Does anyone know if Sam Chedgzoy (born 1889) and Sydney Chedgzoy (born 1911) are related? Obviously they share the same (rather unusual) surname, both hailed from Merseyside, and dates mean they could easily be father/son or uncle/nephew...GiantSnowman20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I wondered this when I created the Sydney Chedgzoy article, but I couldn't find anything at the time. -- BigDom21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Should this include his individual views on sectarianism (i.e. one sentence in a whole new section on its own) or should it stick to being biographical in context?(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
Maybe middle initial? One could be Paul P. Robinson and the other Paul D. Robinson. Though that gets messy and I don't think either is really known by middle initial. Birth month could also work. So many Paul Robinsons! Cocytus[»talk«]19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with using month. Although using months is never pretty and a bit too long, I think it's less confusing. --Jimbo[online]00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with some editors on this article. One of the hosts of the show, Steven Cohen, has made many enemies among Liverpool supporters -- I'm not trying to stir up anger here because I have no horse in this race -- but I think a few of the members of the campaign against him and his show has extended to WP. There is at least one IP editor that won't allow certain comments -- even ones that were cited -- to be published on the page, even though the same users are including quotations attributed to Cohen that are cited from Liverpool fan forums and boycott site. If I'm wrong about how this article should be handled then I apologize in advance. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On Saturday, Oxford United will play against Yeovil Town in the first round. Would players playing in the game without an article beforehand, pass WP:ATHLETE by playing in the game? Eddie6705 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeovil players yes (as they have appeared for a club that plays in a fully professional league), Oxford players no (as they do not play for a club in a fully pro league). пﮟოьεԻ5716:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Slightly confused here: are you saying that Yeovil players who had not previously played at fully-pro level, e.g. in the Football League, would gain notability by playing in this game, which is not a fully-pro comp? If so, why? Or am I misunderstanding as usual? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
According to ATHLETE, playing in the FA Cup does not infer notability because it is not a "fully professional level of a sport". It doesn't matter whether or not the club is professional, because the competition isn't. Even playing in the quarter-finals, semi-finals or final would not infer notability in the ATHLETE sense (although they may then pass the general guidelines). So in answer to your original question – no, definitely not. -- BigDom20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thnx, wasnt intending to call it Swedish transfer durring winter window 2009-10, just something i used as topic here. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The title makes it inherently POV - there are legal ones too! I regularly watch Serie A matches on Betfair Video for example, not to mention the recent England-Ukraine game that was a web-only broadcast. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't be linking to illegal sites. I agree with Transaction Go, potentially a decent article, but if it was AfD'd right now I'd vote for delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCforLife (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything in WP:EL about illegal websites. The Falun Gong is illegal in China, so should we stop linking to the Falun Gong website? What WP:EL does say though, is that "links mainly intended to promote a website" and "links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article" should be avoided, which is what might apply here. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, but wikipedia as a whole is extremely strict on knowingly linking to sights that violate copyright, which streaming websites most certainly do. WFCforLife (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It might not have to be a whole own article. Perhaps a section on Streaming media, I know I've read articles in real newspapers related to cases and especially the Premier League trying to clamp down on it examplechandler19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In the "Honours" section of a club article such as Manchester United F.C., should we list the number of times a club has finished as the runner-up in a competition? User:Selecciones de la Vida seems to think we should, but I disagree. I could see the point if a club had never won anything and needed to pad out its honours section, but clubs don't receive trophies for coming second in competitions, do they? – PeeJay23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with PeeJay but I understand that Sel.de.la.Vida has seen it in numerous other club pages, so he touth applying it in Man.Utd. page. FkpCascais (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes teams do receive trophies as runners-up. I know West Bromwich Albion received a silver salver for finishing runners-up in Division One (2001-02 I think it was, and possibly in 2003-04 as well). Also the play-off winners in each division of the Football League receive a trophy, despite having finished below the runners-up! (they are the winners of the play-off competition but still...) --Jameboy (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to go against the trend but in my opinion, finishing as runner-up in a league or as a losing finalist in a cup is a pretty major achievement for most clubs and ought to be included. Not every club can win major trophies year-in, year-out. The ManU article as it currently stands looks fine to me. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this boils down to whether or not one thinks a podium or even 4th place finish is notable. This should be applied situationally as Kangaroo has said. Transaction Go (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with the wording at the relevant section on the club article style guide, which incidentally is called Achievements, not Honours, in recognition of the fact that most clubs don't actually win anything significant, but do achieve. It says we should include "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with PeeJay, but if a club never won official titles, I think that an alternative section "Best results" shall be possible (history of Bayer 04 Leverkusen is not the same of history of the smallest club in amatorial Westphalian league). --79.30.157.92 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with PeeJay about Manchester United being a different case to clubs who haven't won as much, but calling some clubs' achievements "honours" while telling others that theirs can only be considered "their best results" would be silly. As would considering a Third Division South Cup win an honour, while simultaenously going out of the way to call an FA Cup final something else. WFCforLife (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I added the second place finishes for Manchester United in English cup competitions because according to my understanding, the losing finalist receives a second place medal, which in any literal sense is an award (honour). On another note if one were to see this as an earned achievement as I do, then the useful and informative content could simply be added as further reference in the honours section. In no way does the inclusion destory the cohesion of the article, in fact the reliable and notable information can only enhance it.
