Ok, I've been sketching on this project for a while, as seen on the history page, but I think now is the time to make it official. Spread the word, and start making contributions to the project and football articles! -- Elisson • Talk18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea of placing {{football}} on top of every talk page of articles related to football? Is it overkill or is it a good way of spreading the word? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey is placing their banner on every hockey article they come across. IMHO, I think it is a good idea, but shouldn't be overdone. A good start would be placing our banner on the major article's talk pages, such as Talk:Football (soccer) (duh) and Talk:Football World Cup, and as you come across other football articles, placing the banner on them too. No need to rush out and search for football articles to place the banner on just to boost your edit count. Suggestions? -- Elisson • Talk19:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that's overdoing it. I saw that when that hapenned for hockey, and didn't think it worked well. --DR31 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Collaboration of the fortnight
I've been thinking about creating a football collaboration of the fortnight for a while, and this looks like the right place to do it. Does anyone have any comments about whether the frequency sounds reasonable (I don't think there will be enough interested contributors to make it weekly, so I think changing it every fortnight would be best to begin with) or anything else? CTOAGN14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It might be better of monthly, but we'll have to see once it's up and running. Of course, at the rate Wikipedia is expanding it will be a weekly collaboration before we know it. Phoenix2 00:15, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that monthly might be better to start off with, to check how many wikipedians there are that will help. If the collaboration produces good results in less than a months time, change to forthnight, and then maybe even to week if working. Otherwise, good idea! -- Elisson•Talk18:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Having looked at WP:COTW, I think WP:AID is closer to what I had in mind as I'm more interested in turning good articles into FAs than improving stubs. I also like the voting system it uses (vote for as many candidates as you like) and the idea of voting weekly, but allowing the same article to be chosen multiple times in a row - that way an article could stay there for as long as people want to improve it. So if people let me know which they'd prefer (or if they're not bothered) I'll set it up on the project page. I think we should start off with just one project covering both stubs and non-stubs until we have more participants though. CTOAGN23:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll expand this project to include (hopefully) all templates in a few days, or weeks, so don't worry, it will be mentioned somewhere. :) -- Elisson•Talk09:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Spreading the word
The number of participants isn't growing as quickly as I'd expected, so I'm thinking of leaving messages on a few people's talk pages mentioning the project and asking if they're interested. I'm not talking about spamming half of Wikipedia, but people like Qwlghm, Bornintheguz etc who regularly contribute to football articles. If you know of anyone who'd be interested in joining, please help out.
Hadn't had much feedback since my last comments so I've set up an Article improvement drive under the project. I decided on an article improvement drive rather than a COTW as the voting system lets us keep articles there for as long as people want it to be there and vote for the same article week after week, solving the "should it be weekly/fortnightly/monthly" question quite well. I've set the bar for nominations to stay up very low, we can raise it when we get a few more collaborators and nominations.
If there are any improvements you can make, be bold, and please nominate or vote for something to help get it off the ground.
Hi. I just saw that User:Wonderfool added the French Football WikiProject. The list of recent articles has some articles which could easily be translated and imported. I've started (trying to) translate some dealing with women's football. Just to bring this new source of potential articles to everyone's notice. - Master Of Ninja21:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice one. My French is a bit rusty but I can help out with French to English translations if you need a hand. CTOAGN20:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Some french speaking persons like me contribute now to the French WikiPorject Football, creating new articles or some articles that are an improvement of the english version, when it is done in French , translations will be doneDingy11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Notable Players
Should some criteria be set out for a club's notable players (as per the manual of style for clubs)? For example, David Seaman is listed as a notable player for both Arsenal F.C. and Manchester City F.C.. Whilst he is most certainly an Arsenal legend, a few months playing for Manchester City at the age of 40 do not merit his inclusion in the equivalent list for Manchester City IMHO. - Oldelpaso20:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess notable players included for a club should have the criteria that the player in question did something notable while at the club, i.e. scored a lot of goals, was a very good leader on the pitch, or was sold for a lot of money from the club. The number of seasons for the club should not make a difference, but the performance for the club while he played. I guess Seaman didn't make an outstanding performance at Man C and so should not be listed IMHO, but on the other hand, Jari Litmanen is listed on Malmö FF, even though he arrived there only a month ago, and has up to this date played only one or two games for the club. I think that criteria for this isn't necessary, other than using common sense. -- Elisson•Talk22:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
With List of Arsenal F.C. players I set the criterion of famous/notable as having played 100 first-class competitive matches or more for the club; there are some exceptions - such as founding members, players who later became managers, those who broke some sort of club record, or players whose time at the club was notorious (one player I included in the list from the 1890s was a captain who died during a match). I would agree that Seaman, as a Man City player, does not fit any of those exceptional categories.
