is gone. RIP.--EchetusXe 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

::I gave some shape to the article but the stats are wrong, the playing career consists of six sentences and a paragraph on Garforth Town.--EchetusXe 11:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:::That'll be because he did, for a short time, coach Garforth Town, and played for them once. Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

::::The article on his brother could also do with a tidy up; I'm busy today if anyone else fancies having a go...? GiantSnowman 12:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll kill two birds with one stone SNOWMAN, have a go at his brother's article too! RIP Sócrates (what a midfield with Toninho Cerezo and Falcão my dear god)!! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:Raí's done, boy did it "hurt the eye"... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks Vasco, good work! GiantSnowman 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, after i AFD'd several Valencia CF Mestalla players (one was 16 years old and merited a WP article already!), voilá! Another one has been created, and it's a "terrific" candidate for deletion:

1 - refs are bogus, as you can clearly (not) see; 2 - box is a LIE (has never played with Valencia CF's first team officially; 3 - PLAYING STYLE section is as poetic as can be; 4 - just checked this now: visited Spanish football site WWW.FUTBOLME.COM, entered "Luteca" (part of the subject's name) in the search engine, it yielded nothing (ladies and gentlemen, we may be facing a false article).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:More, also from FUTBOLME.COM: please, have a look at the Mestalla squad for this season (please see here http://www.futbolme.com/com/equipo.asp?idtorneo=5&id_equipo=794&modo=fichajes), be my guest and try to find Sergio Luteca "Wally" Martínez... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

::And there it was . . . gone! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Kang! LOL! Only just now noticed this: the "storyline" had a great giveaway to see what an utter crap it was: it read he played against RSD Alcalá and Coruxo FC, Valencia B does not even play in that group, the team is in the group of (of course) Valencian and Catalan clubs in Segunda División B!! Pityful... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this OK? I doubt... FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:Looks OK to me.--EchetusXe 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:Do you mean whether it's free to use? I've not found any non-wiki copies of the image on Google Images so I'd assume good faith. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

::No, no, apologies for not being explicit... I meant the image size, which makes the page look like cut in half. FkpCascais (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Far too big. I've taken it down to 280px, which is big enough to see but doesn't really stretch the infobox. Hope that's OK. Perhaps the editor who added it didn't know how to adjust the size? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Thanks, problem solved. I´ll conclude that the pic should not be bigger than the usual infobox size, so from now on I´ll do as you did in those cases. FkpCascais (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"The club are currently the only amateur club in the Scottish League" - surely not true, given the fullu-professional nature (or lack of it) of SFL2/3? GiantSnowman 12:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:Wait, ignore me, just realised what it means. Sorry. Not enough sleep. GiantSnowman 12:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there.

I need some guidance on what to do. We have a anon user (85.166.141.247 and 85.166.141.237 same user), that is somewhat obsessed on Norwegian news, and adds irrelevant info to a lot of articles here on Wikipedia. Since this is WP:Football, I'm only going to concentrate on the Veigar Páll Gunnarsson transfer, where two Norwegian clubs have swindled the French club Nancy.

This is something that in my opinion is suitable for an own article, due to having huge media coverage in Norway, but I feel it's wrong when adding one section about it on Transfer (association football), which is an article about transfers in general, not specific transfer, and another section about it on Football Association of Norway. I tried to undo his edits on the Transfer-article, since I feel it doesn't belong there, and I would undo his edit on Norwegian FA aswell, but I don't feel like starting a edit-war without having a second opinion on this. What do you guys think? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

: Given the complete lack of English-language sources right now, it certainly doesn't belong anywhere outside of the player's own article. If the IP continues to edit war over it the pages will end up getting protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Would we expect many English-language sources regarding an Icelandic player in France and Norway? No. Plus, per WP:NONENG, reliable foreign-language sources are fine. GiantSnowman 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