I also noticed that Manchester United was not a star article and compared it to Arsenal FC & Chelsea FC which are. Those other 2 clubs feature their runner-up cup competitions, so it looked appropriate to add in in the Manchester United article as well. This discussion can also be applied to national team honours. For example, Germany has won three World Cups. Does that mean that their second or third place medal finishes at the World Cup stage be omitted? My point is, achievements whether they are in the form of the championship trophy or a medal should be included, and in this case Manchester United were awarded second place medals for losing a final which is noteworthy and as relevant as winning that same final. Either way the club earned a notable finish. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2009
(UTC)
Good point, a finalist is notable. If it earns the team a medal then the info should be included. Just look at my team Juventus, they've won almost everything under the sun. They've still lost plenty of CL finals and that fact should always be included. 66.71.54.143 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So, do we have a final decission here? Should the runners-up stats be used in club honours? I don´t mind whatever the decission is. If you decide using it, I´ll welcome a plus of information, but then I´ll have to add it to some club pages I have in mind... If you decide that is not to be used, then only the trophies will be numbered, so it will give a better overview of how many of them a club has won. This is not a minor issue, since it is found in all the major clubs articles, so it will be nice if we get a decission here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
With response to the notable final appearances (i.e. loosing out in a final), they would normaly be covered within the written text somewhere but not generaly in an honours section of the club. I would say the same for runners up in leagues, not generally (if anywhere) covered with major clubs.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
Real Madrid, Juventus, and AC Milan are three major club articles that feature their runner-up positions in the club honours section. For some reason a few editors are adamant about making Manchester United's article the oddball. Why? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally think it makes them look untidy (for major clubs) and that wins should only be in an honours section. I am also a believer in keeping continuity (relavence to others) with other articles of the same bracket i.e. football clubs. In that sense because Arsenal and Chelsea include runners up achievements in their honours section then Man Utd should also.(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
I completely agree with "continuity" , using the same standards, not only for top English clubs, but for all football clubs that we have here. That is wy I APEAL TO EVERYBODY TO DECIDE BY VOTING SHOULD RUNNERS_UP SECTIONS BE INCLUDED AS HONOURS OR NOT?FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I would also say it would depend on the competition because if you had the runners up of all comps in the honours section it could get extremely untidy for some clubs (i.e. big clubs who dominate leagues) I would certainly agree that european runners up places should be mentioned. For big clubs who have won many honours i dont think domestic runners up awards should be included, but like i have said 'continuity'.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
List of Fulham F.C. players
I started the article List of Fulham F.C. players last night when I realised it didn't exist, with the criteria of 50 or more appearances in all competitions, with a further List of Fulham F.C. players with less than 50 appearances displaying all other players. Does anyone know of anywhere (without me having to purchase Fulham history books) to find the historical data? Most of the post-war players should be on the Neil Brown site but I am not sure about further back. Thanks. 03md08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there are any decent free sources on the internet for pre-WW2 players. Oh and, for info, when you get around to creating the second article, the title should be "fewer than 50 appearances" rather than "less than"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some help with the two pages - I have so far added the current squad and players from Neil Brown's site beginning with A, I, Q, U, V and W. The rest of the players are on that site. The site only lists league appearances so any players not on soccerbase should have question marks in the "total goals" and "total apps" columns unless they can be sourced. Thanks. 