Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

What do people think about the notability of this article. It's unreferenced, and I'm not aware of reliable sources collating clubs in this way. In any case, it is actually only a partial list of clubs that have played at the ground. Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable. -Koppapa (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced and, more importantly, pointless! TonyStarks (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now subject to an AfD. Cloudz679 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone verify whether this guy has actually played for Lithuania? Transfermarkt seems to think so, but I doubt that can be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not even Transfermark does it say that he played for Lithuania... – Kosm1fent 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I am an idiot. Kthanks. 14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This (linked from the RSSSF international matches page) would say not. Unless it spells his name significantly differently, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that, looks pretty conclusive to me. Sent it to AfD. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This site says he played twice at U-21 level. He is not listed on www.eu-football.info. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In Transfermarkt, on players main page it says "Lithuania 4 (0)" but they don´t have match reports to back it up: match reports... That is what I say when I say that only the part backed by match reports (which are admin inserted) is usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just declined a CSD on Stoke City LFC, but I'm not sure if the team is notable. Do you guys have a guideline for football teams? P.S. Hope you guys took a break from the Euros to watch the Australia v Japan World Cup qualifier – absolutely bizarre refereeing in the second half! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If the club has played in either the FA WSL or FA Women's Premier League then the club is 100% notable. For future reference see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. And no I did not see the match but I kept track of it. Very good from what I saw from the stats. Japan should have won. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a persistent editor MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs), who keeps reverting edits made I have made to 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season the last few days. I've tried to notify him about why his changes are unacceptable via his talkpage and Talk:1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season (on the basis that what he has added is largely unsourced, a Goal.com poll holds no significance and if he was going to add an 'Aftermath' section, he may as well add a 'Background' one for balance -- yet it would probably be unsourced too and could jeopardise it's GA standing), yet the user refuses to agknowledge. After doing some digging, he has some previous; could it just be that he is a sock puppet? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Following today's Announcement that Green is pushing ahead with Luqudation there is a discussion on the talk page of what to do once or when this happens.

There have already been unsourced changes made to this article and its disambiguation page. It will need watching, and possibly protecting, until the situation becomes clearer. Britmax (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers page is already long term protected. It appears to be happening now anyway. [1]. There was debate on whether it could be said its a company Liqudating or whether it's the club but sources now clearly indicate club and new name. It's just a matter of best way I to handle it. More input eithier way would be helpful. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For the time being it doesn't make sense to use the past tense, or declare the club "defunct", anyway. If it were as straightforward as that the newspapers still wouldn't be in overdrive churning out potential future scenarios. I've reverted recent changes to that effect: this is going to need very close monitoring even above the semiprotection. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be reading the situation incorrectly but I believe that the club itself isn't being liquidated, the company that owns it will be - which means the club will remain intact? GiantSnowman 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why this is going to be a problem the club an company are intertwined since the late 1800s. Things weren't official when the club was formed but were later.

Sources dont distinquish the two at the moment see link above. Also its the club holds the licence which it looses and also see new name. The main problem as I see it is there will be two camps one who deems it as a continuation and one who see the old as defunct and a new club formed. Sources indicate the later but there are so many different precidents. Most of the English clubs were Dealt with as a continuation and kept same page, however the Scottish ones have mostly become separate clubs such as Airdrie and Gretna. I actually don't have a preference but we must go with ultimately what the sources say once this sorry saga has concluded. Going to be tricky either way. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

this BBC piece from yesterday quotes one of the administrators who says "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club." GiantSnowman 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And now do you see the problem. In that way the club is still liable for previous issues which is what we have been debating about. . We need to wait and see but most say club only ones directly quoting the admins say that. Also half the statements issued by those twits have been false. For instance player contracts don't transfer and no club has ever been allowed in the Spl following Liqudation contrary to their statements. . They make statements that are lies so will need to wait and see. It is possible for the deal to transfer history and them still be a new club. Airdrie we and most deal with as a new club but they see themselves as a continuation of Airdrieonians. Now given the club hold the licence not the company in that way they would still have it which is why the previous bidder wanted to do it that way however he would still of had a claim with HMRC for the yet announced tax case. The issue is whether we accept it as a new one or keep as the old we are going to have edit wars eithier way and source won't help because they contradict each other. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's little point in us arguing over what it means. Nobody actually knows what it means, which is why the Scottish media is going crazy right now. Suffice to say that we should be conservative in our approach and not going altering the main article (especially the lead) in light of every new news conference held by the administrators, potential buyers, supporters' groups et cetera. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree just needs to be kept a very close eye on. And honestly if we believed everything those admins said we would be in trouble. They don't know what's happening any better than we do. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have brought this up before my project on Indian football but never late then ever. Anyway in India we have the national league (I-League) which has 14 clubs but all 14 clubs also play in there respective state leagues in which most of them also use there first-team players in. Now I am wondering how I should write it on a player article. For example Dempo S.C. play in the national I-League and the state league (Goa Professional League)... now what if one of the players play a match in the national league and state league. Do I state the state league stats as Dempo B (to indicate state league stats) in the infobox and career stats box or do I not put anything in the infobox (cept for caps and goals in national league) and add an extra column in the career statistics box saying state league. And just so people dont get confused on what I am asking...

And then for career stats box do I keep it like this....

Club	Season	League			Cup			AFC			Total
		Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists
Dempo	2011-12	0	0	0	0	0	0	—	—	—	0	0	0
Career total		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

or should I do this...

Club	Season	League			State League			Cup			AFC			Total
		Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists
Dempo	2011-12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	—	—	—	0	0	0
Career total		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Thank you. Cheers. And Sorry for the complicated question. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar situation in Brasil where beside the national leagues (exemple, the top one Campeonato Brasileiro Série A) you have the state championships (exemple: Campeonato Carioca). What was agreed here was to add only the national league stats in the infobox, and if necessary to make a separate stats table in the article where the state stats are also included. See exemple Bruno Mezenga and see how the national stats are the ones included in the infobox, while a separate column is added in a career statistics table for the state championships.

Is the Indian case similar to this Brazilian one? FkpCascais (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what you've done in the second career stats box is best; include the state league info separately. However, do you have sources for his assists in all those competitions? Eldumpo (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assists should never be included in stats tables. Ever. GiantSnowman 21:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not, if they're suitably sourced? Eldumpo (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Because not every source agrees on number of assists, and stats are not available for the vast majority of players. GiantSnowman 07:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I see a lot of people relying on the Premier League fantasy football site for assist figures as well, and they give assists to the guy who wins a penalty! There is no universal definition of an assist, and different sites all have different figures. Get rid. – PeeJay 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying back earlier (work) but the way it works in India is weird. Dempo, Salgaocar, Sporting Goa, Churchill, East Bengal, Mohun Bagan, and Prayag United are the only clubs to admitidly play in the national I-League and the first-team in the state leagues as well. United Sikkim, Shillong Lajong, ONGC and Air India are unknown (lack of match reports from there respective state leagues. And Pune FC and Mumbai FC have admitted to using "B" teams like FC Barcelona B. So basically what I plan to do is only have "B" team caps and goals for players with Pune and Mumbai (as they admit they do that; and of course source will back it up) then for clubs in a state league and unknown I will not add to infobox and just write those stats in the carrer stats box. This shall be applied to all Indian footballers but of course I still need the opinion of someone else. So if I did this career box like Giantsnowman wanted...

Club	Season	League		State League		Cup		AFC		Total
		Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Mohun Bagan	2011-12	8	0	6	2	0	0	—	—	14	2
Career total		8	0	6	2	0	0	0	0	14	2

or should I do one with the state league name in them like this...

Club	Season	League		State League		Cup		International		Total
		Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
India		I-League		West Bengal		Federation Cup		AFC		Total
Mohun Bagan	2011-12	8	0	6	2	0	0	—	—	14	2
Career total		8	0	6	2	0	0	0	0	14	2

--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I remember verbatim a British TV commentator saying "Laudrup, Laudrup, still Laudrup, still Laudrup, Michael Laudrup... brilliant." as Laudrup scored a goal for Denmark. I loved the commentary so much, I memorised it. I think.

It was probably in the 1986 World Cup, but I can't find the goal or the footage. I thought it might have been one of the six Denmark got against Uruguay, but the YouTube video I found with British voiceover wasn't what I was after. Can anyone help? --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This? Thought it was Barry Davies at first. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was Barry Davies, he has a far more distinctive voice. – PeeJay 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed it was Davies, but his voice is recognisable as you say. Turns out it was David Icke doing the commentating. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade, still Lemonade, still Lemonade... brilliant. If we give you some CO2, maybe you'll be fizzy, but either way, you're brilliant. And my memory has held that almost perfectly for 26 years. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember another commentary of exactly the same goal with the commentator saying "this boy's got class" maybe on the other channel? Valenciano (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On ITV, they said "The boy's a genius!", might have been that. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, Euro 2012 has been fully protected. There is an unprotection case at WP:RRP. Adam4267 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the new leagues are official should Mexican Primera División be moved to Liga MX and should the Liga de Ascenso be moved to ASCENSO MX or should new pages be created. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The name of the articles should reflect what the reliable English-language sources call the leagues. Soccerway refer to it as Primera Division; if the sources do change over time then it may be appropriate to move them. Eldumpo (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The league name change corresponds to changes in the format as well. Reliable sources (e.g., Medio Tiempo) are already using the new name Liga MX. I think we need to have a strong link between the Primera history and the new Liga MX - so maybe moving the page is best. Perhaps we should wait until it is close to the start of the new season? Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The official FMF website officially announced it. [2] GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We should wait and see what the English-language sources (e.g. Soccerway, ESPN) are calling them before we think of moving the pages. Eldumpo (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the English-language media have been slow to use the new name (the league doesn't begin until July), but the Spanish-language media certainly have (including all of the Spanish-language US media outlets like Univision, ESPN Deportes, FOX Sports). I'm okay with moving the articles now, but it won't hurt to wait a few weeks and see if the English-language sources start picking up on the new name (I wouldn't worry about Soccerway - that isn't a reliable source, is it?). Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe Soccerway to be a reliable source, and others at Footy have said the same. Have you any reason to think otherwise? Eldumpo (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Soccerway is a reliable source, but seeing that it was a statistics database, I was unsure. I'm willing to consider it as one if there is a concensus that it meets the standard, but I would weigh more heavily what sources like ESPN or Fox Sports call the new league than Soccerway. Jogurney (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a passing thought - all current men's national teams are at 'xxxx national football team', while the women's teams are at 'xxxx women's national football team'. Is there an argument saying that we should move all the 'national football team' to 'xxxx men's national football team'? It could certainly be argued that this naming policy is non-neutral? Looking at the five principles of naming - Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency - I'd say that the current situation favours naturalness and conciseness, while changing to include men would favour precision and consistency. Recognizability, I'm less sure - arguably, as clearer, "men's national team" is more recognizable; however, as "national team" is generally recognised as being men, I'm not sure if this point holds.

Frankly, I think they should be changed - what do others think? I realise that this may have impacts on other national sport articles too. Pretty Green (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to the prevalence of the men's game compared to women's, it should stay as it is. GiantSnowman 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically women are not excluded from playing in a national side (as far as I know at least), it's just that none do. The Women's national side does preclude men so is specifically different. Changing the titles as suggested would be akin to changing the Olympics to be the 'Able-bodied Olympics' to fit in with the convention of the Paraolympics. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bladeboy makes a great point. I don't think there's anything that says women can't play in the England national football team (for example), whereas men are specifically excluded from playing in women's teams. – PeeJay 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think technically FIFA does ban women from playing in men's teams (at least national teams) after a few certain high-profile female players said they wanted to try to join men's teams. Can't remember the names (I think Brazilian, Mexican and/or Swedish?) and sources though. But I agree that in most countries, the national football team is the men's team. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - certainly in England mixed football cannot be played over the age of 11 or 13 by the rules of the Football Association. Number 57 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[3], 4.1: "For FIFA men's competitions, only men are eligible to play. For FIFA women's competitions, only women are eligible to play." Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> They are indeed separate, and over a certain age men and women cannot play together in FIFA football. Equally, the Olympics/Paralympics analogy doesn't work - they already have different names. I also wouldn't want to invoke any changes to named competitions or clubs eg FIFA World Cup, which is the name of the men's tournmanet.

However, England national football team is not an official name, it's a description. The FA, for example, just use England Football Team, or 'Men's senior' team to differentiate from other national selections. On FIFA's website, you click on England and then select 'men'. The only serious argument against the change, I'd have thought, would be WP:COMMONNAME - which GiantSnowman sort of invokes. I agree that under commonname we wouldn't probably change it. However, this is just one of the principles of naming that Wikipedia follows, and one we often ignore (eg Manchester United Football Club rather than Manchester United). It is a guide, not a rule. I'd suggest that under the majority of Wikipedia's naming principles, and under the principle of general objectivity, these should be changed to "...men's national football/soccer team" Pretty Green (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We use a particular per-country naming format (i.e. with the "F.C." for British clubs) because it's the least-worst way of enforcing some degree of consistency above what would be a difficult situation if we defaulted to an unmodified COMMONNAME. There does not appear to be such an argument in this case, as we already have a consistent presentation. As the men's international game is in general vastly more popular than the women's at this point in time, the least-worst option is to use the present format. Any argument to revisit that would need to be accompanied by some evidence to the contrary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely we don't have consistency across the two genders though? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Be wary of mistaking "consistency" for "equality". We are not obliged to assign equal weight to each sex's football, but due weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but I do get the point - there's clearly no appetite for the idea, which is how Wikipedia ultimately works! Cheers for your comments. Pretty Green (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with you, Pretty Green, but Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) also makes a decent point about due weight. As long as women's football articles do start to get due weight around here. Incidently, no-one should assume that men's football ascended naturally to its current dominant position; women's football (in the UK) was forcibly suppressed in the 1920s. It was one thing for them to draw huge crowds when they were raising money for injured "servicemen" - quite another when they started supporting striking miners! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, would someone mind keeping an eye out at Jordan Henderson; there are some IPs and a newly-registered user who seem intent on adding an unsourced table listing each of the player's England caps. And there was this addition by one of the IPs at Simon Mignolet too. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that something which is not allowed. I've seen it in other articles and personally don't like it. However, I didn't realise there was actually any reason not to have it. Adam4267 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

International goals tables are relatively common. They're not too impractical when one considers that the vast majority of international players never score more than a dozen goals for their country (if they score any). Caps is a different story, especially when accompanied by all the flagcruft that Just Won't Die. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I do not see a problem listing all international caps. The record of most caps is below 200, and only a small percentage of players go over 100. Verifiable and manageable. I have also found it weird to just have tables of listing international goals, seems to me quite biased towards attackers and against defenders! Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, the idea of having a table in an article detailing every one of a player's professional appearances is insane! Can you imagine what the article on Terry Paine would look like..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Or Tony Ford/Steve Claridge? I'm not keen on listing every internatioanl match on a player's article either really. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I put a table listing all the caps for both David Healy and Andy Townsend. The Townsend one is a bit out of fashion and has an unnecessary flag column on the end which I can't be bothered to remove but yeah, cannot see how they can possibly be a bad thing. They go to the trouble of stitching together a cute little hat for the occasion so a table recording them all is no bother at all.--EchetusXe 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that if these tables have are hidden so they only take up one line there's nothing wrong with them. Every match a player plays in is probably listed somewhere so its feasible to do for most players. Altough I personally wouldn't go to the trouble of making one and don't think they add much, I don't think there is anything wrong with them if someone wants to add one that's ok by me. I actually quite like the idea of a table with every players' club appearance though. If it was formatted the same way as David Beckham's Awards £ England templates. So you have one line; David Beckham club appearances. Then that opens up and you have each season which can be opened up further. So it doesn't take up to much space. Also these could have goals, cards, sub appearances etc for each match. For most modern players these things are all notable and widely reported on, so I don't see the problem with it. Of course you dont have to have it, it would be optional. So please don't say to me, "What about player X who made loads of appearances." Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't hide tables in the article body. See MOS:COLLAPSE. So that particular way to duck the issue is off the cards. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I didnt know about that policy. I thought it was ok because I'd seen it before in other articles. I think, seeing as we have club career statistics, that we should have international statistics listed in some way. Some articles just have a very small list with the number of apps made in each year. Adam4267 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For me a table listing caps/goals year-by-year, as Adam refers to, is the way to go, as it is analogous with the club career stats tables. Whereas, listing each international cap leaves a disparity between what we list; it seems unequitable to list each international cap while not listing each club app (not that I would advocate that). Personally, I'd forward this type of format for career stats sections. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody undo the redirect on 2012 Nehru Cup because when you click it, it just leads to Nehru Cup. The tournament dates have already been announced thus meaning that an article on the 2012 tournament can be created. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Not sure if I did it the proper way but you can go ahead and create the article now. TonyStarks (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone a step further and restored the first version of the article which has an infobox and a small intro. Have a look and please fix/update/reference the article. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to a previous AfD, the article was redirected due to a lack of reliable sources and being WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. Are there any sources now, other than those which got the article redirected? [4] – Kosm1fent 07:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