I think 100+ matches for "List of..." pages and maybe 300+ matches for main club pages, is a good rule of thumb, with some common-sense exceptions. What do others think? Qwghlm 16:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I agree with Elisson that no criteria other than common sense is necessary. 300+ matches seems right for Arsenal, but few clubs are as successful or stable as Arsenal. Oldelpaso11:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
For the past month, the Football World Cup article has been an edit war revolving around the third place finish at the 1930 World Cup. Does anyone want to step in and try to regulate it? It's getting ridiculous. --DR31(talk)15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just requested the page to be protected since it long passed the grounds of being reasonanle (with several 3RR violations) and well, generally lame. wS;✉22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there are any 3RR. I believe for a 3RR there need to be 4 reversions within a 24 hour period. Jooler23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, no (I was fooled by the number of successive edits about that which in practical terms isn't that different from a 3RR), and I've scratched that from the RFP. Still, the page should have been blocked eons ago so that the issue could be properly discussed and a consensus reached. I'm trying a solution that might end this once and for all, 'to. wS;✉00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye open. I've also contacted admins on the IRC channel so they'll hopefully check him out and ban him if he does anything more. -- Elisson•Talk21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for butting in. Anyway, I stumbled upon this page from somewhere else and wanted to clarify an issue Stig Inge Bjørnebye. I've got a Norwegian book (VM i fotball 1994 by Jon Michelet and Dag Solstad) - which clearly states that Bjørnebye played for Rosenborg and not Liverpool during the 1994 World Cup. This Norwegian website (stats provided by a prominent Norwegian newspaper - Aftenposten) seems to confirm that he was contracted to Liverpool, but also played eight games for Rosenborg - suggesting a loan deal. I don't know any more than that, I was too young, but maybe this book was the source of previous edits? Sam Vimes22:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
He might have played on loan with Rosenoborg then, but Liverpool owned him from 1993 to 1999. But that's not the point; if the anon user in question offered the same information, at least some discussion could take place (although Liverpool is the better option here IMHO). http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1994/squad_nor94.html, which I used for the rosters, also says Liverpool. But he just refuses to communicate. Whatever the cases is, Raducioiu was not on West Ham until 1996, Foxboro Stadium is not located in Boston (which some sources could claim, but it's just not), etc, etc, etc. --DR31(talk)22:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. I'd say it's a bit extreme to protect the page, though, but if you're really tired of the content dispute I can understand it. It prevents legit editors with a source (me, for example ;)) from updating it. Btw, if you used that page for the rosters, you should really have put it on the bottom as a source. I still think "Rosenborg on loan from Liverpool" would be the best solution - I'll see if I can dig out some old Norwegian newspapers to solve the conundrum. Also, I'll take your word for the Foxboro thing - again, my book says Boston/San Francisco etc., which is probably the result of trying to convey location to ignorant Norwegians who have no idea where in the wide expanse of America Foxboro is. Sam Vimes22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
At this point, since there is a legit source saying that he indeed was on Rosenborg... I don't know. Constant reverting of his crap (and Bjørnebye/1994 rosters were just the most blatant issue, which in retrospect turned out to be not the best example) just got too tiring. As for "on loan"... I think we would then have to include EVERY player who was on loan prior to that tournament for consistency. DR31(talk)22:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Yesterday I created a page for the forthcoming FIFA U-17 World Championship 2005 and edited the Awards section for the page FIFA U-17 World Championship . Since I'm new to Wiki and therefore new to this great project. I want to find a template to follow, but i cannot. Current international tournaments are in different styles. For instance,
It's better to have the same(or similar) template for these tournaments, at least for those uncreated ones , isn't it? i know there's a template for listing the Finals and the 3rd-Place playoff matches in every tournaments of the same competetion, but it seems not enough.
As for the names of these competetions, i also suggest we all follow the same naming conventions.