03md09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd go with FC Barcelona Atlètic, since the club has officially been renamed to it, and whenever you click on it, the article makes it easily evident that it is the B team. Just my opinion though. Best, Cocytus[»talk«]00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The club is currently named FC Barcelona Atlètic, no longer FC Barcelona B. So, as far as I am concerned, display "Barcelona Atlètic" in reference to the club after the name change. Digirami (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, "FC Barcelona Atlètic" generates 1,440,000 Google hits, while "FC Barcelona B" generates 544,000 Google hits. I don't really discuss the club, so I don't know what bearing this brings to the case. Cocytus[»talk«]16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of such, this is not about the naming of the club, as the club article was moved to FC Barcelona Atlètic when it was officially renamed as such. Consensus appears to be that is correct because the club article is still located at that page. Therefore, any player currently with FC Barcelona Atlètic should have [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona Atlètic]] on their page, as we do not make history, we record it. Players that played before it was renamed should retain "Barcelona B" for the same reason - we should not re-write history.--ClubOranjeT21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On this issue, I think the infobox should remain Barcelona B, because even the official name being Atlètic Barcelona, he is the team 'B' of Barcelona. Furthermore, it is strange 99% of players have the name Barcelona B in the infobox and only 1% (in the case, while only Jonathan dos Santos) has Atlètic Barcelona. We need a standard, not to turn mess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picolotto (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Its simple - for players who played for the club when it was known as 'B', we should put [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona B]] in the article; for players who played for the club when it was known as 'Atlètic', we should put [[FC Barcelona Atlètic|Barcelona Atlètic]]. GiantSnowman13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not simple. It is confusing to use for Barcelona B and Barcelona Atlètic for others, after the club is the same. I suggest keep Barcelona B in the infobox, because the club is even more well known. Thus, we avoid confusion with the nomenclature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picolotto (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it is more confusing to have a player play for a team called Barcelona Atlètic, and yet the article talks about a team called Barcelona B - non-football fans (and there are some out there!) won't know what's going on! GiantSnowman16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
GiantSnowman hit it on the spot. There is no point to put a current club's name under an old name. It should be referred to by its new name, and vice-versa. Using a none football (soccer) example, one would not say that Johnny Unitas played for the Indianapolis Colts, but rather the Baltimore Colts (even though its the same team). The reverse is the same for Peyton Manning; he plays for Indianapolis, not Baltimore. Jonathon dos Santos plays for Barcelona Atletic, plain and simple. Anything else would be wrong. Had he ended his stay at the club while it was still officially Barcelona B, then you would say he played for Barcelona B. Digirami (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've done a ton of editing on the last few CFU events. The CFU runs itself relatively independent of CONCACAF for its own events, and I wouldn't expect any announcements about something like that until sometime within a few months of the event. I'd lay odds on that info becoming available following the CFU Congress in February. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Dave Mehmet (born 1960) and Billy Mehmet (born 1984) are related? Obviously they share the same (rather unusual) surname, both hailed from London, and dates mean they could easily be father/son... :@) Kevin McE (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Mehmet is a bit like the Turkish equivalent of Smith and both players are of Turkish origins. May not be related. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree there are probably quite a few unrelated Mehmets in London. Dave doesn't seem to have any Irish connection either. Spiderone18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there are better way we can name the following articles which show the rounds leading up to the entry point for Ligue 2 clubs, or is this an acceptable title?