When proposing an article about a non-notable football player to get deleted .. should it be done through AfD or PROD? I don't see the difference and the list of WP:FOOTY has both. I know unreferenced articles about living people go through BLPProd but I'm talking about referenced ones that don't meet notability guidelines. I thought AfD was the way to go since PROD just seems like it can be removed without discussion if someone disagrees with it. TonyStarks (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

PROD, then AfD if the PROD is removed. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just had a look at WP:PROD and WP:AfD (which I probably should have done before asking) .. and you're right, PROD first! TonyStarks (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, the only articles I'm taking directly to AfD are borderline WP:N cases per WP:COMMONSENSE, as common sense doesn't fare well at a PROD and will certainly be rejected. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Watching the video link given above from the 1986 World Cup reminded me of this extraordinary Brazillian rightback who scored two of the best ever World Cup goals in that year's competition. I thought his first name was Paulo, and the video linked above does indeed give that name. But our article doesn't. Help welcomed at Talk:Josimar. --Dweller (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay I should have done this earlier. I am trying to do my own work with Indian football but yet my watchlist is filled with edits on this page by Mgomes neca (talk · contribs) who admitted that he is indeed Manuel Gomes himself. He made a lot of edits and all of them are not referenced or constructed at all. I told him that I would come back and revamp his page when I can. Sadly I have been busy I will get to it. I just manually undid his edit again and would like the page protected for around a week so I can revamp it. I should have time to do so. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay to remove this stuff on sight? I think they are not referenced and are a violation of WP:NOR. Some claim that this falls under routine calculations part, which states that: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Same page also states the following: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material....The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they are a clear case of original research and should be deleted on sight, they go beyond simple calculations. – Kosm1fent 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Definitely remove it. GiantSnowman 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not Okay WP:NOR does not disallow these calculations, they simpel calculations made from well sourced simple rules. They are only used in highprofile tournaments, such as currently in the EURO 2012, where they are updated on a daily basis and they are all removed after the end of the tournament. It is a fine way to keep the tournament articles updated. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So, this is okay???

On the next match day (16 June):

• Russia will win the group if
  • they defeat Greece OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland draw with Czech Republic OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by 1 or 2 goals† OR
  • they lose to Greece by less than 6 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic.
• Russia will qualify as a runner up if
  • they draw with Greece and Czech Republic defeat Poland OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by at least 4 goals.†

• Czech Republic will win the group if
  • they defeat Poland and Russia do not defeat Greece.
• Czech Republic will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Poland and Russia defeat Greece OR
  • they draw with Poland and Greece do not defeat Russia by at least 6 goals.

• Poland will win the group if
  • they defeat Czech Republic and Greece defeat Russia OR
  • they defeat Czech Republic by at least 4 goals and Russia draw with Greece.†
• Poland will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Czech Republic and Russia defeat Greece OR
  • they defeat Czech Republic by 1 or 2 goals and Russia draw with Greece.†

• Greece will win the group if
  • they defeat Russia by at least 3 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic.
• Greece will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Russia by 1 or 2 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic OR
  • they defeat Russia and Poland do not draw with Czech Republic.

†If Russia draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by 3 goals, the team between Russia and Poland with higher overall number of goals will win the group. The other team will qualify as a runner up. If they still level on the overall number of goals, Russia wins the group and Poland is the runner up. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not okay, because it's an endless list of indiscriminate information, not because it's unverifiable. Just because something isn't cited straight from an inline reference does not mean it's unverifiable or original research. I would limit them, perhaps to "if x wins or loses".. scenarios, but the idea that this counts as "original research" is silly. The rules for calculating group stats are perfectly clear and verifiable, it is a routine calculation. - filelakeshoe 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that and support it. Don't see why this can't be used. Kante4 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if the rules/materials for making the calculations are available, it's still original research to do the calculations if it has not been published elsewhere. Due to the short-lived nature of such 'what ifs', however, it seems easier to let them stay if editors insist on doing them. Pretty Green (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely OK I think. The next day stats follow clear reason, because the rules that define the ranking are known before hand and published. This does not mean that the first person to edit a list similar to the above always gets it right immediately. However, more than in most other topics, differing opinions here are always resolved easily. Another reason for me to allow this is the simple information content. People are simply happy to find this information in our articles. Last point to consider: The whole stuff is deleted again within one week. Is it really worth fighting for it exclusion based on OR? I think not. This policy aims at excluding baseless claims. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So because people are happy it's fine to include this. And how do that people know if the information is correct? They need to run every possible outcome listed to verify that, and how is that no original research. Second thing, it maybe gets deleted within one week but it's not used only on Euro 2012, but on every qualifying competition out there plus European competitions. What's next? Soon there will be something like this on league season aticles: On the next match day this team will qualify for Europa League if blah-blah yada-yada... Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is simply to overcalculated any event possible when a simple next matchday scenario is nothing more than to give a overview over the situation. In this case who will qualify to the quarterfinals. It can be done, and are being done, much more simple. I fully support the scenarios. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't overcalculated anything, I just copied what was on the page. And it's funny that you can't agree who can qualify to quarterfinals in Group A Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

True, it is fun. Why not let the people have their fun. It is only a matter of math so it will be correct in the end. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A list like the above would be too detailed as per my own taste. When I edit such an article, I would try to keep the content reduced to the basic information, i.e., what do team's need to do in the last match in order to qualify for the next round. However, I understand this discussion to be rather about the fundamental question: Should we allow people to publish consequences of future results. Here, i think yes, because it does not hurt and, which seems most important to Dr. Vico, it is clearly not against the spirit of WP:OR. these editors are not trying to publish unbased claims. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the focus of some people on the Wiki rules to the point of appearing to be a rules nazi, but I apologise for using this term since it will not appear to be polite of me.

As stated in the OR page, Routine Calculations are excluded from OR. Why would next day scenarios not be routine calculations, when they are just a result of the calculations based on published tournament rules? No doubt, it often requires a meticulous person to do it correctly, but it is much easier for others to verify any answers, and this again can be done by anyone without the need for any secret mathematical formula. Kiwi8 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another one of those "effort outweighs the benefit" situations. Yes, these are pointless, amateurish, ephemeral, and generally non-conducive to the long-term improvement of articles. But on the other hand, the fanboys who are responsible for them aren't magically going to work on something which actually does benefit the project if they're prevented from adding this cruft. So yeah, don't feel bad about removing it on sight: on the other hand, don't waste precious moments of your life holding a vigil over articles to prevent its return. That said, no regular members of this project should be wasting the community's time defending these (or, God forbid, contributing to them). They're no more defensible on the grounds of being "simple mathematics" than adding weather forecasts would be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of thumperward's points. The matter really needs discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research rather than here. Anything complicated enough to need a proof worked out on the talk page is not a routine calculation, it's an elementary theorem, and hence OR. jnestorius^(talk) 22:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who have been editing and/or watching these articles for a while, let me offer some (very long) perspective of how these "next-day scenario" came to be: They are originally computed to answer the "green or red" question as soon as possible; i.e., during the progress of a tournament and before its completion, we color a team green if they have certainly qualified, and red if they have certainly been eliminated. Sometimes the calculations are quite difficult, e.g. for Euro 2012 qualifying, it involved head-to-head records and cross-comparison between groups on the best runner-up. For example at some point an editor concluded that the Netherlands were certain of qualifying either as group winner or best runner-up (see Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying#Netherlands Qualified?). After some debate and calculations back-and-forth, the editors seem to agree that Netherlands have qualified, even though UEFA still said they were "on the verge of a finals place". The next day, UEFA also confirmed that Netherlands have qualified. That is good, but well UEFA is pretty well-organized. Let's say we have the CAF, which never tell you about those stuff. So I read that "team X still needs one more point to qualify" or "team Y is on the brink of elimination", where in fact, based on my calculations (maybe a lot, maybe not a lot), team X has definitely qualified and team Y has definitely been eliminated. Or what about if one newspaper claimed that team X has qualified while another newspaper claimed that team X has not yet qualified. So we need to do some calculations to verify those claims, right? And then somebody thought, "well let's just pre-compute all the next-day scenarios, so we can answer this green or red question as soon as the new results come in". Full disclosure: once I even wrote a computer program to do these kinds of calculations. So this becomes a trend for all the pages of the tournaments. The calculations become so good that you can be reasonably sure that news sources are using wikipedia as some sort of "confirmation" that a team has qualified (for example, Libya as one of the best runners-up for 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualification before the completion of all groups; pretty doubtful that the journalists know how to calculate themselves or can find any source elsewhere). Oh, so where am I? Well, I guess most people will agree that the "green or red" question is quite important (they are not next-day scenarios since they are not hypothetical anymore). We kind of want to know whether a team has qualified or not, and they involve calculations that are sometimes "original" (as in nobody else have published them) and complicated, as for whether they are OR then that is debatable (as in many things in wikipedia). As for next-day scenarions, I am sort of ambivalent nowadays; sometimes I am interested in those, say what result Greece needs in their last match to qualify, so I compute the calculations in my head. I do not actively publish them, but if somebody publishes them I check whether they are correct to verify my own calculations; if I find them incorrect I edit to correct them. I do not think they are OR per se (they are just calculations, complicated or not), and on the one hand there are certainly enough people interested in calculating, reading and discussing about them. But on the other hand you can argue that wikipedia should not really be discussing so much about possible future scenarios (which will be deleted once the future arrives) that can read like a math textbook. Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to a consensus here yet, so I don't know why Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs) and IPs are continuing to edit war on the group articles, it's getting a bit disruptive and it would be most beneficial to the project if these articles were NOT fully protected. Has anyone tried looking for sources which list next match scenarios? - filelakeshoe 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see who's edit warring here, I removed this shyte only two times. The only thing that's disruptive is 200 edits of constant changing of next match day scenarios and players positions. Btw, I'll be tagging this as OR since there's no way these are routine calculations. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

what part of it isn't routine? Group A example: Russia have 4 points - that means for them not to qualify, two teams have to get past them. since they two immediately below are playing each other, a win or draw clearly puts them through. You can then do the calculations for a loss - a loss puts them and Greece both on 4 - and since results is the first tiebreaker, they'd lose that - thus they need both the other teams to be below them. again, both the other teams are playing, so that match would clearly need to be a draw. this now puts 3 teams on 4 points. results is the first tiebreaker - so look at the results. since each team would have drawn with Poland, head to head is simple - the net GD among teams = overall GD, therefore Russia's GD would have to go to less than Czech Republic's GD in order to not qualify- thus they need to lose by more than 5. it's simply doing additions and looking at the tiebreakers along with remaining matches. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you need a paragraph and a significant understanding of the tournament tie-break rules to understand it, it isn't routine. We get this all the time from people who assert that anything they can work out on a napkin during a flight is too trivial to warrant sourcing. It isn't. This isn't a news blog, and people should be strongly discouraged from making it so. It's not like there aren't already sites on the Internet that publish these predictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. These go way beyond simple calculations as instructed by WP:NOTOR, especially for someone who is not an avid football fun... – Kosm1fent 14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding 3 points or 1 point is very routine. The tiebreakers are sourced on the main page - and like I said, results is the first one. Looking at a result is not that difficult. GD might be slightly more difficult, but that is just adding and subtracting the goals in the results. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, one can argue that even applying tiebreakers at the end of the competition is not routine. Have you seen the UEFA tiebreakers, listed here? And what happens when the only source we have of who have qualified are the "smart" people of the South African Football Association? I know I may be taking it to the extreme here, but I think so are some of the arguments listed here (e.g. that everything listed has to be verifiable). Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

By that assertion, anything short of differential equations is routine. Anyway, you're going to stop edit warring on this matter immediately regardless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, first - see WP:BITE (then WP:AGF) - second, are you really comparing adding 1 or 3 to differential equations?!!! 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, you have a list of integrals that is sourced, so it's now routine to give me the result for:${\displaystyle \int _{4}^{7}{\frac {3}{2x+3}}cot3x\;dx}$. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

wow - so we really are comparing 3+1 = 4 to differentiation? ok then - I'll go delete every thing that says "1+1 = 2" that doesn't have a source. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

in actual fact, can we even have the group tables? - that involves working out that one win (3pts) + 1 draw (1 point) means a team has 4 points - that's OR (!) they also have stuff like "5 goals scored - 2 against = 3 goal difference" - that's OR (!) - heck even working out that teams have played two games after they've won one and lost one is OR too (!) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going with your reasoning that if we have some sourced rules like tiebreakers, every mathematical and logical operation used is routine calculation. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

except that you're still comparing adding (such as adding 3 points or one point to an existing total) to differential equations - when there is no comparison. if the tiebreakers invovled calculating differential equations then you'd have a point - but they don't. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic calculations are indeed considered simple, but tiebreaking rules are not. And since we can't only include scenarios in groups where no tie-breaking will take place, for consistency we remove scenarios all together. Simple. – Kosm1fent 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:These are not original research for Simple calculations clearly states: "Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. Complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors." How can anyone quickly and easily reproduce this when you argue for a half a day which version is correct? And I think this is a classic example of complex calculations part. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what's the next step here? People are removing OR tag repeating same bullshyte: This is standard in wikipedia, This is routine calculation, Discussion is over. To start a section at Wikipedia talk:No original research or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this debate I see no clear consensus made, only you trying to push your opinon through and a lot good discussion with different opinions. You are making your own opinion to be standard for Wikipedia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because my opinion is based on Wikipedia Core content policies and the only ones against it are obviously the ones which are putting this crap instead contributing with something useful. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dudes. Half the internet has got its calculators out doing the Euro 2012 maths. Can't we just find a reference or two? I already put one for Group A. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But you are the only person who really want to avoid those scenario sections. People giving good opinions but you just don't want to hear it and want to make your opinion the only one that counts. Like i see it from raeding, most people don't care if there is such a section with you being the only one against them. So the consensus is leaning towards allowing them, different from your edit summaries. Kante4 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And here's a ref for groups A AND B. [5]. Sorted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a ref for Groups A, B and C from ESPN. Yesterday they only includes Group A and B and now it has been updated to include Group C. I expect them to update it with scenarios for Group D soon after today's matches. — 125.161.247.198 (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Retain (until redundant) but simplify: the sources above give details of what is needed for teams to qualify for the knockout stage. The example section above makes that situation far more complicated by adding analysis of what is necessary to top the group. That greatly extends such sections, and makes them far more daunting to read. There is no additional reward for topping the group, and no certainty that doing so will result in an easier semi-final. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that the only objection above was based on working out tiebreakers, Can we agree that Group D as it is just now is not OR, since that DOES only only involve adding points (1 or 3) and not doing tiebreakers. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The problem is with making forecasts in general. The specific difficulty of the mathematics involved is irrelevant. We have no need to tell readers what might happen a week on Tuesday: if the calculation is as elementary as you constantly profess it to be, they should be able to work it out for themselves. All it does is make our articles look like fan pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

which is another debate entirely, and not one about whether the stuff is OR or not. Also, the line

"if the calculation is as elementary as you constantly profess it to be, they should be able to work it out for themselves"

could apply that to any 'easy calculation' that WP:OR currently allows - so is a debate for that page. this debate is about the current interpretation of the current OR page. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Addition and subtraction is really easy, but no one wants to spend an afternoon calculating shit just because.