::: If this event is claimed to be of more than local importance then there certainly should be English-language sources. These are hardly small clubs and it is hardly a small sum of money. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: There is a middle ground between "local news" and it being splashed across the front page of English-language papers. GiantSnowman 15:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't actually understand what happened in the transfer. How does the clubs negotiating a fee for another player deprive Nancy of their transfer fee? Adam4267 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: There was a sell-on clause, so Nancy would be eligible to a percentage of the Stabæk-Vålerenga transfer fee. Stabæk artifically deflated their asking price for this player to Vålerenga, while increasing their asking price for a second player, so that the same amount was paid overall. GiantSnowman 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I get it now. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday the two officials of the clubs involved was arrested by Norwegian police, and even though they were released after questioning they are charged with breach of trust. [http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/soccer/story/Norwegian-club-officials-arrested-in-fraud-probe-64422019 American], [http://www.zeit.de/news/2011-11/30/fussball-polizei-nimmt-2-norwegische-sportdirektoren-fest-30165402 German], [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hTcaBJYCkKKH-QJIu9jhsMcaNesg?docId=CNG.aee8466656e73df0d9a3122e8825fd26.e1 French] and [http://sporten.tv2.dk/fodbold/article.php/id-46209130:to-fodboldbosser-anholdt-i-norge.html Danish] media have some coverage on this case, while the coverage in Norway is HUGE.

My question now isn't if such an article should be created, but what the correct plural of such an article title should be. I have a draft for this article in my Userspace, but will improve it more before I "broadcast" it. Any help would be much appreciated. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

: If there's a prevalent form in English-language sources, use it. If not, a neutral one drawn from the source like "2011 transfer of Veigar Pall Gunnarson" will do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This player has 15 official FIFA sanctioned caps, and 23 in total if you include unofficial matches, as the Norwegian FA does. Who should we go with on this, and other, articles? GiantSnowman 14:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:Surely, in cases like this there should be a note added to to the infobox to explain, with a detailed explanation in the body of the article. As the "unofficial" matches appear to be Olympic qualifiers/Olympics matches, maybe they should be shown separately in the infobox. Perhaps a full table of his international appearances would be helpful. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:[http://www.home.no/greenriver/unofficial.html This page] explains why.

:In my opinion, we should go for the Norwegian FA numbers. Erik Thorstvedt for instance, got 97 caps in most sources and not the 89 that FIFA states is official. And is it our job to decide that John Arne Riise is the Norwegian with most caps when he has 103 caps, since Thorbjørn Svenssen got 2 unofficial matches, instead of the 105 caps every other sources states that he needs to be the Norwegian with most international appearences ? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::We are listing how many caps he got for Norway, not how many were recognised by FIFA. But it should be said somewhere how many were recognised by FIFA, I think. Adam4267 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Olympic/qualifiers are NOT official senior-matches; they are under-23 team. I believe that they should be given a seperate row in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Olympic matches being under-23 is a relatively recent introduction. I'd be inclined to agree they should be listed separately in the infobox. Though I'd agree with Mentoz86 that the article should give the Norwegian FA's figure as his number of Norway caps – after all, they awarded them – and explain the differences in the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::OK then, how about this? Have 'Norway' (15) and 'Norway Olympic' (8) in the infobox, and explain the difference in the prose? GiantSnowman 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::When Norway FA states that he has 23 caps, the infobox should have 'Norway' 23 caps, and the text states "Berg has 23 appearences for Norway, even though FIFA only considers 15 of them as full caps" or something similar. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::See, I think the complete opposite of this. I reckon the infobox should say 15 caps, with text in the article saying something like "Berg has won 15 caps for Norway, also appearing in 8 unofficial international matches." Surely FIFA's number is more reliable since they are the ones who decide which games are full internationals. BigDom 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Big's suggestion is in my eyes a better suggestion then Giant's (Norway Olympic is just wrong, as 1/3 of the olympic matches are official senior matches, 1/3 are unofficial senior matches and 1/3 are U-23 matches), but either way you'll have to change all the other players on [http://www.home.no/greenriver/unofficial.html this list] the same way. Another effect of this, would be that Norway national football_team#Individual all-time records and List of Norway international footballers should be removed from wikipedia since such lists aren't available with only "FIFA's official caps" and original research shouldn't be included in articles... Mentoz86 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This guy played in the 80s, remember. Adam4267 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:@Mentoz - why is 'Norway Olympics' team wrong? What evidence do you have about your 1/3 splits?