I believe the problem is size - unlike the FA Cup which is restricted to the top 10/11 levels, the Coupe de France is open to a much wider swathe of clubs - there were over 7,000 entrants last year. If you look at each fo those individual articles, they are already massive (the first-second round one is 329Kb). Merging them into a single one would make it load in about a month. пﮟოьεԻ5711:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with #57 here. WP:SIZE is the decisive factor in the split, as a single article for all "qualification rounds" would get well past the 600kb mark (by the way, what is the record for the largest WP article?). However, I would merge 2009–10 Coupe de France Qualifying Rounds directly into the main article, because it is essentially a "middle man page" linking to the QR articles without giving much further information. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head...12:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Soccer-holic in regards to eliminated the QR linking page – it doesn't provide anything of value. If all of those rounds are notable then they shouldn't be deleted, but there is so much missing data. Many of those expandable tables don't have data in them. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The size is the consequence of the Coupe de France rules. It as always been open to all French clubs, even at the lowest levels...That's why I could find my village's club in a wikipedia article....Surprising...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've always found it to be pretty reliable, especially when it comes to minor countries and their players. As far as the league/cup issue goes... I really don't know. But, on many occasions, this is pretty much the only source we have for player stats for smaller countries/teams, so even if we inadvertantly include a couple of cup games when using it as a source, it gives a better impression of a player's career than having no stats at all.--JonBroxton (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for answering my question, JonBroxton. Regarding Brazilian footballers (and/or footballers based in Brazil) certainly Futpédia is a more reliable source than national-football-teams. Does anyone disagree? --Carioca (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
From my experience with the website I can tell you that they count league appearances only.(I did found some numbers wrong by one or two appearances more or less). For less known leagues the stats are usually 0/0 , wich doesn´t mean that the player didn´t play, but only that they, the website, don´t have the stats. Unfortunatelly, I have seen some editors using the 0/0 stats in the infoboxes, but they really shouldn´t, unless they confirm it somewhere else. The major problem that I find with the website is that there are many players missing (capped ones, cases like Andrija Delibasic in Montenegro, Lamine Diarra in Senegal, recent, and other more from past years), and also some players with this season clubs still wrong. The website is "nice" but further backup sources for cheking wan´t hert. Abraço FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Futpedia is a far better source than NFT for Campeonato Brasiliero. NFT is quite useful for players in countries with few other sources, but it's also good to do further research to verify the information on NFT. My guess is that NFT simply compiles data from other sources, and they do not have data on many players from the 1980s and earlier. They also regularly miss data for players (most recently I found a Cypriot international who played in Greece - only for 6 months - that RSSSF confirmed but NFT had no information about). I think it's a "good source" but not sufficient by itself (like RSSSF or Futpedia would be). Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Steve Adlard currently says he played professionally for Nottingham Forest and Lincoln City, but although he may have been on their books, he never played at first-team level. He went on to coach in the States, so I'd be grateful if someone who knows about notability criteria for coaches in US soccer could have a look see if his US coaching career makes him notable? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
He has never coached at a professional level - only college teams - and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG at the minute, but because of the status of college soccer, he could well meet GNG if some research is done. GiantSnowman17:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, college sports in the USA is a lot different than most – if not all – of the rest of the world. Although the coaches and players technically fail ATHLETE, they usually pass GNG due to significant coverage in verifiable secondary sources. That's why we have WikiProjects such as WP:WikiProject College football (that's American football) & WP:WikiProject College basketball. As someone very familiar with the NCAA, his coaching credentials certainly appear to make him notable, but someone's got to put in the legwork to put it together. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on that one. However, that doesn't solve the issue of notability for American soccer coaches. I believe that all NCAA coaches are notable, as that is the case among American football and basketball coaches at the least. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Putting on my hat as WT:FOOTY's eternal defender of the GNG again, so long as he has had adequate coverage by reliable sources which cover college football in the States he's fine. WP:ATHLETE is descriptive rather than prescriptive: it simply states that people who have participated at such-and-such a level are guaranteed to be notable because of the guaranteed coverage they get from the sports media. Additions can and should be made as they occur. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree; saying that "all NCAA coaches are notable" simply isn't feasible, or indeed supported by any Wikipedia guidelines. However, should an article on any person meet GNG, then it's a keeper. GiantSnowman22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Stadium of Light
One user has taken it upon himself to create a disambig page for Sunderland's Stadium of Light and the Estadio da Luz and move both of the articles to (Sunderland) and (Lisbon) article names. In the past, the consensus has been generally against this, as "Estadio da Luz" means "the Stadium of Luz", as Luz is the area in which it was built. Can we get a discussion going on this? Cocytus[»talk«]17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If the Estadio da Luz means the Stadium of Luz, then it definately shouldn't be under the name Stadium of Light (Lisbon), and Sunderland's can then be moved back to Stadium of Light IMO. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The only problem is that sometimes Estadio da Luz is mistranslated as "Stadium of Light." Although, if you read the article, you'll see that this is a mistranslation. The name of the stadium is no longer even "Estadio da Luz" but "Estádio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica", but the old name is sticking. Cocytus[»talk«]17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The description above is not entirely accurate - I created the disam page and made one page move after the other user made the initial moves without discussion. I agree that those initial moves should be undone and article titles reverted to their common names per WP:COMMONNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Ukexpat for ascribing the disambig page to him by mistake. You've been most helpful thus far. I am also in favor of moving them all back, but I figured I'd get a discussion going first. Cocytus[»talk«]17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, it seems like everyone's in agreement. The page move should be requested. Sorry again Ukexpat, I had just woken up when all this started and was a little disorientated! Cocytus[»talk«]18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Could I first ask why these discussions only include the people who have vested interests in “Stadium of Light” Sunderland?