I think this entire discussion casts the wiki-community as a bunch of retarded aspergers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A user has gone and created a template (like the ones we use at the bottom of competition pages to link to past editions) and transformed into an infobox and added it to every single related page. The template in question is the following {{Qualification for championships (CAF)}} and can be seen on pages such as the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, etc. Not only is the wording retarded but the template is just a redundant version of the one found at the bottom of the page, and has no place at the top in my opinion. Thoughts? Approach to fix this? TonyStarks (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's super ugly. TonyStarks (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it combines two competitions in one template !! Someone please answer, or else I'm going to keep pointing out flaws lol. TonyStarks (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two possibilities – either keep, but under a different name and as an navbox, or delete. I tend to lean to the latter as the benefit of having a navbox containing every qualification phase for a competition is questionable at best since the qualification stages are not linked to each other. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, it certainly doesn't belong at the top of the article. It is clearly a navbox, and they go at the bottom..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean the top right infobox type template found on this version of the article? It could be usefull as both are being played now, so one interested in seing African ntional team results could jump from one to another, but still fails to be an ideal solution. A delete in my view, as the two competitions are unrelated. FkpCascais (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He announced those here. -Koppapa (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That was for the AFC one and by a different user .. nevertheless, I didn't know they had them for the other associations as well. What is everyone's thoughts on these? Keep or delete? Seems like most people so far don't see the need for them since they involved different competitions. TonyStarks (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a bit of problem with the above AfD obviously he plays in a non-notable league that isn't up for debate. But national-football-teams & Soccerway state he has played for the Armenia national team which means he would pass WP:NFOOTYbut UEFA seem to think it was Kamo Hovhannisyan that played against Kazakhstan. I don't think we should take UEFA's word as gospel further clarification is needed. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you, I can´t recall exactly which, but I do remember finding a few mistakes specially among players with same surname, on behalve of FIFA.com and UEFA.com. The best way would be to consult some local Armenian sources like daily or sports news websites which cover national team events, the problem is that Armenian is written in a different alphabet which is quite hard to read and understand, and while one can spot a player name in a foreign-language report of some latin-scrypt language, in this case it is impossible. I´ll try to see if I can find one Armenian football website which had individual players pages in English and then see if I can find him there. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I alraedy said on the above deletion discussion, there is Armenian Weekly (an English-speaking source) which states that Kamo was the one who got in: [6] It's the only source I could find that featured the full squad & substitutions of the game (apart from Soccerway). – Kosm1fent 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did exactly that, I should have checked the discussion first before posting here. Case closed then! FkpCascais (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad news... the electronic archives of Athlitiki Echo (an invaluable source of information for pre-2007 Greek football) now require authorisation. Don't know why, especially as there is no announcement for that closure. Damn. – Kosm1fent 09:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys fixed the redirect because there is information from the All India Football Federation about the format and dates of the tournament which thus make it notable but Spartaz does not agree. The page has been once again redirected as for some reason this says that the Nehru Cup 2012 page should not be made till the tournament starts BUT only 1 user on that Afd said so. Snowman said it to but he also said that if more information comes out it is notable. Anyway could use some help for this. Cheers. --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"says that the Nehru Cup 2012 page should not be made till the tournament starts" -> NONSENSE. If there is enough reliable sources talking about the 2012 edition then an article can be made. We don't wait until kick off to make pages for the World Cup/Euro/ACN/etc. and it's not any different for this tournament either. TonyStarks (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an invitational friendly tournament organised by the All India FF, so with respect, their announcement of format and dates doesn't remotely count as significant independent coverage. We don't have to wait until it starts, just until there's a decent amount of independent coverage, i.e. not just other sources reproducing the AIFF info about format and dates. But until there is a decent amount of independent coverage, it isn't notable by definition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, more independent reliable sources are needed in order for the 2012 edition to stand as a stand-alone article. Undoing the redirect without providing such sources goes against consensus established in the previous AfD. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you go... [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. That should be enough. I mean everything about this tournament is out, format, amount of teams, prize money, dates. The only things missing are venue and 3 teams. Still till then it would be best to keep the article not on redirect to Nehru Cup. I could then make a section outlining the teams invited but not confirmed yet and I could also make a critical section based on what the new India coach said. --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More than enough sources for an article in my opinion. If others are not still convinced, you can always create the article in your sandbox with all the relevant information and references .. and that could convince the skeptics with regards to the notability of the tournament/article. TonyStarks (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Conversation here... Talk:2012 Nehru Cup --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note This account (now blocked) is the fourth account that User:Arsenalkid700 has used to evade his block for edit warring. If anyone spots another new account that looks like him, ping me a note on my talk page please? (Edit: at least he's admitted it on his talkpage now). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Golden generation needs rewriting the teams selected are arbitrary and inclusion of players notability. Anyone willing to help? Dwanyewest (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely needs a re-write (and referencing) if it claims that Kieron Dyer is a member of the Golden Generation!!???--Egghead06 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks,

This has kicked off a bit. Anyone fancy lending a hand on talk to establish what exactly is going on and (if possible) to rein in some of the hystrionics? I'm massively too involved to use tools here, but it's well past that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that if the club were actually going to be liquidated then it would be front page BBC News, let alone front page BBC Sport News. Someone always comes along to save the big dawgs so talks of "Rangers F.C. were a football club" are premature.--EchetusXe 16:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like canvas to me but even if it aint to say you would use admin tools if you wasnt involve seems like a threat to me. ive already said the article needs correcting what that will be is hard to say, you have said yourself the sources are contradicting each other there no way to really establish until more is know over the new few weeks what is really correct and what is really wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (U

Chris has abused everyone on that page. He cant use his tools A) because he forced a change through against consensus on that page and he knows it. B) He hates me and isn't ashamed to bring that into every situation that he gets involved in, he is an admin that pushes a pov against consensus and attacks other editors. So what did he do he ran to his mates. Well Chris you have proven what you are. If anyone is thinking about getting involved you will see that the consensus was massively against a new article and for keeping as one entity and explaining the situation i.e transfer to new company and the new company not having a licence to play or a league. This was all done yesterday and it stopped an edit war, today chris removed all that and now we have a massive edit war started by an admin who is supposed to be impartial and go with consensus. Plus a new club article The Rangers Football Club which he has also edited falsely he has no proof that company cant use the old crest he just assumes they cant. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a restructuring. The new company is a reorganization of the legal, ownership and operational and to reduce tensions between debt and equity. I dispute the 2012 disolving because the decision on if the new company is a new club is the Scottish Football Association's decision. They decide if the new company can continue the history of the club. Kingjeff (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's rather more that that, actually. The club really is being dissolved, which is quite a bit more serious than e.g. what Leeds went through. The question of whether a phoenix club will be allowed into the SPL, or Scottish football at all, is very much still a live one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EchetusXe you removed Andrews comment nor have you read the talk page no one wanted the article to be like that apart from Chris we wanted that page to be a continuation of the old after there liquidation chris does not want that and has went against consensus.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not restructuring they are being liquidated we cant deny that but we did not want the page like that chris did.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately a POV editor has come along to exasparate the situation. We had some form of consensus yesterday but that has changed today. Adam4267 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As we speak he is going against consensus making edits to the infobox and leads he is out of control and won't follow consensus that had been bult, if this was a non admin the would have been blocked for pov pushing and ignoring consensus that was built for several days before he got involved today. He clearly used the above statement as a threat. This is getting ridiculous and we all know Chris is the pov pusher so you can say that. Admins cant do that its unbelievable behaviour. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EchetusXe this is the version that had consensus[12] that should a the club the entity still had some form without having to go down the route of creating the new article and closing the old one. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if a club finishes its league programme for one season and turns up the following season in the same league with the same name, the same stadium, the same fans, the same manager and the same players then I don't think media sources are going to consider it a new and separate club and therefore neither can we. Burslem Port Vale F.C. were liquidated in 1907 and Cobridge Church F.C. changed its name to Port Vale F.C., bought the club's old stadium and began a new league programme in a league several steps below on the pyramid. It says 1876 on the badge (even though evidence points to 1879 as the founding date) and all media sources state that the club has existed since 1876. De facto is a greater concern than de jure, whether you like it or not.--EchetusXe 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting i want them to have separate pages. I don't i want that the consensus we all agreed on which is to keep one article. Chris has said they should be treated as separate because they are not one in the same i.e. newco and oldco. He forced changes against that Edinburgh Wanderer 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most people so think they should be kept at the same page. They might be in the 3rd division nest season though. Adam4267 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

yip parts of the article will neeed to be updated when the information is known but there no need for serperate article since they are all the same according to sources and if we are to use sources and then go against that it is POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All well and good: the problem is that it hasn't actually happened yet, and there's still a significant chance that it won't happen. The most recent example of a club's parent company changing was Leeds, who went to extraordinary lengths to avoid liquidation, for instance. In the Football League, it means automatic demotion to Step 5 at best with at least some degree of visible club name change. Even assuming that the new club is voted in in place of the old, there's still a significant chance that it will be stripped of its titles and forced to change its name, and there's more than one vote to get through to get back into the SPL. If either the SPL member clubs or the SFA refuse to transfer the old club registration then they'll be out, and have to find a new league to enter (there is no procedure by which they would automatically enter the SFL). And yet despite all this, you've got EW insisting (with no lucid argument at all, save "we all think this") that the new company be treated as if it's already the same thing as the football club, despite having made no petition for a membership transfer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They have requested a meembership transfer though. The page yesterday said basically that Rangers had been liquidated (or on the verge of it) and a new company had been formed which owned the assets and was trying to transfer the membership across. But that that might not be accepted by the authorities. I do not see what's wrong with that. Adam4267 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

rangers football club plc have been liquidated the rangers football club isnt this is what people do not get there heads round, ill be honest i thought the club was liquidated yesterday and in my own personal opinion they have been but the sources are contradicting some suggest the club hasn't been liquidated but the plc has and not interconnected other than the plc owned the club and the newco now own it as the newco bought the brand and are hoping for what you have said, adam good work on trying to et edinburgh and chris to either work or not work instead of the fighting good luck :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think (I may be wrong) but this is the current situation. The club, in terms of the body that holds a licence to play football. Has not yet been liquidated but is in the process of it. Rangers still listed as a club on SPL's website. However, that "club" has no stadium players etc. All they have is the licence and £5.5m in there bank (from Charles Green) to pay off creditors then go bust. Green's company owns the parts that were used to make up Rangers (maybe not the players) and want to trasnfer the old membership over. That might or might not be accepted by either both SFA or SPL (they need a licence with both). If that is the case they will have to apply to the Third Division as a gap will have opened up through teams being promoted. (That again may or may not be succesful as other teams will apply) Adam4267 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the problem with what was there, there was no speculation and we had worked towards it via consensus. Now we have two articles The Rangers Football Club & Rangers F.C. the first one may never get of the ground. Neither article makes any sense at its making an arse out of us all. They have requested a membership transfer and that was sourced. The new article is not needed nor was the change in line with the consensus which was to keep them together until we knew what was happening, only detailing facts not speculating what may or may not happen, just the pure facts that they are currently applying for their membership to be transferred and currently do not have any league to play in until that has been accepted or not. It also explained properly that green had purchased the assets and was reforming and the process is ongoing. Sourced info and consensus if being ignored that is the real problem we cant put in what we don't know so where is the issue as adam says with the consensual text we had.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All you really need are sources per WP:RS for all that and you've got some content that can be included. Leaky Caldron 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you believe it we actually did and it all got removed.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From an encyclopaedic point of view I think the best thing is to wait until the football licensing authorities, the SFA & the SPL recognise the newco (or not). The football aspect of the article will then take care of itself. Haggling about oldco, newco, crests and shares is rather mindless from a football article perspective. Of course, if there are credible WP:RS for the status of every aspect of ownership that's fine but it seems rather elusive. There seems to be a lot of POV being pushed on all sides, not much of which is neutral. Leaky Caldron 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem now is we have an edit war one group who wish to close the oldco and list as defunct and another who would rather wait and see what happens. All the old co hold is the licence the newco hold everything else. The best way was to say they had applied for the licences to be transferred and then see what happens. Only citing the facts and waiting to see what happens as we cant speculate whether they will or won't get a licence or say they are in a league that they technically are not. this[[13]] was the version we had but it wasn't perfect but at least there was no edit warring over it, that allowed us to wait and see how it played out and whether the club continued in the same form with the same perceived identity in sources or a totally new club and start a new article. There was consensus for that for the time being. The main feeling was we shouldn't consider them as two separate entities until that actually happened but yet we have it.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to neutral it had been requested that the page be protected until we all could agree on the best option and make it neutral. However i was basically told its me thats in the wrong despite the consensus. This means its open to edit warring and pov pushing. Ill be honest i don't care less which way it happens but it needs to be done properly and not have lies or censored info. I do not support Rangers nor do i dislike them either. As long as its done properly an we aren't misleading people which we are now then I'm happy. What dosent make me happy is misinformation and casing confusion all we need are the basic facts and no speculation like they will play in the SPL. We don't know that nor do we know if they will ever play again.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I cannot see much wrong with the current version [14]. "The Rangers Football Club" certainly has no football licence yet and it would be incorrect to imply that it has. Leaky Caldron 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends whether we accept that Rangers are a continuation or they will be a new club. Consensus was they will be a continuation. If we go with that the problems are a) We cant say they play in the SPL because we cant factually say they will again. b) It lists Craig Whyte in the infobox if its a continuation then we can factually say Charles Green owns the majority share. C) It fails to mention they are currently in the process of applying for their licences to be transferred and do not in fact have them. If we go with that is the old Rangers then it should be in past tense and players and stadium details removed as they have no ownership over these and new article updated although that will always be speculative. So whatever way you look at it there is a problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham and Edinburgh Wanderer, I still think it is debt restructuring. The new owner is using insovency of one corporation and created a new corporation to deal with the current debt. Kingjeff (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

this is the problem no one knows, is it true liqudation, ie the club is dissolved, is it debt restructing, is it a new club no one knows this is why the articles needs to be tlaked about before changesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read this, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you can tpitch the club back into administration, this wher ethe confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state teh club is disolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradiciting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

[Section courtesy blanked. See history for contents. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)]