Sorry for not answering this until now, must have missed it earlier. I agree with everything you say and this is the page to come to. Hopefully we will be able to establish a more in-depth manual of style for tournaments later on, until then, just keep the page nice and clean (as you have already done). :) -- Elisson•Talk17:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we have to draw the line somewhere - is there really anything we can say about this right now? I mean, which confederation is going to host 2018 is a matter of conjecture - this article is guesswork upon guesswork. Perhaps this could be merged into 2018 for the time being. sjorford#£@%&$?!10:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd nominate it and 2018 for deletion, tbh - both articles are nothing but speculation. Qwghlm 11:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The 2018 article is rather speculative too. Different editors seem to be suggesting that it's been a long time, or too soon for the USA to re-host the World Cup. Obviously opposing views can be incorporated into an encyclopaedic article, but it does show just how lacking in facts the article actually is. Countries may have expressed an interest, but it's thirteen years away, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I was going to list it on AfD, but I noticed this discussion, so thought I'd mention my doubts, and get some feedback from others, before doing so. KeithD(talk)14:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Robin van Persie is being repeatedly vandalised by an anonymous IP address (82.16.142.131) to add some non-notable joke fanclub. Up until now I've been fixing it myself but I'm going to be away for a few days. Can someone keep an eye on it for me? Thanks. Qwghlm08:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Added it to my watchlist. Now I just have to resist the temptation to vandalise it myself :-) Have a good holiday, assuming that's what you're doing. CTOAGN02:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
A standard for team squad representations
As you can easily see, there is a lack of standardization for the way to represent the team rosters. A number of several examples could be found here:
I guess that we all should make a unique standard form to represent the team squads, to be used for all the football articles. Other brand-new proposals are well accepted. Ciao. --Angelo20:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
This means that I am proposing to improve the current team squad representation standard, and implementing it in all articles. So, folks, I am waiting for your proposals and comments here. Any suggestion is welcome. --Angelo14:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There is possibly a need for two templates - one for football stadiums that are currently in use (and don't need the closed date, etc.) and one for disused or no-longer existing ones (which will). But yes, Template:Infobox_Football_(soccer)_stadium has far too many unnecessary variables (surface - always grass, construction cost - inflation will distort the figure, architect - often there have been more than one, former names - rare, tenants/owners - some are owned by their occupiers, others leased). Can someone be bold and come up with a list of variables they think should be included? Qwghlm11:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the template created by Elisson does the job well. The other template will have a lot of blank fields in far too many cases. Oldelpaso12:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Sigh* - I guess as a consequence of unbridled enthusiasm I went and changed a lot of pages with a template that isn't exactly to everyone's liking. I should have come to this page and talked about it first. I wanted to use a template that was already in circulation but I couldn't find anything for "soccer" stadiums. Therefore I created my own new template based on a template I saw used in another sports stadium posting. Once I had spent all the work making it up and adding it to a bunch of pages I discovered the Template:Football stadium but pressed ahead - I guess because of all the work I had already invested. So the question is now, should I go back and revert all my changes? Should I just modify the Template:Infobox_Football_(soccer)_stadium removing some of the fields that are extraneous, or should I do something else? I like the look of my new template (obviously biased opinion) and I do think some of the extra fields are nice - like former names. Jeff18:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Jeff, next week I'll revert the Argentine stadiums back to what they were until we stabilize the template, unless we can reach a consensus before then. --Sebastian KesselTalk23:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to chip in that some work in tidying up things is always good. I think the problem is that the template will have too many blank fields as someone else has mentioned. Some of the other information can easily be put into the main text (or ?maybe a secondary template??) No need to go reverting or changing things just yet. If we can reach an agreement of a standard taking everyone's opinions into account, we can then gradually move things over to the new template. - Master Of Ninja14:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Football club infobox and sponsors
Hi everybody! User:Dale Arnett modified the Football club infobox template with addings about shirt suppliers and sponsors. I guess these information are actually useless for the articles, and even deleterious, coz they are often hard to retrieve (especially for minor teams) or they are subject to frequent changes (often a team has a different sponsor for each competition). Tell me what you think about the matter. Ciao. --Angelo18:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was User:Mxcatania. I think it is relatively easy to find out information. I found about all 20 Argentine first division teams in less than 1 hour. I think if we can keep up with the colors, we can certainly keep up with the sponsors and advertisers.