:@Adam - why does playing in the 80s affect him? GiantSnowman 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::I have no evidence that it's one third each, but both NFF and FIFA counts Olympic matches before 1975 or 1960 (unsure on the exact date) as official caps. Norwegian Olympic matches between 1975 and 1988, where removed from FIFA's record in 1999 while NFF still counts them as official caps. And after 1988 the olympic matches are not counted as official caps by NFF, and at some point the U-23 team takes over the olympic matches. When I mean 'Norway Olympic' is wrong, it's because it way to imprecise or inaccurate.Mentoz86 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Actually, it's as accurate and concise as it can be - he represented Norway in Olympic qualifiers, did he not, and because the status of the team is unknown, it does the job nicely. GiantSnowman 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::My comment was aimed at Mentoz, meaning that the Olympics were not the same then as they are now. Adam4267 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::I fully agree with BigDom and GiantSnowman on this. We had before cases similar to this, and we allways agreed to use FIFA official caps. FkpCascais (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have a consensus to say that Jan Berg had 14 caps for the Norway national team (even though there is only one single source that says that he has 14 caps for Norway), but then we have to change all the other articles on [http://www.home.no/greenriver/unofficial.html this page] aswell. And Jan Berg is a nobody (unless you are a Molde-fan) so noone cares about his caps, but I'm more curious on what will happen when you change Thorbjørn Svenssen caps from 104 to 102, Rune Bratseth from 60 to 55, Erik Thorstvedt from 97 to 89 and so on. Then you'll get reactions, and you'll get a lot of people wondering where you found your sources.

Because we, the editors of wikipedia, might agree on this and that, but we cannot violate WP:OR. I looked around for sources on Thorbjørn Svenssen, and all states that he has played 104 matches (except one that say 108), noone states 102. [http://www.home.no/greenriver/unofficial.html This page] is the only source we have for what we are discussing, and at the end of the day - is that a reliable source when all the other sources states something else?

And as I've asked before, if we do it like this - what do we do with lists like Norway national football_team#Individual all-time records and List of Norway international footballers? Mentoz86 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

:But your source is clearly not reliable. GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if this is maybe not the correct place to ask, I'd like to know how this is done in footballers' articles: According to WP:BLPPROD, any unsourced article about a living person created after 18 March 2010 may be deleted. But what exactly qualifies as source? Does it have to be an inline citation (as WP:BLPSOURCES suggests) or is a link in the section "External links" sufficient? I have often added an inline reference to BLP articles which only had external links and I'd like to know if this is necessary to avoid WP:BLPPROD. I've searched in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and I've come across this but it doesn't really answer my question. --Jaellee (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:External links by definition aren't meant to support article content. The thing is, many people don't know that and title the section "External links" when they really mean "References" or something similar. As far as BLPPROD goes, I think it's just a matter of checking out the link and determining whether or not it's actually being used as a source rather than for further reading or whatever, and then moving it to an inline cite if necessary to save any further confusion. BigDom 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