Would anyone mind reverting Joshuaforest (talk · contribs) at Lewis McGugan for me? He's insisting on a adding a version of the career stats table that contains unnecessarily small font size and uses colours arbitrarily. Not that we should be expecting much from an editor who goes arond making edits like this. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Horrible article as well, have taken a few pieces out although others may like to continue what I started. Cloudz679 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again at Chris Cohen and is well on his way to violating WP:3RR. Why can't he just read the guidelines I've linked to in the edit summaries and realise his edits are counterproductive? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the UEFA Euro 2012 statistics does not list assists. The information about assists is widely available for this competition, should it be included or is there a reason it is being left out? TonyStarks (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are those official figures? The reason we don't typically include figures on assists in European football is that they aren't officially tracked, so all sorts of different media and betting organisations keep their own figures. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate input from other editors at Florent Cuvelier and the associated talk page. I removed categories based on the fact the player hasn't represented these clubs, however another editor has twice reverted my changes claiming you include clubs regardless if they have played for the first team. For me, being a member of these clubs - especially as just as part of the youth team - is not notable, only by playing should the player receive this categorisation. What do you think? Thanks - Cloudz679 10:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to only add categories for clubs where the player has had a senior/pro contract. BigDom 10:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BigDom. If they've signed a pro contract, add them to the category. It's slightly different with competition categories, however, such as Category:Premier League players, where the player in question would have had to make an appearance in that competition. – PeeJay 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly no requirement for them to have played first-team football to get the club/player category. Agree that competition/player categories require an appearance in that competition. Personally, I don't require a senior, or particularly a pro contract, even for clubs at a high enough level to have professional contracts; by that definition, Theo Walcott wouldn't qualify for Southampton F.C. players, because he made his 21 Football League apps for them when he was still too young to turn pro. If the player has been associated with the club at a formal level, I give them the category; e.g. a player who was released after their two-year scholarship at Foo F.C. but then became notable elsewhere would get the Foo F.C. players category. Helpful to the reader, and all that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Echo what these guys are saying; if a player has been on the books at a club then the relevant category should be added. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If a player is at a club during his youth career, it should be added to his categories. The categories are not exclusive for the first team, unless we're talking German/Spanish football where the first team can sometimes be a considered "separate entity" from the reserve/youth team (eg. Bayern Munich players, Bayern Munich II players). In Cuvelier's case, he should have Mouscron, Portsmouth and Stoke in his categories. TonyStarks (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you all in agreement but I don't think it's very encyclopaedic to not have proper inclusion criteria for these categories. Triallists will be having these extra categories added in that case "because he played in a friendly match for this club", etc. I think that is clearly wrong. I don't see why it can't be the same case for international teams, either you played for them in a sanctioned match and you have the category, or not. Should someone on Wikipedia who has an article but is not notable for being a football player have a category added for Foo F.C. players because he spent a few weeks in their youth set up at the age of 12? I don't think so. Where is the common sense, or am I missing something here? Cloudz679 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, all such club footballer categories should have the inclusion criteria explained at the top of the category, although we'd need to agree appropriate wording. Eldumpo (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Should someone on Wikipedia who has an article but is not notable for being a football player have a category added for Foo F.C. players because he spent a few weeks in their youth set up at the age of 12?" - Steve Harris (musician) is in Category:West Ham United F.C. players......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, should Rod Stewart not be included under the Brentford F.C. players category. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Stewart 'kicked a ball about a bit' and served what appears to have been two weeks of an apprenticeship. Guess in the most tenuous sense that makes him a Brentford player? [15]--Egghead06 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that if a player has been registered with a club, either as a youth or as a non-playing professional, the category should be included. GiantSnowman 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So basically, inclusion criteria being any individual who has been associated with the football club in a playing capacity, including at youth and reserve levels. Is this the criteria everyone is applying? Cloudz679 09:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. A trialist does not qualify since they were never on the books of the club, they just tried out to be a part of it. TonyStarks (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the risk of misinterpreting other people's posts, I think what we've been saying is "contracted to", "registered with", "associated with at a formal level", "on the books of", i.e. a formal or contractual relationship with the club, but some people are stricter than others about whether they count youth players. Don't think anyone's said anything as loose as "any individual who has been associated with the football club in a playing capacity", because as you said above, we'd end up with trialists, guests in testimonials, kids who trained with the club for a few weeks at the age of 12, whatever. Mr Cuvelier, who started all this off, was in Mouscron's youth system for six years and had a pro contract with Portsmouth. If the categories were called Foo F.C. first-team players, it'd be different, but they're not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is there's no clear criteria supported by notability and verifiability and as such these categories don't meet the same strict guidelines as the articles themselves. What a shame. Cloudz679 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

May I ask a question? Nery Castillo hasn't played for the Mexican national team since 2009, but he hasn't announced his retirement. Should the "nationalyears" parameter in his infobox read "2007–2009" or "2007–" since he could potentially play again for his country? An editor seems to support the latter option. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My rule is if they haven't played in the current or previous campaign then it should be closed (there's nothing to stop it being re-opened if he does get recalled). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Nery Castillo just turned down a Red Star Belgrade offer and moved back to Mexico and signed with Pachuca in order to increase his chances in gaining back his spot in the national team. But anyway, when he receves a call again it can allways be reopened. FkpCascais (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We've generally been undecided on this one. I'm strongly in favour of leaving it open unless there's a reliable source indicating that the player's international career is over, but there's significant disagreement on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to draw the line somewhere. I doubt, for example, that Lee Hendrie has announced his international career is over, but no-one would list that as 1998– ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be no hard-and-fast rule about this, but merely common sense - if a player hasn't played for the national team for a few years (2-3?) then it's reasonable to add an 'end date'. GiantSnowman 09:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In updating Portuguese club articles I am coming across a number of outdated "squad player lists" (e.g. F.C. Famalicão) even when some are described as "current squad". I have little time for updating such lists as within 12 months they will be out of date again. Do you advise me to retain the outdated lists and tag them or can I delete them? My preference is to follow the latter course of action unless the listing relates to 2011/12 season. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)).

How about not using the word "current"? Instead titling the section as "First team squad" or similar, and using {{As of}}, the sections will just date, rather than become incorrect. U+003F^? 18:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually update the ones I care about and delete any which are horribly out of date. At the very least renaming the section to "Playing squad" and then adding the note about "as of..." will help out. Cloudz679 20:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having an outdated roster, as long as it says 2009-10 for example in the section title. At least that way a reader knows its not the current squad. I prefer an outdated squad than no squad at all. If the majority of the team is unchanged it will be easier to fix it in the future than having to start from scratch. TonyStarks (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, and the kind of solution U+003F mentioned is what I have mostly followed around. Adding at top of the squad list a date "As of..." and removing the word "Current" which is disencouraged to be used on WP anyway seems the best solution. An outdated squad is even so a better peace of information than having nothing. So I never favour the "delete" option. FkpCascais (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Squad lists without a reference should be removed, as they cannot be verified, regardless of how out-of-date they are. For referenced lists that are out of date, I personally would say remove them - what use or relevance does a 4 year old squad list have? GiantSnowman 09:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, having the squad, even if not updated, motivates others to update it. Also, I favour allways having a date at top of the section, and for me is more important to have a correct squad at certain date (exemple, March 2012) than having IP´s running around adding and removing players as soon as some rumor is published somewhere... Regarding the referencing issue, it is not that easy, as often squads lists in official websites themselfs are only updated at the start of the season, and often editors don´t wait as long s that to add and remove players. FkpCascais (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you do delete content, please remember to use the edit summary to explain why you're doing it, to avoid your edits being confused with casual vandalism. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments - I will take on board the concensus view. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

I created a page for Widnes F.C. back in March when the North West Counties Football League reported that a new club (which involved Mark Wright, the former Liverpool and England international, and Stephen Vaughan Jr, who played for Chester City and was chairman at one point during his father's ownership of club) were going to apply for membership of the league for 2012 entry.

The league AGM happened at the weekend and they have not been admitted. I contacted the league secretary today questioning if they had rejected an application to the NWCFL and he responded:

"There was no actual application, as any new club entering the National League System above Step 7 requires approval from the FA Leagues Committee. My understanding is that they did not have a suitable ground for Step 6 so they did not formally apply."

Obviously, there has been coverage of the club (as per the references) but it seems that this is going nowhere. I suppose it may be possible that they could end up in the Liverpool County Premier League (whose AGM is at the end of June) or a similar level league, but unlikely given the complete lack of a club website or any other press coverage since March 2012.

Any views on AFD?

Zanoni (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to, and mention on, Widnes#Sport for now? GiantSnowman 09:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that this site has been re-born ([16]), but is a pale shadow of its former self. As there are about 200 links ([17]) to the former database these should be changed rather than directing traffic to the new site. Can this be done by a Bot? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like its a completely different site which has just taken the old name. I've been removing the url from the old links and stating something like 'site now defunct'. Eldumpo (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The real successor of this site will be launched here: [18] (The National Football Archive) Cattivi (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any news on when will this happen or what will be the access price? They were supposed to have an internal beta in May. 109.173.212.187 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Football for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we verify if this guy ever played for the Palestinian national team? Not mentioned at NFT or FIFA but there could be alternative spellings etc.... GiantSnowman 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources in the article say he played there. Guardian and Washington Post seem reliable. -Koppapa (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Could very be lazy journalism. GiantSnowman 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The WaPo article is from the Associated Press and it never mentions that Sarsak has actually played for Palestine in a senior international. The article simply reports that he is a "member" of the "Palestine national soccer team" - which could mean he has received a call-up but never played or that he represented a youth or "B" side. There is simply no way to verify he played in a FIFA "A" international, so I would recommend we don't indicate that he has played for the Palestine national football team. Jogurney (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This was previously asked here. Seems that we concluded he did not win a cap.--EchetusXe 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll search again tonight and see if I can find anything in Arabic. Either way, he is notable given all the media attention he has received, but I'm guessing the question was just to verify if he actually played for Palestine or not. TonyStarks (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed a few days ago - see archive here. According to this article, at the age of 17 he participated in a Norwegian youth tournament. He was then called up for a Palestine training squad but was arrested before he could join up with them. Consequently, IMHO, he should not be referred to as "a member of the Palestine national football team" as he was never a member of a match squad, let alone actually playing for Palestine. Unfortunately, "samidoun.ca" is considered to not be a reliable source so as a result this information has been commented out of the article. It seems, however, that the editor is prepared to take the word of sources such as the Guardian and Washington Post neither of whom actually gave any details of his "international career" – as Giant Snowman says, this is lazy journalism. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks are due to User:Struway2 for his valuable contribution to the discussion on the article's talk page and for arriving at a sensible and mutually agreeable resolution to the content disputes on this article. I wish I was as wise as him. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Eyes at Mohamed Diamé please - the usual unreferenced transfer speculation thanks to certain "news"papers - yet nothing on the official website of West Ham. Funny that. I'm at 3RR. GiantSnowman 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Counts for nothing I know but.....it's in the pipeline according to the son of chairman David Sullivan on Twitter. Expect this to be announced by the club soon. Until the event expect some toing and froing on his article.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realize Snowman that now that you have complained about it the transfer will definitely go ahead within the next few hours or so? Course if you didn't complain then he would not have agreed to join the club and the IPs would report the move having gone ahead anyway.--EchetusXe 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So if I go and edit Lionel Messi's article to the effect that he has signed for Gillingham, and then make sure that Snowie complains about having to revert it... result! Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, he's off to Bradford City ;) GiantSnowman 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is a 10-year-old doing on Twitter? Or, alternatively, what on earth is Dave Sullivan doing letting his 10-year-old tweet about West Ham's business dealings? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is David Sullivan doing with a 10 year old son? I thought he was like 70 Adam4267 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Born 1 February 1949 (age 63)" Source: Wikipedia.--EchetusXe 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah I was thinking of the other one who is 75 (Wikipedia). Even still having a 10 year old son at 63. Adam4267 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Make your mind up as to why he might have had children in his 50s...From Wiki - His partner is Emma Benton-Hughes, sister of Jonny Trunk, who met Sullivan while she was working as a model for his pornographic magazines under her previously married name of Eve Vorley. The couple have two children, David and Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egghead06 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 June 2012

• Now officially announced. GiantSnowman 11:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor at Giorgos Karagounis is using this source to claim that Karagounis appealed for a clear penalty during Greece's third game in the Euro 2012 Group stage against Russia: [19] I'd like a confirmation if WP:RSOPINION applies here or not, since the editor presents a Guardian journalist's opinion as a statement of fact. Thanks. – Kosm1fent 13:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it belong there anyway? Of couse its ponly the editors opinion. -Koppapa (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Does it matter if the penalty was clear or not? The point is that Karagounis is suspended from the quarterfinals of Euro 2012, and that is already shown in the article. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, we had this discussion on some of the templates of the "fb" system, with the result that most templates, especially the team templates should be deleted at some future point. As no updates had been posted to the previous thread (which eventually led to its archivization) – what is the current status of this project? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no respone at BOTREQUEST. Last entrance in archive is you saying you were coding something. -Koppapa (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Unfortunately, that coding got disrupted by too much real-life work and thus has been put on the shelves for now. However, I have not been unproductive, slowly but steadily having been reducing the nearly 1000 transclusions for {{Fb r2 header}} in order to make way for a replacement template similar in style to {{Fb cl2 team}}. Unfortunately, there are still some 300-odd transclusions left, so if anyone would like to lend a hand or two... here is the complete article list. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just want to pitch in here with another round of applause for everyone who's helped with this. Outstanding cleanup work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion on this point a little while back. I'm referring to players who are listed wifh a flag/nationality on a stats website that is generally regarded as reliable (e.g. Soccerbase, Soccerway), when they have not played representative football for a country. I believe the consensus here was that such flags should not be regarded as reliable, as the website has probably just taken the players birth place and used that to record his 'nationality'. Is that the consensus, and if so can we add it as guidance somewhere? Eldumpo (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of making clearer that we shouldn't rely on spurious sources for nationality. Just a side comment, the big problem with Soccerbase is that they are inaccurate even for some people who have played international football. Lee Hodson, Adrian Mariappa and Jonathan Bond for example. [20] —WFC— 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean for players about which their nationality is a matter of some debate? For example a player born in London who had no international call-ups would be referred to as English, barring a source saying he considers himself German or whatever.--EchetusXe 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My original post related to all instances, although the issue becomes more important when there is some debate. And yes the only other way of deternining 'nationality' would be for some kind of sourced statement by the player. Eldumpo (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is any doubt at all, leave the flag out. That's the rule pretty much everywhere except at WP:FOOTY, where we still have this awful "if in doubt, guess" mentality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick question regarding ethnic descent in the opening sentence of leads. I've had a disagreement with MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) at Mario Balotelli regarding this issue after I removed "of Ghanaian descent" from the lead's opening sentence. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem standard practice to include ethnic descent in the opening sentence and believed this edit be justified through WP:OPENPARA, which states "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". Perhaps I misinterpreted what this says. However, if anyone can affirm what the standard or correct practice on this is that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Mario's Ghanian nationality has anything to do with his notability, so I'd say you did the right thing removing this part from the lead per WP:OPENPARA. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that standard practice is to not include ethnicity/descent in the opening unless there is an excellent reason, and I don't believe there is one in this case. I routinely remove "of x descent" from players when I come across it. Camw (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly torn on this one. In Balotelli's case his adoption etc was quite well reported and is somewhat significant (and was often mentioned early on in his career). It'd be more of a problem for me if for instance Thierry Henry's article said "former French International of Guadeloupe and Martinique descent" as it's completely unremarkable in his case. I would otherwise agree with you Matty.Koncorde (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Koncorde - lots has been made about Balotelli's origin, questions asked if he would play for Ghana or Italy etc. etc. - it should be mentioned but not given undue weight. GiantSnowman 16:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What everyone said, between them. There's no problem with mentioning his being the son of Ghanaian immigrants (not being "of Ghanaian descent") in the lead, in fact it probably should be mentioned, given that the lead is supposed to summarise the article. But it absolutely doesn't go in the opening sentence, per WP:OPENPARA. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made what I believe to be a fair edit, keeping it in the lead but moving it out of the first sentence. Hopefully it's okay now. Cloudz679 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question, the last paragraph of intro states "becoming one of the first black players to play for the Italian national football team." Who is the first? Matteo Ferrari? Is Balotelli the second? If so, it might be better to mention it like that? "becoming just the second black player to play for Italy after Matteo Ferrari". TonyStarks (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It used to say he's the third, but that was removed with an amendment earlier today, although no explanation was given. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe somebody thinking Claudio Gentile is the first? But with no reliable source to back it up, any claim of that nature should not be made. GiantSnowman 19:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about Liverani. Balotelli would be the third after those two (Liverani and Ferrari). TonyStarks (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is being third notable? Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What do reliable sources think? – Kosm1fent 13:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don´t beleave that content should go in the lede, much less about being the 2nd or 3rd "black" player for Italy, that is an unecessary racial content put directly against OPENPARA. It can and should be mentioned in a separate section definitelly. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings pals. There is one question that's baffling me. The infobox table for football biographies says that play-off games shouldn't be counted as league games, as most statistical sources (including Soccerbase) don't count them. However, in the case of this chap here, Soccerbase counts his 4 play-off appearances & 1 goal with Atromitos as normal league games (compare with Guardian). Should his play-off appearances count as "Others" or not? Thanks. – Kosm1fent 18:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Others, definitely. Soccerbase really shouldn't be used for anyone outside England & Scotland, and even then not if better sources are available. I'm praying for the day Soccerway begins a historical endeavour. GiantSnowman 18:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. Thanks. By the way, Soccerway also counts them as normal league games (at least they always did). Cheers. – Kosm1fent 18:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