I have reverted it. Suppliers and sponsors should be mentioned in the text if mentioned at all. There are like thousands of more important things to put in the infobox (first championship win, seasons in the premier division, major supporter clubs, squad, record victory/loss, record attendance, and on and on and on) and I would prefer that the infobox stay as it is. And at the moment, all club pages using the template has got two ugly rows at the bottom as the variables have not been entered. -- Elisson•Talk19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Johan, please don't revert. MxCatania and I already took care of all the Argentine teams, and I plan to start at least putting blank spaces on the rest of the teams. I believe the info to be useful. I would be more than happy to help with the other important things to add in the template but I don't believe that is a valid reason to remove this information.
(going on from previous comment, but indenting again might be excessive) Personally I am not in favour of this change. As Angelo says, it gets difficult to find the information for minor teams. I have created infoboxes for many minor english teams because all the information in the infobox was easy to find. The prospect of trying to find current shirt sponsors for teams in the lower reaches of the english football pyramid is not something I look forward to. Plus I'm sure FC Barcelona aren't alone in not having shirt sponsors. Oldelpaso20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Guys, in "Barcelona" sombebody put "None"... that's the best answer. As far as the rest, I've been putting this
::shirtsupplier= |
::shirtsponsors= |
:
in more than 100 pages. I think that the info is readily available for most first and second league teams in most places. When I finish this I plan to pick a league (the Spanish or Brazilian ones, probably) and start adding the correct info. I don't believe that some lower division teams should prevent us from having this info. Besides, as a fan, I found it great when I found that MxCatania started this move, I love this information.
1) Please do not include new variables in the infobox before discussing it here. 2) I've reverted the infobox once again. Do not ever change it back until all pages using it have an entry for the two variables. This prevents a lot of pages from having ugly rows in the bottom of the infobox. This was what I did when I added the picture variable to the infobox. 3) And that isn't even a good idea, and I do not support it. As said earlier, I can think of thousands of more important things to include in the infobox. Sponsors and dress suppliers are not a major fact, and thus not needed in the infobox. In the end, why not make the whole article fit in the infobox? 4) Useful info? Surely. Then write it in the article like most other useful information. 5) Once again, do not make changes to standardized football templates before discussing it extensively here. Please. -- Elisson•Talk20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me say first that the changes WEREN'T made by me. Ergo, I won't address those concerns. If you look at User_Talk:Mxcatania, I even advised him to seek advise in the talk page first. That said, and since the damage "was done", I started fixing.
I do agree with item 2), and I will apply the same concept. I'm going to add the variables to all, and if we decide to use them we will at least avoid the problem of ugly brackets. (Which is why I so hastily started with the change).
Having cleared the waters as to the generalities, let me go into specifics.
I don't think we should put the whole article, it is an exaggeration on your part to even imply that it is my point. If you look at Template:Infobox_Country, we are showing GDP, Calling Code, Internet TLD, population, etc. It can be argued that some of those items are as relevant to a country as a shirt supplier is to a football team. I will support you 100% and help as much as I can if you propose more variables to add. I don't believe on "information overload", the infobox can be greatly improved in many ways, this is just one. All the simple tidbits of info (not trivia, real info) should have a place on the infobox, lest they get lost in the middle of a text.
Just don't misunderstand me on 2), I don't want to see the variables being added to all teams unless we reach a consensus to include the info in the infobox. It will just be double work adding it to all articles just to remove it if the general opinion is to not include it. As for variables. I've already mentioned a few variables that would be more suitable for inclusion in the infobox, and sparing two rows for the sake of sponsorship and dress supplier is just not worth it. More "real info" can be mentioned in the article. As to where it should be placed, I'd suggest the colours and badge section (or similar) which discusses the dress used by the club. My general opinion is that the infobox is fine as it is at the moment. Including everything that is "real info" would make it look something along the lines of the included box. And that doesn't even cover 10 % of all "real info" that I believe to be more important than dress sponsor and supplier. -- Elisson•Talk21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Johan, some of your ideas are good (record wins, or # of championships) some of them are there just for spite. It is ridiculous to have the whole team, or to have more that 1 record win, unless they both have the same score. You can only have one record. I would add the new infobox here but it would be inappropriate. Just look here . I would just say that it would look much better. And I don't know what a "supporter club" is, we don't have them in South America or the US,
If you want to go ahead with the record wins and the cup information I will support, provided we find a way to accomodate clubs from all confederations, since Champions League and UEFA Cup are not played by CONCACAF teams, for example.