::From my experience I must say that many articles were saved from deletion by having sources, or even one source, at External sources section. In several ocasions I noteced the unsourced tag being removed because of them, although WP favours definitely inline sourcing over simple listing as they usually stay in External sources section. I must say that initially, when I started editing, I usually limited myself to add the sources I used at "External sources" section. However, later I understood that sources should be present in the inline sections. So I basically use both nowadays, "References" section for inline sourcing, and "External links" section for infobox info. Basically, this way the article ends up being sourced at its best, as I honestly dislike seing sources used in infobox, I mean, only when really necessary... Resumingly, and to go straight to the question, I don´t recall any article being deleted as unsourced while having at least one external link at any section of the two types mentioned. FkpCascais (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:::While Dom's version makes infinitely more sense, Fkp is right as far as saving an article from deletion is concerned. An extremely loose definition of "sourced" was required in order to garner consensus for the BLPPROD. A significant number of editors took it upon themselves to ensure that under no circumstances were articles deleted if anything vaguely relevant to the subject was present. That's how the situation stands, although now that the number of identified articles with zero sources is next to nothing, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a second phase of strengthening of BLP policy. —WFC— 08:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:BLPPROD: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.". my bolding Fairly unambiguous - if there is an external link that supports at least one statement about the subject of the article it may not be tagged BLPPROD .--ClubOranje^T 09:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking it was A LIE as the one i reported above, i clicked on the ref, turns out it's true, the person exists and has signed for RCD Espanyol B (please see here http://www.rcdespanyol.com/ingles/index.php?modulo=detalleNoticia&idnoticia=729&idseccion=7&idlinkchk=0&Amenu=detalleNoticia&idmenu=&idsubmenu=). The important matter of discussion is now:

1 - does he merit a WP article (18 years of age, no pro football played)? I think not; 2 - also, the box refers to him having played football with Preston North End, any truth in that (i mean did he play youth football there - cause SENIOR he certainly has not, as the box shows!)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:I believe he never played for Preston North End. Indonesian FA mention that his club is Preston when he was selected to preliminary squad for Indonesian U-23 team, but they later said that it was a mistake and he was on Preston only on trial without any contract, but they confirmed that he plays for Lytham Town F.C. in the West Lancashire Football League Division One (level 12 in English football). Definitely fail WP:NFOOTBALL. — MT (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this pic? Really does help through your stressful day... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

: I pray for the day when clubs simply make their official player profile pictures CC-BY-SA and we stop having to get photos of players taken in stadium car parks, nightclubs, bus stops and birthday parties. Hell, for the amount of press the average player bio gets (as an Alexa 5 site, pretty much any notable player's top Google hit is his WP bio) you'd think they'd be keen to do so, but obviously not everyone is on the free content bandwagon yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::Hahahaaaa... I mean, the pic... :) FkpCascais (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else seeing edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Bayern_Munich&diff=prev&oldid=464260058 like this] that are pushing the concept of "Schickeria"? I left it in the first time, but when it was added back in I realized that all of the sources are self-published and as such may not be particularly notable. Any comments? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

: Hello!

:

: I am writing to about my edits in the article about Bayern München that you reverted (2011-12-05).

:

: There is no doubt that the Schickeria München exists and its political positions are no secrets. Officially, the group describes itself as anti-racist and against "Modern football". The anti-racist stance can also be seen on numerous flags and banners and the group has participated in public demonstrations against the commcercialization of football. As a third party opinion, I would like to bring up Gabriel Kuhn, writer on the subject of football and politics. I met him during the Göteborg Book Fair and I intended to discuss the supporters of St Pauli with him, but instead he pointed at the Schickeria München as an example of the growing number of "progressive" ultra groups in Germany. He also did this in the interview that I posted as source. What concerns the "notability" of Schickeria München, I can not really say. ´What is notability in this sense? I do not know the exact answer to the question, but I think that the actions against Manuel Neuer (whether regarded as an act of sheer stupidity or as an legitimate protest against the clubs politics) and the fuss it created, the group does not pass entierly unnoted.

:

: Best regards, Erik EriFr (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

::I think the protests against Manuel Neuer were well covered in the press, but I don't recall any mention of this Schickeria group. If RSs can be found on the group itself it can stay, if they can't then it should be removed. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:::http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/fc-bayern-streit-um-manuel-neuer-splittergruppe-verletzt-den-artenschutz-1.1117564

:::http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,774417,00.html

:::They seem to be one the groups behind the protests, at least, they the are blamed for this (see the discussions at the Bayern forum).

:::/Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by EriFr (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)