[Section courtesy blanked. See history for contents. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)]

Should the title of the article be as it is right now at Lewisham Borough F.C. (as supported by the Kent Invicta League, their old website) or should it be moved to Lewisham Borough (Community) F.C. (as seen here and on their Footbally Club History Database page). I'd leaning towards moving it to the latter but wondered what others thought. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. We don't title articles by obscure "correct" names if they have a well-known common one. I dare say very few people pronounce the parentheses even if the proposed title were more "accurate". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But we don't do WP:COMMONNAME for football clubs - we do the full name and then an abbreviation (AFC or FC) - we wouldn't do Brighton F.C.. I would be in favour of the full name with the appropriate F.C. or A.F.C. ending. Number 57 11:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While we have a convention for certain countries, it is not a hard override of COMMONNAME. We don't use parentheses in any other club names, and if the league they play in is happy enough to refer to them by the shorter title then I don't see what the problem is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case - we have Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. and not Bradford A.F.C. or Bradford (Park Avenue) A.F.C. GiantSnowman 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An excellent example indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That article used to have parentheses, but they were removed by what looks like a cut & paste move sometime between 2007 and 2009. Also, there are articles with parentheses in their names, including Newport (IOW) F.C.. Number 57 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a histmerge in July 2009. That means that for at least three years one of the highest-profile non-league club articles has remained at a title which compromises between COMMONNAME and our general British club naming conventions. Which would see to be evidence of a silent consensus for such exceptions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The club category and subcategories remain Category:Bradford A.F.C. GiantSnowman 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The above merger proposal was closed by a newbie, the MP was only open for less then 4 days although it was a Snow so closing early was probable justified. Not knowing much about MP's myself but clearly he doesn't have the authority to close, could some close it properly or reopen if necessary & warn the user appropriately. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no official merge process. You agree with the close, as does everyone else, so why on Earth would you want the user who closed it to be reverted and warned? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Go and edit some articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said I was unfamiliar with the MP process & wasn't aware there was no official merge process unlike AfD only wanted the user warned if appropriate other wise a would done it myself. So there's no need for you smart ass comment Go and edit some articles yet again acting inappropriately on this talk page everyone's sick of your attitude at this stage you just put people off this project. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the "Go and edit some articles" comment was uncalled for. GiantSnowman 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Before this escalates, who is correct? This player has played internationally for Guadeloupe, and my previous intro "read" FRENCH-BORN GUADELOUPEAN FOOTBALLER. User:Joao10Siamun reverted me removing precisely the nation the player represents, leaving "...is a French footballer...". Odd no? I have just read (where else, on WP!) Guadeloupe is a region of France, but still, the national team plays games on its own, so the player "should be", if only one nation is allowed in intro, GUADELOUPEAN, methinks...

Inputs please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Like you say, Guadeloupe isn't a nation but an overseas region of France, so you can't really have "Guadeloupean" nationality. But it isn't really necessary to force any nationality on him in the lead sentence, just mention that he is a footballer who plays for the Guadeloupe national football team. BigDom 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't mention French born as it's irrelevant for the lead. I have made an edit that I believe reflects the ideal structure. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what BigDom said is exactly the best way to solve this type of situations. FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If nationality is ambiguous, then simply remove it, and do what Koncorde has done - 'John Smith is a footballer who plays for Wikipedia F.C. and the Wikipedia national team' GiantSnowman 16:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello project.

Is there anyone who has a suggestion as how to design football squad tables in a nice and tidy way? I don't think tables made up of Template:Nat fs g start etc (like those in Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads) look good enough. I'd like to see a design that presents the relevant information (obviously), sortable, and not overly colorful (like those in Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's team squads).

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The first example is ideal, the second should never be used. Who has decided that a certain colour indicates a certain position? GiantSnowman 09:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just so I know what goes. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See post at [21], and if you have comments respond there. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I need help. An user is inserting by a copy/paste move an entire content of another club, Gragjanski Skopje, without any reason, just to somehow claim the history of that club and use it as "Origin" section of FK Vardar one. I fixed it, added a "See also" template, but the user keeps reverting. I contacted him on his talk page but seems that he doesn´t even speak English. I need help as I reverted twice already. FkpCascais (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he just called me a "retarded" in my talk page (diff)... FkpCascais (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, he removed himself the strong words and initiated dialog at his talk page. There is some hope :) FkpCascais (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

With me in a particularly jingositc mood today ("Rooooooneeeeey"), I've taken a mini-challenge for myself onboard to get the above article to FLC in due course. This is just a tiny plea to ask for help with providing more references other than the primary source that (until I added a couple today) solely references the whole article. Of course, in the interest in balance, c'mon Italy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The recent requested move F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan was closed as Move see here, but was never moved. As it seems the User who closed the RM was unable to do so could an admin go ahead & complete the move. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would actually recommend that an admin overturn the non-admin closure of the move request. The people who !voted before me were obviously not aware of the previous move discussions on that subject, and I believe I have raised an important issue that others may not have considered. – PeeJay 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the grounds for your recommendation, given the consensus to move the article. Having said that, it is unfortunate that the latest RM did not directly refer to the previous RM which has slipped to the archive section. Eldumpo (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"The people who !voted before me were obviously not aware of the previous move discussions on that subject". This is incorrect – several of those commenting participated in the previous RM, so of course they were aware of it, and some (e.g. GiantSnowman) changed their opinion from three months ago. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this looks a bit dodgy to me - the new RM was started 11 minutes after the old one had been removed from the talkpage by MiszaBot. Having that on there would have given editors a chance to read the previous arguments for and against. Starting a new one as soon as the old one has disappeared is a little too convenient for my liking. It's almost as if someone didn't want editors to see the previous discussion... Number 57 12:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AGF? Kauffner's a good guy, I don't think there was anything malicious about the timing. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agre with AGF, though you still have to question why the nom/nobody else notes the previous RM at any point. GiantSnowman 13:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57. He made a draft on his talk page on 9 June and requested move five days later just when the bot archived the talk page, so he must have seen the previous discussion but failed to include a link to it. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

with regard to Peej's passing comment on the article regarding the "Manchester United FC -> Manchester United". A number of editors opposed the inclusion of FC for common names but were overruled by consensus. How does Inter Milan differ from Manchester Utd / Manchester United / Manchester United Football Club etc Koncorde (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't, and the Original RM was closed as no consensus to move based on the standard article titling. I have no idea why some editors are opposed to consistency on this issue. Number 57 10:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not change Manchester United F.C. > Manchester United, and then Liverpool F.C. to Liverpool? Sorry, let's have it at Liverpool (association football club), much better, right? GiantSnowman 10:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I figured usual policy would stand where confusing similarities might occur. Suffice to say I don't actually care, just raising the spectre of an old debate because Common Name criteria is clearly discussion worthy. Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, if that's your opinion, why did you support the move to Inter Milan? Also, I will reiterate the point that the club is relatively uniformly known as "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" (the latter only being used outside Italy); given this uniformity, how can anyone say that "Inter Milan" is the most common name and hence that it should be the title for the club's article? – PeeJay 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the evidence presented for COMMONNAME seemed, at the time, overwhelming - it's only since that I've been able to properly digest the implications of such a move. GiantSnowman 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan is better than Internazionale Milano FC. However, Inter Milan F.C. would be the best. – Kosm1fent 13:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Inter Milan, surely? GiantSnowman 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that is a point I have to entirely disagree on. By comparison, "Inter Milan" sounds downright sane. No one calls the club "F.C. Inter Milan", but they do use the names "Internazionale", "Inter", "Inter Milan" and "F.C. Internazionale Milano". – PeeJay 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please restore the above article it was deleted following this discussion. But he has since made his international debut [http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/47973.html was the nominator when it got deleted made a request for it to be restored to a admin, be he didn't seem interested but was probable because he didn't provide a source. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done – if you could update & tidy up, it would be much appreciated! GiantSnowman 08:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What match did he play? this says e.g the 10:0, but FIFA didn't list him there. If you click on Indonesia at your NFT source it says "Stats means matches, exchanges and goals in the World Cup qualification." at the bottom. So it should be 2 WC qualifiers. Just checked them all, he is in no FIFA report. -Koppapa (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Soccerway doesn't list any international cap of his too. – Kosm1fent 10:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Novan Setia" played against Phillippines earlier this month [22]. Presumably it's the same player. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks user:DUCKISJAMMY and user:GiantSnowman. Yes he played against Mauritania and Philippines. I was update his article. Actually there is a confusion which is the correct name spelling, most source write his name as "Novan Setya Sasongko". *Annas* (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Team notability. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone answer this question? --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Most probably Elastic therapeutic tape. --Jaellee (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah runners use it a lot, increase blood circulation & reduces pain. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's Kinesio Tape. I seem to recall Beckham being one of the first to use it in football – makes a change from Patrick Vieira's Vicks VapoRub slime patch on his shirt. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And while we're discussing decoration of various parts of Italian footballers, are we to assume that Balotelli's lumbar region is sponsored by adidas, or is he evolving into a zebra? Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean that wasn't a tattoo or carefully sculpted body hair?--EchetusXe 09:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Balotelli sponsored by Nike? – PeeJay 12:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too far fetched that if he were a footballer this guy would have to have some black tape on his arm.--EchetusXe 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean, under his sleeves? – PeeJay 13:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is the youngest football player in the wikipedia? Is he Islam Feruz? *Annas* (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, these e.g. are younger. -Koppapa (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Tim Rawlings came up in that search as he was born in November 1932. – Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed his "1996 births" category to his real one after it came up. -Koppapa (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is 1996 text in the reference *Annas* (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually this query found a 1997 born player: Răzvan Popa. -Koppapa (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Moncozzz and other IP address that i think the same person, persistently adding some information that Kevin Vandenbergh play for Indonesian club. See also Erwin Vandenbergh. Is he correct or just other hoax? bad conduct editor? *Annas* (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're the Indonesian expert – do any reliable sources verify the claim? If not, remove it. GiantSnowman 15:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Soccerway, NFT and Gazet van Antwerpen he still plays at Mechelen. I don't know how it's possible for a man to sign for an Indonesian club and make 49 appearances in 9 days, it seems a tad impossible. I'd say it's a hoax. – Kosm1fent 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention the above deletion discussion as it hasn't had much input from the usual experienced editors. Basically the article is about the rivalry between Sydney FC & Western Sydney Wanderers, the thing is they never played each other. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

People may or may not be aware that Darlington F.C., having exited administration without a CVA, was consequently declared a new club by the FA and placed in the Northern League, four divisions below where they had been playing. The new community ownership, who see the club as a continuation of DFC, appealed that decision, but the FA insisted that it was a new club, couldn't enter FA competitions during the coming season, and couldn't play under the name Darlington F.C. The new club has taken over the playing contracts of those very few (just the 2, I think) players who were still contracted to DFC, has bought some of DFC's assets, and is responsible for repaying DFC's football creditors; DFC's general creditors will get whatever the adminstrator can raise by selling any remaining assets.

So basically, the FA views the new club as different from the old, it's a different legal entity, but the new ownership and the fans, who are currently voting on a new name for their club, see it as a hard-done-by continuation of the old. What's Wikipedia's view? is this the point at which Darlington F.C. the Wikipedia article stops and the future development of the club goes into a new article, as yet unnameable, or do we go along the continuation route? In practice, a new article will doubtless be started as soon as there's a new name to start one at – the existing article has already been changed to the past tense – but is that what we should be doing? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be basing our approach on whether the reliable sources regard the club as a continuation or not. My view is that it would not be worth trying to delete a successor club article in the short-term, but depending on how things progress, it may be that the two articles subsequently get merged. Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think precedent has been set with A.F.C. Wimbledon, Chester F.C., King's Lynn Town F.C., AFC Rushden and Diamonds, F.C. Halifax Town etc. All of those teams are considered by the fans as the true essence of the club continuing but the legal entity of the old team has been ended, the FA has placed the new team at a lower level and demanded a name change for clarification. Once a new name for the club has been announced, I'd suggest a new article at that page be created, and the old one switched to past tense (i.e. Chester City F.C., King's Lynn F.C.). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any examples of clubs for which we haven't started new articles? U+003F^? 10:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Think of Wimbledon – MK Dons may be the legal, FA-recognised continuation, but the fans (of many, many clubs) view AFC Wimbledon as the spiritual successors. We have articles on all three incarnations. The article on Darlington F.C. should reflect the fact that that particular club is now defunct, and a completely new club has been brought into existence. A new article should be created when a name is agreed upon. GiantSnowman 10:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to U+003F: don't know off-hand if there are any recent clubs for which we haven't started new articles. But after Bradford Park Avenue was liquidated, a club of that name had 15(?) years as a Sunday League club before returning to the non-league pyramid, and History of Port Vale F.C.#1907–1919: Years in the wilderness implies that the current Port Vale isn't the same club as the original. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But no, I'm not encouraging someone to go off and split those articles... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, there's also Newport County A.F.C. (reformed 1989) and Gateshead F.C. (reformed 1977) to add to those clubs without separate articles. But on Darlington, I'd agree with the rest in saying a new article should be created when the new club's name is agreed. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'Phoenix' clubs which (I believe) were permitted by the FA to replace the old club in everything but name, and then there are clubs like Darlington and (probably) Rangers where the FA has said a whole new club has to be formed. Also not wanting to open Pandora's box here but we should also think about non-English clubs, especially Italy, where clubs bankruopt & reform all the time. Interesting fact – Fiorentina were once forced to sell their club name, crest & colours to pay off debts, and the new owners had to wait for a year for them to come up at auction to buy them back. GiantSnowman 21:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, the only significant difference I can see between those folded and reformed English clubs with single Wikipedia articles and those with two is how long ago the club went out of business. There's nothing wrong with that. It reflects the view of reliable sources with the benefit of hindsight: Eldumpo makes a sound point above. Another interesting fact, is that one of the assets that the new owners of the club formerly known as Darlington F.C. bought from the administrators was the club name. As far as they're aware, the only place they can't use the name Darlington F.C. to refer to their club is for the purposes of registering a team with the Football Association. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example of a club with one article is Nelson F.C., and they disbanded twice! But as it's been pointed out above, the only thing that decides whether a reformed club has one article or two is how long ago it happened, and Nelson disbanded in 1898 (for one year) and 1936 (for 10 seasons). BigDom 08:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that most of the clubs whose resurrections share the old articles are from many years ago, because every time it happens there's new legislation passed to stop clubs from shedding their debts like that. This is why the likes of Portsmouth and Leeds fought tooth and nail not to go into liquidation (and why Dundee and Livingston received what had previously been considered draconian punishments for going into admin), and why the Rangers situation has turned out out to be rather more severe than many naive onlookers suggested it would. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The obvious reason that these historic entities have a single article is that Wikipedia didn't exist at the relevant time of their closure/liquidation etc. History rather than news was being documented when the article was drafted. Leaky Caldron 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Footballgy created a page for the new club, at Darlington 1883 F.C., which I've since moved to just Darlington 1883 because the name explicitly doesn't have an "FC" suffix. It's mostly full of empty sections, so if anyone wants to add any content, or comment out any irrelevant sections, please carry on... Though I do have a question, prompted by seeing the empty Honours section: does anyone know if DFC's history was among the assets bought by the new ownership? Because if 1883 do own DFC's history, it looks rather less like a new club, and rather more like a continuation of the same club in all but playing name? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "buying a club's history". History is an abstract concept. In general, in the modern age it tends to be considered rather presumptuous for phoenix clubs to claim that they actually won the old team's trophies, though they may occasionally be custodians of them. The Non-League show had an FA official on the other week who was very explicitly clear that there is no such thing as a "share" which can be kept alive somehow between clubs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So's goodwill, but companies big and small buy that on a regular basis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Goodwill is an inflation in an entity's value, but it isn't a tangible "thing" such that one could opt not to buy it. Anyway, the FA source in question was talking very specifically about Darlo, so if we need a reference for this specific case I'm happy to get one off of the NLS podcast. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Should these be deleted or moved to their own page? They do seem to be a useless collection of data and breach WP:NOTSTATS. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A minor case of overlinking there! But the information is useful, or at least (for me) interesting. Jared Preston (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If more information then league position is included (matches, points, cup progress etc), then moving it to List of Amersham Town F.C. seasons seems like a good idea, and keep the most recent seasons in the main article. If not I would say you could remove it. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And how about this list of previous squads I found on Brodsworth Welfare's article? Bit much? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that is OTT. Historical squads would go into club season articles, so if the club didn't play a notable season, then the squad isn't going to be notable either. Jared Preston (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "previous squads" section of the Brodsworth article should definitely go – we don't need 13 years' worth of non-notable names listed. The "notable matches" section should go too, and probably "previous assistant managers" as well – ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great headline, huh? Anyway, I was planning on expanding the Stelios Venetidis article (procrastinating from exams, obviously), and naturally the first thing you do is search for sources about his early years. According to national-football-teams the player made 25 appearances for a local Orestiada club named Orfeas Orestiadas between 1994 and 1996. However, I struggled to find another reliable source citing Venetidis' appearances at Orfeas, except for this Greek statistical source of questionable reliability. Fair enough, I'd say, if it weren't for two sources I stumbled by: one Eleftherotypia article which states that Venetidis started his professional career at Skoda Xanthi, and Xanthi's website which states that Veneditis started his career at their academies. So, should we blindly trust NFT and list his alleged Orfeas appearances as professional caps, as youth caps, or not list them at all? Regards. – Kosm1fent 06:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not blindly trust NFT as a source. I don't think it's very reliable for a lot of its club appearance statistics. There appear to be a lot of gaps in the data, but these are not flagged as only being partial data etc.Eldumpo (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