I still think that the more info the better it is, again just look at the country infobox.
Why should the team not be included in the infobox when the dress supplier is? I mean, come on. And why just one record win? 9-1 and 8-0 can't be separated in terms of which is the best. My example does not inluce a lot of other "important" things, the box to the right just shows how messy it would look with too many variables. The four tournament/league wins are just a small part of the total tally of achievements that would need inclusion (what about League Cups, Euro Super Cups, Intercontinental Cups, Charity Shields, Royal League wins, ...). I don't know if "supporter club" is the correct term, maybe "supporter association" is correct? And I do not want to go ahead with any of the changes I have made on the infobox to the right. I feel all of them are doing all right in the text. -- Elisson•Talk22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
(Unindent)Why not? Simple, because is 30 to 40 rows of text, that would even read BETTER on the text. We are even working on a template for them. The "Fan Club" (let's call it that way, for simplicity's sake) maybe should have a place. I really don't understand why we think in terms of "less is more". I think "more is more". A sentence that reads "The team apparel is provided by adidas and the shirt is sponsored by ICA" has much less impact that an infobox entry. I urge you to check out the country infobox and see what they did there. Why should we settle for less? I grant you that is an enormous task to go and fix all the clubs. In the end, that might be the only argument that may discourage me from pursuing this. But, you know, lots of people might pitch in to help, I know I can take 3 or 4 leagues just myself. I don't get why they are "fine as they are", we need to keep evolving.
--Sebastian KesselTalk22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I missed for a couple of hours and I have found that everything has changed. Well, I completely agree with Johan: there would be so many information which could be added that would seem to be much more important than "sponsors"! Anyway, I guess the infobox is good as it is, and I wanna remember one more time what moved me to say that, even if I'll get annoying to you: LOTS of teams are minor ones, and information for those ones are really hard to find. Today I had to look around the Web for about 1 hour just to retrieve the name of the president of U.S. Città di Jesolo (Italian Serie C2), because the team has no active website and it is not so popular in Italy! So, people, let's think, and discuss, before to put our hands into something that cares all the articles! --Angelo22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined with Johan as well on this one, sponsors & shirt suppliers are rather minor compared to the rest of the club's major statistics.
But, the bigger point is, adding variables to the template with no regard for breaking existing pages or any discussion and consensus is very poor wikiquette, imho. Many of the proposed changes are not as simple as they may seem. Information such as largest win/defeat (which competition? Top division? League? Cup? Friendly?), record attendance (at which stadium? Does it have to be a 'home' match?) or supporters club (do we pick the "official" one or the one with most members/longest history?) can actually be quite contentious. To assume they can be reduced to simple name/value pairs with no discussion on the possible problems or complexities is a bad idea. Qwghlm00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Q, None of us actually suggested putting those into place, Johan was just giving an example.
And, for the record, it wasn't me who created the variables although I'm guilty of putting them back prior to discussion.
I think we have to be careful not to try to put the entire article inside an infobox. There are tons of less important teams that have an infobox bigger than the article itself, and that shouldn't be so common. Therefore I have to say I'm against putting the Sponsor's information. But then again, I don't consider it less important than the record defeat, Supporter club, or the entire current team, and its a far more compact thing to add.
After a long discussion, I guess it is time to approve the new standardization for football team squads. It has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. It would be characterized as follows:
The graphical appeal is the one shown on the talk, but divided in two column, in the way proposed in the talk itself;
Loan information will appear just for incoming players, because the other ones actually are not part of the team;
Captain and vice-captain information should appear, of course when they are retrievable;
I have done kind of a simple template implementation, based on the ideas developed on the talk page. You may find it into my sandbox. Take a look and tell me what you think about. Ciao. --Angelo20:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Great. I've put it into use at Arsenal F.C. - if it's good enough for a featured article it's good enough elsewhere. What needs to be done is to add some documentation to Template talk:Football squad player on how to use it - I can do that if you like. After that it can be propagated elsewhere. Qwghlm12:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
All the Premier League squads which used simple squad lists have been updated (the more complex ones I have left alone). I'll have a start on the SPL and Championship squads later. If anyone's interested, I used a Python script to scrape out the relevant data from the existing lists to make the job easier.Qwghlm12:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
i am going to redo the other variable, i dont know about anyone else, but i find it a bit useless to have a variable called other and then restrict it's use to one of two pre-set conditions that call on another template to display the display the exact thing you just typed in, if you wanted to set a specific variable system, other is not the lable you should use, it only confuses people that are not fimilar with the temple and do not know where to look for instrustions. I 'll set it where it will not be dislpalyed if not being used, will keep the spacer, and will include the ( ), but will aloow for the addation of other information, like loan in/out, suspension, or other info that would pertain to the player. This will allow the space to be more flexable, be more of an other varialbe, and elimniate to redundant templates in the mean time. --Boothy443 | trácht ar05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I made the Template:nft which cold be very useful. Writing {{nft|Brazil}} will link to the Brazil national team. There was a place to put all this templates around here, but I can't fnd it. --Wonderfoolt(c)14:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice. Since this is mainly an aid to writing articles and unlikely to change format, I would recommend using the form {{subst:nft|Brazil}} which will directly convert it to the wiklink text in the article (rather than maintain the curly-bracket form). Qwghlm16:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
After few experiments with {{nft}}, I couldn't get it to work with possibility to change what to show, while leaving it substable. So I made {{nft2}}; you can now write {{subst:nft2|Belarus|such}} to make such link. --Monkbel14:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice, I just thought it was sometimes a bit strange to have only Country in the text so I think it's a good thing. I'll try it, even if it might sometime be quite long. By the way I don't get the "subst" thing. Can anyone show an example? Julien Tuerlinckx15:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
If you add {{nft|Brazil}} to an article, then that template value stays in the article's source text, so when someone else edits it they will see {{nft|Brazil}}. If you type {{subst:nft|Brazil}}, then the Wiki will substitute the template's contents into the source code directly, so all future edits of the source text will have [[Brazil national football team|Brazil]] - IMHO that will probably make more sense to future editors of the article not familiar with the nft template. Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits#How_substitution_works has more information. Qwghlm15:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
What about a template for the players' career? Like "Year" "Team" "GP" "Goals" or something like that.
I'd be available to put it into some player's articles. --necronudist13:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There are now over a dozen stub tags that can be applied to football articles, a lot of them splitting down by continent. In particular, the subcategories of Football (soccer) biography stubs have only just been created, so there is a lot of legwork required to restub these appropriately.
I can get Moor Green's home colours from a photo on that site, but I can't find their away ones (although I can find them for every other team in their division). If you let me know what they are or give me a more specific URL I'll put them in the infobox for you. File:Yemen flag large.pngCTOAGN (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
An anon keeps trying to get messages about Liverpool being the most successful club in England into the intro. I've made three reversions in the last 24 hours, so can somebody revert it back and keep an eye on the page for me?
Sorry, I don't know where to place this, but here's my question. As an amateur soccer player, I was wondering if perhaps someone could create an article listing various soccer commands and perhaps their meaning, such as 'man on' or 'cross' or stuff like that. This could also be translated into other languages. Thanks for reading. GfloresTalk03:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Would any fluent German speakers like to translate the Ferenc Puskás article from the German Wikipedia? It has featured article status there, as does their article on Euro 2004. Oldelpaso 18:37, 26 November 2005
Request for an article: Freestyle soccer
I know that freestyle soccer and tricks in general are very popular in Europe and in soccer commercials. Perhaps there should be some mention of it somewhere? GfloresTalk02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Cancel it. It wouldn't be worth the time. Who should constantly keep it up to date with the changes on the national team pages? -- Elisson•Talk23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hungarian football
I was looking through Hungary-related player, stadium and club pages and found they are more or less neglected. (Which conforms to the present state of Hungarian football but that's another story.) So I've decided to fix and expand as many entries as I can. This will include the one on Ferenc Puskás, based on the aforementioned German article and the [|biography] published this year. I'm glad to find this project. --Biziclop11:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Me again. A few weeks ago I uploaded two images to Commons which allegedly show football player Abby Dahlkemper (then of the UCLA women's soccer team and now signed with the Western New York Flash). Judging from the UCLA roster of 2014, however, shirt number 21 seems to have belonged to Megan Oyster (current Washington Spirit rookie). Considering that both players kinda do look alike... is the original file description wrong? --Headlocker (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Headlocker: great photos! It does look more like Megan Oyster to me when reviewing google images and the 2014 roster. I'll be working on Dahlkemper's article soon.Hmlarson (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