NFT is by-and-large good but they make mistakes – no doubt trusting that first source you found. E-mail them the correct info and they will change it – a good sign. GiantSnowman 07:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources aren't incompatible. Quite possibly he began in Xanthi's academy and was sent on loan to Orestis for experience. E.g., when I was expanding Pablo Ibáñez I found multiple news-report sources for a loan spell at a lower-league team as a youngster, a loan spell that doesn't appear in any online statistical source, presumably because it was at too low a level for them to bother with. Are there any Greek newspapers with online archives that might mention a young player going out on loan? though you've probably looked already. Or contemporary reports of his turning pro with Xanthi that might mention what he'd done so far? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A-Z del Futbol Europeo 2000/2001 (II), Jorge Jimenez Macias page 320: Thiella Kiprinos, 1994–95 Orestis 19–3, 1995–96 Oresis 6–0 1995–96 Xanthi 16–1 (not 26–1) Cattivi (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And RSSSF has him joining Xanthi in December 95 "new from Orestis Orestiadas". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, the RSSSF source is good enough for me. Struway2, I'm furstrated because Athlitiki Echo's sure-win archives are down, or else I would have figured his early career out in no time... Cheers! – Kosm1fent 09:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I added the information about his time at Orfeas, but I saw this discussion too late to explain that I saw the information on RSSSF and Insports.gr. Thanks to everyone who clarified this. Jogurney (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What should we do with edits like this? The IP has changed the attendance for a lot of matches in the UEFA Euro 1980 qualifying, and not left any source. My first thought was to revert those, but on the other hand – if I AGF these numbers might be correct and the previous attendance-numbers was not sourced either (unless they are sourced in this book: Robinson, J. (1996). The European Football Championships 1958–1996. Soccer Book Publishing. ISBN 0-947808-69-8.) and I have no way to check what is correct, so if I revert it I might change it from correct to incorrect. What to do? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message on the IP's talk page. – Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything that's unsourced should be challenged and removed. GiantSnowman 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that 23 men's national teams have been dropped down a class (B to C) in the last few weeks after being reviewed. It's gone from this to this. In contrast, three teams have gone up to C class from start or stub in the last 8 months. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this might be a rather dull question, but does anybody know how to move File:WAC St. Andrä Logo.jpg to File:Wolfsberger AC Logo.jpg, or if there is no direct move mechanism for non-admins, where to put the respective request? The reason behind the question is that the crest depicted in the file is the one of Austrian club Wolfsberger AC, one part of the (now discontinued) cooperation named "WAC/St. Andrä" which recently gained promotion to the Austrian Bundesliga, and not of the cooperation itself. I am not even sure if said coop had a logo at all; anyway, the file is currently incorrectly named. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See {{Rename media}}. Jared Preston (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion on User talk:Fastily/Archive 5#Roland Szabó (Slovak footballer) that can do with your input regarding recreation/undeletion of an article that was deleted for not having appeared in a pro game. Agathoclea (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is that the the templates for national team results differs from the templates we use for club football? For example: Take Template:Spain national football team results vs Template:FC Barcelona matches, the layout is considerably different, is there any reason for this? I personally find the term "famous matches" used in the Spanish template to be rather subjective, also, mixing World Cup finals with UEFA Euro finals and other notable matches such as the Malta game in the Spanish table is confusing for the reader, at least for me. I think the following layout would be considerably less confusing as well as less crowded:

We would of course have to apply this layout to all national team templates. Does anyone have any opinions or suggestions? --Reckless182 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Have just been asked by a countryman of mine to assist in language and other edits in this referee's page. However i declined, because i already spent too much time in here, only edit in individual players and (some) small teams.

Anyone fancy a go? Thanks and happy weekend all! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wondering if anyone can help in tracking down the possible international stats for Eugen Bopp? According to this he made one app for Germany at U19 level during 2001–02, and according to this he was in the squad for a game against Switzerland in September 2001. I believe this was the game, but it doesn't list the Germany players. Any help in tracking down more info would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

See German FA site U19 page 2001/02 with links to other seasons. Click on info for team sheets. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, senior cap: http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500003&no_cache=1 but played 25 minutes against Sweden at U19: http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=504292&spielid=1&action=schema&teama=Schweden&teamb=Deutschland and 45 against TUrkey http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=504292&spielid=2&action=schema&teama=T%26%23252%3Brkei&teamb=Deutschland , haven't checked more. -Koppapa (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks guys. Those two apps corroborate perfectly with 11v11, which lists him as having made one start and one sub app. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I alert someone here to List of football clubs in Scotland where there is a Glasgow Rangers club and a Rangers club both linking through to Rangers F.C. in the 'Defunct clubs' : 'Former Scottish Football League members' section? It doesn't sound right to me but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Scottish Football and the situation concerning Rangers to go ahead and change it. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I think we should delete and wait to see what the Scottish Football Association say about this. Kingjeff (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's technically accurate because as things stand, Rangers (newco) are not members of either the SPL or the SFL. James Morrison (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What if the SFA decide that the history continues? Kingjeff (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The SFA will only confer (or transfer) membership after the newco gains membership of a league. James Morrison (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, Rangers – at this moment in time – are neither active nor defunct, they are in limbo. The article should reflect that. GiantSnowman 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As it does, at least most of the time. I've got a feeling that this is going to be a long-running dispute even after the close season's deliberations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we should mark the Euro 2012 with a little competition. Obviously we can't play for money so the winner/s gets a barnstar/s. I know I should have suggested it before the start of the competition but wasn't on-line much. Basically Users place their name beside the numbers below. I will assign teams to users once all numbers are selected which correspond to a list I already randomly generated. If more then 16 people are interested them I'll start a second list with the same structure. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that once you've revealed the details, we all take some responsibility for updating the national team pages...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion but up to the individual users I can't say yes or no given fact I'm not entering. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, what is this all about? FkpCascais (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a little random competition a way of us acknowledging the Euro's in a fun way. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1) – Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Denmark
• 2) – Adam4267 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Czech Republic
• 3) – The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Portugal
• 4) – Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — France
• 5) – Dweller (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Sweden
• 6) – GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Russia
• 7) – Kosm1fent 18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — England
• 8) – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Republic of Ireland
• 9) – NapHit (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Netherlands
• 10) – Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Spain
• 11) – PeeJay 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Italy
• 12) – EchetusXe 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Croatia
• 13) – Jared Preston (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Ukraine
• 14) – Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Greece
• 15) – FkpCascais (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Poland
• 16) – Jaellee (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Germany

	Quarter-finals				Semi-finals				Final
	21 June – Warsaw
	Adam4267	0
					27 June – Donetsk
	The Rambling Man	1
					The Rambling Man	0 (2)
	23 June – Donetsk
					Mattythewhite (p)	0 (4)
	Mattythewhite	2
									1 July – Kiev
	Del♉sion23	0
									Mattythewhite	4
	22 June – Gdańsk
									PeeJay2K3	0
	Jaellee	4
					28 June – Warsaw
	Arsenalkid700	2
					Jaellee	1
	24 June – Kiev
					PeeJay2K3	2
	Kosm1fent	0 (2)
	PeeJay2K3 (p)	0 (4)

Teams now assigned & good luck. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How will the winner be decided? I pity Arsenalkid700 by the way, LOL. – Kosm1fent 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why pity. Greece shall be champions! They need to win as the money they get shall help there cashless country. ;) --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RE:Kosm1fent which ever User has the team which corresponds with the winner in the real competition wins. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My money's on Jaellee to win! – PeeJay 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia in this and the Netherlands at work – I have no chance ;) GiantSnowman 18:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait to see GS ;) FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

France ain't bad, I can't complain :D I'm also supporting Poland at work, great game today. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And................. I am out. Well not really but you get what I mean. Do I have to update the Greek football wiki page now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Croatia won't win but on the other hand the article already has GA status :)--EchetusXe 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What shall happend for the national teams which will be going to be eliminated first? Any kind of punishments? :P FkpCascais (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh, should I hope that England don't fail? xD – Kosm1fent 06:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Look what passed trough my football obcessed mind:

FC Wikipedia

• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ----------------------------------------Jack Bornholm----------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ---------------------------The Rambling Man-----Del_♉sion23-------------------------------
• ------Adam4267--------------------------------------------------------------------Dweller--------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• -------------------------------------------GiantSnowman--------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------Kosm1fent-------------------------------------------------Soccer-holic------------
• ---------------------------------------------------NapHit-----------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• -----------------------Mattythewhite-------------------------PeeJay----------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserves:

• EchetusXe – Goalie
• Jared Preston – Defender
• Arsenalkid700 – Midfielder
• FkpCascais – Winger
• Jaellee – Striker

I specially like the fact that we have great names. For instance, Jack Bornholm our Danish goalkeepr, the successor of the great Peter Schmeichel! Rambling Man and Delusion23 as our rocky center backs, Adam4267 and Dweller (LOL) as spidy full-backs, GiantSnowman as defensive midfielder (hahaha, no one gets trough Giant Snowman!!!), Kosm1fent and Soccer-holic the danger on the wings, NapHit our creative playmaker, and Mattythewhite and PeeJay our Yorkish/Welsh striking force... and the best possible bench! Come on!!! We´re the best! FkpCascais (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: I hope you all see it the way I do because the way I see it in my laptop it looks just great! FkpCascais (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A Greek winger? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider? :P – Kosm1fent 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on Stelios, don´t be shy. :D FkpCascais (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

True that, the last good Greek winger! – Kosm1fent 07:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The bench is the right place for me. I can watch the matches from one of the best places. :-) --Jaellee (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of playing up front, although if Kosm1fent wants to swap, I'd be happy to go right wing :P – PeeJay 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Our manager is DuckisJammy (Duck Advokaat hahaha), he set the numbers, must ask him. FkpCascais (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hand in my transfer request. I have been with the club for many years and am on the form of my life. Instead of starting and playing I am on the bench. I dont know why but I think our manager, DuckIsJammy, does not like me enough because if he did he would start me. Also I have repeatedly asked for increased wages as my current wage of 20 pesos per week is not enough to feed my starving task force. I already have offers from Arsenal wikia and Major League Soccer wikia and I would like you to consider them. Anything else should be looked after by my agent Manuel Almunia. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, the worste is that I already seen such requests in real life in the most unexpeted places comming from unhappy players (even on Wiki we had some cses of these if I remember)... About the playing positions, I hope no one gets md at me cause it wasn´t me who choosed them, I just used the numbers ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ attributed to us all, so blame him if any of you wanna change positions :) FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't want me in goal, believe me. I'm more of a "see how fast they can limp" style defender.--EchetusXe 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Must talk to Duck Advocaat, or otherwise you can join Arsenalkid in his protest. Althought, you should be carefull, as seems too much coincidence that after issuing a loud protest Arsenalkid got blocked! :) FkpCascais (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WHAT DID I TELL YOU! WHAT DID I TELL YOU! GREECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM STILL IN IT! --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianFootballPlayersWiki (talk • contribs)

Well no one expected that talk about a shock, Aresnalkid is still in it somehow. Poor Snowy must have thought it was a sure thing to get to the KO phase. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

YAY GREECE! xD So happy! (I'm English-Greek as it seems :P) – Kosm1fent 07:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha I just went on Arsenalkid's talk page because I want to start a collab with him for Indian Soccer and he is blocked. Seems he is the same person that he is on the Indian football forum. By the way the reason I am replying here is because I want to know what this competition you do is about. Seems nice. Oh and I want to know what are the notability rules on football players because that is what I wanted to ask Arsenalkid but I suspect he wont be on for awhile. I wanted to make a page on Jeremy Vuolo who plays for NY Red Bulls. He has 0 games for the team but he has played in the Finland top division. --RedBullNewYork2012 The Greatest Club On Earth (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't believe me and Arsenalkid both got through. Although Arsenalkid has been indef blocked. A metaphor for Greece?? Still I hope someone on here tries to get him unblocked because he's a good contributor. Adam4267 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of good contributions or not, if he gets repeatedly blocked for edit-warring and then repeatedly uses other accounts to evade his block, then an unblock is somewhat unlikely (though the block length is still a month, I didn't increase it in the end). Perhaps someone who has worked with him would like to try to get that through to him on his talkpage? Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wooo! I'm going to the semi-finals! – PeeJay 00:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. ;) – Kosm1fent 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So far so good. My plan is working perfectly... (incidentally, as for FC Wikipedia, I'm more of a left mid/winger than a stocky centre-half... ) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd gladly exchange positions with you. xD – Kosm1fent 14:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Me v. PJ in the final? It's going to be this all over again! :-) Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly didn't expect to get this far! Pirlo for player of the tournament! – PeeJay 22:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sticking by Pirlo as my pick, although Iniesta ran the show in the final. Congrats, Matty, on your random pick :P – PeeJay 23:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was one lop-sided affair in the final. Congratulations to Mattythewhite. By the way, a pretty nice move from UEFA to award my fans for their behaviour. Guess they sing better than I play... ^^; --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Mattythewhite, well deserved. :) – Kosm1fent 05:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Felicidades "Mateo El Blanco"! FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be useful to create an article along these lines. For all level 11 clubs it would list club name (most entries would not be linked), league played in, ground, and then a column for their website. Any clubs at this level without an article would redirect to this list. The article and list would clearly state that clubs in the list without articles should only have them created if they can meet GNG. The article would complement List of football clubs in England which covers to Level 10. The main reason for suggesting this article is this AfD, where a new editor put in a lot of hard work, and it would have been better if the notability criteria had been made more obvious. Please note that I'm not convinced that all clubs at Level 10 are considered notable so perhaps the new article should start at this level instead? Eldumpo (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In principle I like the concept of a List of English football clubs at Level 11 – the downside is that there so many Level 11 clubs in the 40 leagues it would represent a lot of work to keep the list up to date on an annual basis. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC))

Why is level 11 special? People have created level 12 clubs, over time people would ask to expand that article to 12, 13 maybe more. -Koppapa (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A list of non-notable clubs would fail WP:NOTDIR. Wikia would be a better place for such listings. Individual clubs need to meet WP:GNG to merit an article rather than having a stub article because they play at some particular level.--Charles (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You could always redirect non-notable clubs to the league they play in? GiantSnowman 11:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It would most likely be reverted by a local consensus of enthusiasts.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Warn them and if they continue, request page protection. – Kosm1fent 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that there are more football clubs at level 11 than there are in the top 9 levels of English football combined, so this list would almost be as long as List of English football clubs. A small percentage of the level 11 teams is notable, and some leagues have more notable teams than others. I think the idea of listing the consensus for different countries is a better idea than redirecting every club. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

...fancy translating es:Clásico del fútbol uruguayo into Uruguayan Clásico? It's a contested PROD and, given the language barrier, I can't tell whether it's notable or not. Gracias in advance! GiantSnowman 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Its definitely notable. One of the biggest rivalries in South America and the oldest outside the UK. I'll have a go at translating it. Although my Spanish isn't excellent. Adam4267 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that this article needs a review. It looks to me a bit POV. – SERGIO aka the Black Cat 10:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some uncited sections, added a citation, and tagged the article. Eldumpo (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Text was basically copied 1:1 from website. That's why it looked POV. -Koppapa (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it a notable club under the football club notability criteria? Hack (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Having played state league in 2002, i'd say yes. -Koppapa (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Given it fails WP:FOOTYN it would have to meet WP:GNG. I think that would be a bit of stretch. Hack (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

State leagues in Australia sure get same coverage as English 10th level Wessex League Division One teams. -Koppapa (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean, not enough to pass the GNG? BigDom 06:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It may well meet WP:GNG but there really isn't that much coverage available online. Hack (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say PROD. – Kosm1fent 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

With the topic of Rangers in the news and people looking for precedents etc, is there any appetite here for me to start a list like this? I only propose it to be a basic list of clubs that have been liquidated, sub-sectioned by country and only including the date and home town where not obvious – including further details like successor clubs and honours etc is probably only going to lead to conflicts, so can be left to individual articles. Cracker92 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a start: Category:Defunct association football clubs. It would be a pretty long list. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

'Defunct' and 'liquidated' are not the same thing. GiantSnowman 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but what does "liquidation" mean in football terms? – Kosm1fent 09:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Strictly, it doesn't mean anything in football as it's a business term, meaning for the entities that run football clubs on the business side, the same as usual. Britmax (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin please reopen the move request at this article and revert the move back to F.C. Internazionale Milano? As shown by the level of opposition exhibited following the non-admin closure, the name change is more controversial than a week of discussion was able to demonstrate. A week is far too little time for a move request like this, and I think it should continue for at least another two weeks so that a more accurate consensus can be determined. – PeeJay 17:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure or not, a 10–2 support for move wasn't "accurate"? ;) – Kosm1fent 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussions usually run for one week, and there is no need for this discussion to run for longer than usual. There is nothing to suggest that this move is particularly controversial when compared to other requested moves, and a clear consensus was emerging on the talk page. The nomination was comprehensive and astute, and demonstrated why the move was in line with policy. Your objection did nothing to refute that suggestion. There is no need for the discussion to be extended, there was clear consensus to move. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the thread below the move request? Some legitimate objections were raised and obviously haven't been taken into account in the original discussion. The nominator may have been thorough with their analysis of the frequency of two common names for the club, but they certainly didn't analyse any other common names, which is inappropriate for a club with as many monikers as Internazionale. – PeeJay 17:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say: Don't spend too much energy on something like that. There are redirects anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Today this article has been expanded somewhat, but it doesn't look to me like the new additions concern the "official" team. It looks more like someone's added info about a local club team. He's done quite a bit of work (no sources, mind) so I didn't want to revert arbitrarily. I thought people here might have a better view of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any info on Sark's national team playing at any time other than the Island Games in 2003. I like the fact that they've managed to get a game against the mighty "Old Gits F.C."! From a quick read of the article it sounds like an amateur football club is called Sark F.C. and plays on the island, but I also can't find any info saying that it is the official national team. Maybe contact the user? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I saw it too. Yeah, I liked "Old Gits F.C." – reminds me of the teams I used to play against at university. I still remember losing 33–1 to Dead Crap F.C. – not our finest hour. I see this Sark F.C. as a local team playing friendlies rather than any official island team. Does Sark even have a league? I'll contact the user soon if nobody else has a better plan :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, at least you stopped the goalie getting a clean sheet! And you obviously only lost for the irony. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right ;) hahah! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the notion that teams are notable on the basis of playing in the Island Games laughable. What authoritative body confers any designation of Official on such a team? Kevin McE (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There are more teams than just Sark. See Football at the Island Games. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say move all Island teams from NAME official football team and NAME national football team to NAME football team. -Koppapa (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Sark I think that would be an uncontroversial move. I'm going to be bold and do such a thing. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know where I can find shootout results of games that were tied at the end of full time in the MLS between 1996 and 1999? The MLS website doesn't post which matches ended as draws and any shootout win is just posted as a win with a +1 lead. --MicroX (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sure there must have been a previous discussion on this one but would it be possible to write a short Notability Essay establishing on a country by country basis advice at what level leagues are generally considered notable, for example:

Country Notable Levels Justification England 1–10 FA Cup entrants Portugal 1–4 Taça de Portugal entrants / Portuguese Football Federation administers 3–4 of national system. Sweden 1–5 Swedish Football Association administers 1–5 of national system. The listing may not be comprehensive but it would be most helpful (particularly for newcomers) to list those where there is general consensus. We seem to already use these criteria in quite a few cases but they remain somewhat "hidden beneath the surface". My apologies if I am just going over old ground. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) Are you talking about league notability or notability of clubs who play in such leagues? In either case, an essay will be greatly appreciated by newcomers. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 09:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for seeking clarification Kosm1fent. The underlying issue is to address the notability of clubs who play in such leagues. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) A similar list was started here last year. It would be great if we had a list similar to WP:FPL, but I think the main problem is providing evidence of why level X is notable and why level Y is not. Otherwise it just seems like an arbitrary list. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Like you say that list is just arbitrary, it has nothing to do with whether clubs at those levels actually meet the GNG or not. The whole point of things like NFOOTY is that they give a cut-off point where things above it are likely to be notable in a general sense. BigDom 12:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Basically, we need to entirely overhaul WP:FOOTYN and bring that up to scratch. GiantSnowman 11:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC) We need to stop talking about this and actually do it. We should start a draft on a subpage and just get on with it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Changes. GiantSnowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure Australia really has the same organization because they have USA style non-relegation system. I'd say chances are Australian A-League players meet WP:GNG but W-League players do not automatically meet notability. I think the top level teams in state competitions (and state teams for national competitions) would themselves be notable but once you get down to the local leagues, I don't think they necessarily should automatically be assumed to be notable. --LauraHale (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Football club notability by country A breakdown of notability criteria could perhaps be best served with this form of format: Country Levels Divisions No. National Cup Argentina 1–5 Primera División – Primera B Nacional – Primera B Metropolitana / Torneo Argentino A – Primera C / Torneo Argentino B – Primera D / Torneo Argentino C 12 + small groups N/A Austria 1–4 Bundesliga – Erste Liga – Regionalliga Ost / Mitte / West – Landesliga 14 Austrian Cup Belgium 1–4 Pro League – Division 2 – Division 3 – Promotion 8 Belgian Cup Brazil 1–5 Série A – Série B – Série C – Série D – State Championships Top Divisions Leagues / groups N/A Bulgaria 1–3 A PFG – B PFG – V AFG 6 Bulgarian Cup Canada 1–4 MLS – NASL – CSL – PCSL / PDL Confs. N/A Croatia 1–3 Prva HNL – Druga HNL – Treća HNL 7 Croatian Cup Cyprus 1–4 Division 1 – Division 3 – Division 3 – Division 4 4 Cypriot Cup Czech Republic 1–4 Gambrinus liga – Czech 2. Liga – CFL / MSFL - Divize 9 Czech Republic Football Cup Denmark 1–4 Superligaen – Division 1 – Division 2 – Denmark Series 7 Danish Cup England 1–10 Premier League – Championship – League One – League Two – National League System Steps 1 to 6 (but excluding Step 7) 47 FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Vase or FA Amateur Cup Estonia 1–3 Meistriliiga – Esiliiga – II liiga Ida 4 Estonian Cup Faroe Islands 1–2 Vodafonedeildin – 1. deild 2 Faroe Islands Cup Finland 1–4 Veikkausliiga – Ykkönen – Kakkonen – Kolmonen 15 Suomen Cup France 1–5 Ligue 1 – Ligue 2 – Championnat National – CFA 1 – CFA 2 15 Coupe de France Germany 1–5 Bundesliga – 2. Bundesliga – 3. Liga – Regionalliga – Fußball-Oberliga 22 DFB-Pokal Greece 1–4 Superleague – Football League – Football League 2 – Delta Ethniki 14 Greek Cup Hungary 1–3 NB I – NB II – NB III 9 Magyar Kupa Iceland 1–4 Úrvalsdeild – 1. deild karla – 2. deild karla - 3. deild karla 7 VISA-bikar Italy 1–5 Lega Serie A – Lega Serie B – Lega Pro Prima Divisione – Lega Pro Seconda Divisione – Serie D 15 Coppa Italia Norway 1–4 Tippeligaen – Adeccoligaen – Division 2 - Division 3 18 Norwegian Cup Portugal 1–4 Primeira Liga – Liga de Honra – Segunda Divisão – Terceira Divisão 13 Taça de Portugal Republic of Ireland 1–2 Premier Division – First Division 2 FAI Cup Spain 1–4 La Liga – Segunda División – Segunda División B – Tercera División 24 Copa del Rey Sweden 1–5 Allsvenskan – Superettan – Division 1 – Division 2 – Division 3 22 Svenska Cupen Ukraine 1–3 Ukrainian Premier League – Ukrainian Persha Liha – Ukrainian Druha Liha 4 Ukrainian Kubok United States 1–4 MLS – NASL – USL Pro – PDL / NPSL / PCSL Confs. N/A League Octopus (League Octopus 14:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) Why should Sweden's fifth level be included? Svenska Cupen goes up to level 7, so it shouldn't really be used on its own. Also, we can't have articles for all 7,422 clubs which play in the French Cup. Regards. – Kosm1fent 15:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Out of curiosity, I worked out the number of clubs that would give us from each country. In general, the highest N clubs in a country will be the ones with the most coverage, i.e. the ones most likely to pass the GNG. The total number of teams from each country using the divisions shown in the table above is: England – 562, France – 260 (inc. reserve teams), Germany – 394 (inc. reserve teams), Italy – 281, Portugal – 180 (inc. reserve teams), Spain – 483 (inc. reserve teams), Sweden – 276. As you can see there are potentially massive differences between the number of clubs from each country. Does local-level football receive so much more coverage in the UK that a small country like England can have more than twice as many club articles as France? Definitely not. Basing notability on how many teams the national FA decides to place at each level is nonsensical. Bigger countries like France, Germany and Spain split their leagues into regional divisions quite high up the ladder just to make things easier for the clubs and it should have no bearing on notability. Then again, anything is better than the current method of using cup eligibility. BigDom 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I suppose we all have slightly different interpretations – mine is that we should be using both the Divisional and National Cup parameters. In my view it would be most unfair to take away the National Cup parameter when editors in good faith have prepared hundreds of articles in accordance with the current WP:FOOTYN. What the above table achieves is that it fills in the gaps where for some reason the teams that are allowed to play in the National Cup have been restricted. The dual-parameter table would allow a more consistent approach than we have at present, and I suggest would achieve greater consistency in numbers between the bigger countries. In the case of Sweden there has been restructuring in 1987, 2000 and 2006 that resulted in movement from 3 tiers to 5 tiers, but this has had little impact on the number of clubs. With reference to Clas Glenning the 12 team / 12 section Division 3 structure for the third tier in 1986 is the same as the fifth tier structure for 2011. The other factor of course is that the divisions are smaller for Nordic football reflecting the shorter Summer oriented football season. At the moment 314 articles have been prepared for French football clubs which suggests that there is not a problem regarding a proliferation of articles using the Coupe de France to justify their inclusion. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) I realise that many editors have created good faith articles, but if they meet the GNG then there's no problem and if they don't then they shouldn't have been written in the first place. For me, using a combination of league levels and cup participation is fine, as long as it leads to a situation where only those clubs likely to pass the GNG are above the cut-off point. For example, w.r.t. English clubs I would propose that only those that have played in a national division or reached the First Round Proper would be automatically eligible. But I know that would never be accepted because there will always be supporters of clubs who don't meet those criteria who would bitch and moan forever more, even though all they'd have to do is find a few sources to show notability. By the way, I think that relatively low number of French club articles is mostly due to a lack of editors. I'm pretty much the only active one left in French football now, which is a real shame as there used to be some really helpful editors like Latouffedisco and Joao10Siamun, and I frankly can't be bothered to write much any more after six and a half years. BigDom 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Excuse me, but I think using the national cup as a criterion is a terrible idea, as cup competitions are different from country to country. Consistency is needed – we can't have 7,000+ potential articles about French clubs and only 64 about German clubs. We need to either limit cup competitions with a large number of participating teams or not use them at all. League Octopus, your excuse to keep the cup criterion because lots of articles have been prepared with the current criteria is unacceptable, those articles should and must be deleted if they fail GNG. Also, you didn't explain how Sweden's fifth level should be considered notable coverage-wise. Regards. – Kosm1fent 08:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC) At this stage Kosm1fent I do not think that it is feasible to consider removing the National Cup criterion but I do not personally feel that it represents a problem. We are not flooded by French articles – why worry about it? My main concern is that there are countries like Germany, Italy and Spain that are disadvantaged because they have restricted National Cup entry requirements. We have the potential to compensate for this in terms of recognising a further level in their Divisional criterion. But I leave that one open to debate. You will note that I have made some additions to the above table to stimulate further debate. Returning to your other point, Sweden's Third Division (fifth level) is administered by the Swedish Football Association and is part of their national structure – I really do not think there is an issue on notability on that one. As I pointed out 25 years ago the fifth level was the third level so many of the current clubs have played third tier football – so we have the historical perspective as well. Returning to the points made by BigDom we all aspire to seeing better quality articles but my own view is that at the moment we can only realistically aspire to reasonable quality stubs that hopefully with time can be developed into good quality articles. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)) I agree with what you're thinking about countries with relatively few clubs eligible for cup competition(s), but I was thinking more of the lines to restrict the ones with widely open admission. Have in mind that we cannot have articles which are nearly impossible to pass GNG. Also about Sweden, I'm concerned that modern clubs playing for the first time in Division 3 (which in other words have not played in the third level of Swedish football) will get "free pass". Same about Austria; is Landesliga getting enough (non-routine) coverage to be considered notable? Come on. – Kosm1fent 14:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) With all due respect League Octopus, I believe you are misunderstanding the purpose of this list. We are trying to document leagues whose clubs we assume they have received enough coverage so that we don't need to look ourselves. Don't you think that for this to succeed, the standards need to be higher? For example, why should Storfors AIK, Notvikens IK or Övertorneå SK (random picks from here) be notable, considering there are no sources to justify GNG whatsoever? – Kosm1fent 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) For me the purpose of the above list is to provide a ready guide to newcomers so that they can easily discern whether a club is competing (or has competed) in a competition which is assumed to meet WP:N criteria, in other words we are contributing to an update of WP:FOOTYN. It is terribly confusing for newcomers at the moment to establish when they should prepare a club article and when they should not. For example it was sad to see a new editor recently spending a lot of time preparing random articles for non-notable clubs in the English Central Midlands League. I am certainly not promoting a best practice guide in this instance but I can also see the merits of such an approach in another context. With regard to the Swedish Division Three clubs that you picked out I have identified that between them they have made more than 100 appearances in the Svenska Cupen including 4 matches against Allsvenskan opposition. They are all notable. We are together in our desire for wishing to achieve higher standards but our way of achieving that improvement differs with my desire being to get rid of red links and provide a good foundation of stubs that we can build upon. At the same time I am trying to provide better quality articles, e.g CD Operário, a Portuguese club based in the Azores. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)) Playing against clubs in a higher division doesn't make a club notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED), receiving coverage in reliable independent sources does. What we should be telling newcomers is that if they show enough sources and coverage to meet the GNG, the article will be kept. The fact is that too many existing articles don't meet that guideline. BigDom 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) "What we should be telling newcomers is that if they show enough sources and coverage to meet the GNG, the article will be kept." I agree, let's keep it simple. – Kosm1fent 18:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I understand your points, but unfortunately we are looking at different ways. :) That's fine, but we will never agree. As for the Swedish clubs, I'm sorry to say that those are not guideline-based notability arguments and they can easily be overthrown at AfD. Great job at Operario though. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 17:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Totally disagree about the inclusion of Delta Ethniki. There are very few clubs which only played up to there and could satisfy GNG. – Kosm1fent 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Can you provide relevant website link(s) where we can see photos of the grounds of football clubs that participate in the Delta Ethniki please Kosm1fent? Thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 20:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)) That is the problem League Octopus. :P Only a few Delta Ethniki clubs have got (enough money for) a website and most of them have also played in higher levels. I will try to find photos however, give me some time. Do you need free photos or watermarked ones are fine? – Kosm1fent 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Watermarked photos are fine. I was hoping that there is a website in Greece like ZeroZero in Portugal (click on clubs in III Série) where there are details / photo(s) of the grounds of most clubs. I specifically refer to Terceira Divisão in Portugal as Delta Ethniki is the same level in Greece. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)) I have added some more countries to the table. The country that currently stands out is the Republic of Ireland which only has two tiers (20 teams in total). I feel that we should at least recognise a third tier of Leinster Senior League Senior, Munster Senior League 1 and Ulster Senior League 1 now that the previous third tier of A Championship has been abandoned. Any views? League Octopus (League Octopus 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)) IMO, clubs in the LSL and the other provincal leagues should only be notable if they have competed in the Premier or first division of the national league or in the FAI cup previously. These leageus themselves are split into divisions (and in some cases parallel leagues), and defining criteria for which level within these leagues (which are amamteur) are notable would be an exercise in how to gather the most regional sports news. Murry1975 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Estonian Esiliiga and II Liiga are not leagues I would add to that list as teams and the leagues themselves are seldom mentioned in publications. Most teams don't own any facilities and just pay for using public ones. Even Meistriliiga is hardly notable as there's no general interest. The average attendance of 210 in 2011 season speaks for itself. The other thing is that all teams that play in the national cup are notable, meaning that all teams playing in Estonian football pyramid is eligible. Even teams from Rahvaliiga, which in other words is a get together league organized by the FA, can participate in the Cup. I could register a team to this league for the next season and thus be eligible to play in the cup and create an article about bunch of beer-bellies, which would be notable by the current guide. – Lipik (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Lipik, this table won't be a free pass. Unless sources are found to justify WP:GNG, teams (especially those in lower leagues) will be deleted. Also, unless this table gets any connection with media coverage, it will remain League Octopus' (incorrect) intepretation of notability. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 05:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) IMO we need a starting point to consider Football club notability by country under WP:FOOTYN and I would suggest that the above table is probably as good as any unless you can point me to something better. It should be easy to make amendments, deleting and adding sections, once we have a comprehensive table. If the exercise is a waste of time please let me know and in good faith I will get on with something else. I have considered setting up a page in my Sandbox with two tables - one showing the "status quo" and the other "the League Octopus preference". It could be a point of reference when the notability debate comes round again. What do you think? League Octopus (League Octopus 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)) I think a "status quo" table, documenting existing consensus, would be more useful at this stage. As I said above (and others before me) a league notability debate destined to build new consensus need to be based on existing or potential media coverage, something that the proposed table of yours currently lacks. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Even defining existing consensus is fraught with different interpretations and I can now see more clearly why we are finding this issue so hard to address. In particular when I compare the facilities at my local club Bury Town FC] (Level 7 or Step 3) in England with say those of the Greek clubs participating in the fourth level, Delta Ethniki, such as Prosotsani FC or Kavala FC, I find it highly confusing when Kosm1fent indicates that Delta Ethniki should be excluded on grounds that they could not satisfy GNG. I find it simply mind boggling and wonder if any others share my views or am I completely out of kilter? With respect to media if we assume that internet coverage for fourth tier clubs in Greece is somewhat lacking, surely Delta Ethniki clubs are still covered in the Greek newspapers, both current and older copies that can be accessed in local libraries? By the way many thanks Kosm1fent for the superb photos at http://www.stadia.gr/maps/mapfootball.html - it is much appreciated. League Octopus (League Octopus 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)) You're welcome. About the lower leagues coverage issue, you are raising a very good point. I know for a fact that there is virtually no coverage on teams below Delta Ethniki other than routine reports. The Delta Ethniki is actually a grey area – the problem is that only three regions where newspapers of a decent quality (read: reliable) are printed: Athens, Thessaloniki and Crete (maybe also Larissa), so each one of them focuses on the Delta Ethniki teams from their region. I have not bought any sports paper for a while, so I don't know the quality of the coverage, but as I remember it didn't stray away from match reports, signings, injuries, etc (have in mind that we are talking about a 10cm x 5cm article piece about every Delta Ethniki team in the region and there's nothing much you can fit in there (I'm talking about Athens and Thessaloniki papers, covering regions with a shitload of clubs – I don't know about Crete or Larissa). I'm afraid I don't know if offline book sources exist, but if they do, I'd suspect that most of them would be about teams which had played in a high enough level. Bottomline, while Delta Ethniki could potentially be included in such a list, due to the quality and inconsistency of the coverage I'd prefer to look at clubs which have never played above Delta Ethniki on a case-by-case basis. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I understand the issues that you have raised. On a personal note I can readily look at media coverage of football clubs in most European countries and put together a club article for Wikipedia. Sadly I (and most other editors) will never do that for Greece as the Greek alphabet is too much of an impediment. However, we love going on holiday to the different corners of your country and there are those of us who like going to a match at the local football ground. We can get by with Soccerway but it would be nice to one day see some coverage of Delta Ethniki clubs in Wikipedia and above all begin to gain an insight into their heritage. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)) Spain and 3 in a row I see in the Spain national football team article it is claimed that Spain are the 1st team to win 3 majors in a row. This is common misconception bandied around by the media, but it not accurate. Uruguay won the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Football Tournaments and then won the 1930 FIFA World Cup. All three tournaments were recognised by FIFA as "football world championships" meaning Uruguay were world champions three times in a row. Note the four stars on Uruguay's badge/shield. This should be amended but I don't want to get involved in a petty edit war. I'm sure people here will have a view on the topic DjlnDjln (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC) From what I had heard in the media they are the first European team. Sometimes it gets shortened to first team and that can create confusion. But I agree with you and there's no reason you can't change it. Adam4267 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC) It depends how you define "major titles". During the same time that Uruguay won those Olympics and the World Cup, they competed in four South American Championships (surely a major title), of which they won one. So by the same definition as Spain (winning continental championship and world championship) Urugauy haven't won three major titles in a row as they withdrew from the 1925 South American Championship... Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) However, it could be argued that Argentina have won 3 major titles in a row as they won the 1945, 1946 and 1947 South American Championships. There was no World Cup or Olympics between the titles, so they literally won the 3 major tournaments they entered in a row, same as Spain (personally I believe Spain's achievement is better, but as I said, it depends on how you define major titles throughout history). Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC) All the media reports I seen or heard make no mention been of "first European". Sky, BBC, ITV and CNN have said all just said "first". I was'nt aware of the Argentina 3 in a row but it just goes to prove that Spain are not the 1st. Incidentally Uruguay have another claim on 3 in a row. 1923 South America, 1924 Olympics and 1924 South America. Djln Djln (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC) On the coverage I saw, they qualified it as "in the modern era", which suggests that someone in the media was at least aware the basic statement might not be accurate. I would have thought 'modern era' means 1930 World Cup onwards, and thus by common sense, should also include at least one World Cup for it to be a meaningful record. The status of the early Olympics is one thing, but I think it would be patently ridiculous to demote Spain's acheivement on the basis that Argentina won 3 regional tournaments in a row when the World Cup wasn't held. Cracker92 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) So Copa America is a regional tournament and the European Championship is a major tournament? Doesn't seem fair on Argentina... Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Also, it has been picked up on by Reuters [23] three paras from bottom. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Clearly, Spain is not the first so the information should be removed from the article. TonyStarks (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Euro-centric sources around the EURO obvioulsly only take EUROs and Wolrd Cups as major titles in that context. -Koppapa (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Are we ignoring the fact that USA knocked Spain out of the Confederation Cup in 2009? TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Sources basically are, because the don't consider it major. When talking about 3 in a row they only consider EUROs and world cups major. Article should mention that: First with EC/WC/EC or WC/EC/WC. -Koppapa (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC) At Talk:Spain national football team an anonymous contributer has posted a list of other 3 in a row claims. Those nvolving CONCACAF, Asia and Africa are in my view dubious but a second Argentina claim and a France claim, both from the 1990s, are also reasonably legitmate DjlnDjln (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Let's just not mention it at all. -Koppapa (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I have just amended Spain article to say "They (Spain) are the first national team to win two consecutive European championships and a World Cup". This is true and accurate and undisputed. However I suspect someone will change it back to include some bogus three in a row claim. I think the page might require protection status soon DjlnDjln (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I really don't know why anyone has a difficulty with classing just the World Cup and a Continental Championship as 'major' for national teams. The Confederations Cup is just a pointless mini-tournament - it can be disregarded in the same way nobody would include the FIFA Club World Cup in a list of consecutive domestic league/continental championship wins in terms of a club team's achievements. Spain are the only team to win 3 majors which included a World Cup. It's really not hard to see why the media conflates that as 3 majors full stop - if you have to exclude the World Cup to find other strings of 3, then clearly you're not comparing like with like. If WP:OR means anything, it's to stop things like this where other user researched events are being used to ignore what's a cast-iron sourceable and eminently understandable acheivement. Cracker92 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Raul Águas Any hardcore Belgian football fans out there? Help would be appreciated! During this chap's Belgian career, ZEROZERO.PT says he played for the same team, FORADEJOGO.NET - also a Portuguese website - "counterattacks" with...THREE TEAMS in four years! Where's the truth in this can someone "save the day" for all the six 1/2 fans this guy has across the globe (just kidding, not belittling him)? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Also, according to this Flemish source (please see here http://users.skynet.be/fb304341/SpelersA.htm), he never played for WAREGEM, only LIERSE and MECHELEN...The first Portuguese web says precisely he played only for WAREGEM, it gets more confusing! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC) According to the Belgian Soccer Database (bsdb.be, registration needed) which is usually very reliable in my experience, he played for Mechelen from 1975 to 1977, then for Lierse from 1977 to 1979 (33 games, 9 goals in 78-79 - no other seasons have stats available). Cheers, BigDom 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Definitely, WAREGEM must have been a "Portuguese invention". Am off to correct the article, thanks Big One! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Al-Yarmouk SC Aleppo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yarmouk_SC_Aleppo I was bored at work so I decided to try to come back and try to help out with Wikipedia for the Association Football stubs, however, I stumbled into a Syrian club called Al-Yarmouk SC Aleppo. The article looked good and with a few additions, it wouldn't need a stub status. It was in the Syrian Premier League before. However, the reason why I brought this up here is that I need help with someone who can read Arabic if I decided to tackle upon this article. Is anyone willing to help? Rakuten06 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC) National Cup in Canada Canada does not have a traditional English style FA Cup. However there is the Canadian Championship and prior to that the Open Canada Cup. Are teams that have competed in these competitions considered to have played in the national cup and therefore assumed to meet WP:N criteria? Durham Flames is currently subject to AfD but have played in the Open Canada Cup. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)) I'm sceptical about the Open Canada Cup – according to the article (unsourced, but meh) all professional and amateur clubs are eligible to enter. Should they all have articles? No, in my opinion. Also, it's been said before (and in the Durham Flames AfD) that WP:FOOTYN is just an essay and WP:GNG takes precedence, so more sources are needed for the article to meet WP:N criteria. – Kosm1fent 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I agree with Kos. In the absence of a fully agreed, evidenced guideline regarding team notability, articles should be meeting GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I raised the issue a year or so ago (see discussion here). I expressed my doubt about either competition being considered as the national one but no one really gave me a definite answer before the discussion was closed. It might be time to start a new one to figure out exactly whether clubs that compete in these competitions are notable. I live in Canada and play in leagues against some of these teams and I can tell you that the majority of these clubs are just amateur competitive teams, there is nothing professional about them that would confer notability as per our guidelines. TonyStarks (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I think that those like TonyStarks who have experience in Canadian football are in the best position to make an informed view on this one. My main concern is the old chestnut that without a recognised national cup, clubs in Canada are not able to make use of WP:FOOTYN. In this respect I raise the status of the Canadian Soccer League as a further issue. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) Canadian Soccer League The Canadian Soccer League is a semi-professional league which is the Third Tier of semi-professional/professional soccer in the Canadian soccer pyramid. In my view all teams that currently or in the past that have played at Level 3 in Canada should be considered to have played at a notable level similar to the way that we treat Level 10 (Step 6) in England. My research into the defunct Durham Flames is highlighting a lot of anomalies. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) English clubs up to level 10 are considered notable because there is consensus that this level is receiving adequate coverage from (at least) local media sources. Is that the case with the Canadian Soccer League? We can't simply assume notability without some evidence. – Kosm1fent 07:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I always just thought that Step 6 clubs were considered notable because that's the lowest level at which clubs are eligible to play in the FA Cup. I think you'd struggle to show that about 75% of clubs at that level (and probably a couple of levels above) pass the GNG. BigDom 07:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I'd say include. Sure gets the same coverage as level 10 in England. And compare current top 3 levle clubs in Canada to about 500? 1000? top 10 level clubs in England. -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC) It's a regional league and since it's not fully professional should be excluded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)