Secondly, I think it's completely obvious that the Benficas stadium, "The Stadium of Light" has been called such, in all the western world since about 1955. It has complete ownership of the name in football, for the vast majority of people (outside of the UK).
The only people in agreement are British people. Wikipedia is used by people all over the world. And it’s not just the domain of fans of UK football clubs, who think it's fair to make people search for a portugese translation of a name they use, to find this world famous ground.
This may not go down to well, but could I possibly suggest that you are merely trying to claim ownership of the search name, in order to promote the Sunderland page? And are trying to claim ownership of the term “stadium of light”.
Can I also point out, that “stadio de luz” has been referred to as “The Stadium of Light” around western Europe for at least 50 years, and it’s world famous reputation is based on this name.
I think it’s completely fair that when a football fan types in “stadium of light” to find Benficas ground, they should not just get diverted to a ground in north east England, that they’ve probably never heard of.
I think common sense dictates that Benficas ground, for much of the world, is most commonly known as “Stadium of light” and when people want to find it, they shouldn’t have to but a portugese translation book, and try to work out what the translation is.
Wikipedia is not about one page getting one over on another. The search engine should be culturally relevant. Otherwise I’ll be typing in “Reg Dwight” every time I want to find “Elton John”.
I’m sorry, Sunderland FC, in my opinion, can not solely lay claim to the term. Which is really what you are trying to do.
1) We are not trying to claim the article, 2) Myself and several others who have commented aren't Sunderland fans. As to whether it is comon sense to have it as what it is commonly called, see WP:COMMONNAME. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The page claims that articles should be searchable by their most common English name. Isn't "stadium of light" the ground's most commonly used English name? As in, outside of Portugal, it's the only name people use. This is my point. How can people actually find it, if you refuse to link it to the name everyone uses? How many people actually know the portugese for "stadium of light?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
People would find it by typing "Stadium of Light". At the top of the page would be a hatnote which would say something like "This article is about the stadium in Sunderland. For the stadium in Lisbon see Estádio da Luz." The hatnote does not need to be a multilinked essay. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I don't think I, nor any others, are trying to "own" this page. It was a controversial move done without consensus, which is generally to be avoided. Also, I'm not even British, as you claim. The tops of the pages had disambiguation information at the top to clear up any confusion. They wouldn't need a "portugese (sic) translation book", because at the top of the article it gives a link and an explanation to Benfica's stadium (which is not even officially called Estadio da Luz anymore). Cocytus[»talk«]17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not about knowing the portuguese translation or Sunderland FC trying to own the page. (Don't know where you got that idea from). Having typed Estadio de Luz into Google, the first two sites apart from wikipedia : 12, both list the stadium as being named Estadio de Luz. Well actually in fact some list it as Estadio do Sport Lisboa e Benfica. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding cjmooney's claim "How can people actually find it, if you refuse to link it to the name everyone uses? How many people actually know the portugese for "stadium of light?" if you notice the tops of the pages, it states "This article is about the home stadium of Sunderland A.F.C.. For the home stadium (Stadium of Light) of S.L. Benfica, see Estádio da Luz." It says this right at the top. A concise, simple sentence that clears up any confusion, and even offers a link to the other page. That's the way many articles handle things such as this. Cocytus[»talk«]17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. The tag was removed so i've reinstated it and will keep an eye on the articles until everything is back in place. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Could an independent viewer take a look at Gordon Chin and make suggestions as to where the POB should be located? WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death makes it quite clear the brackets next to the subject's name need only include the DOB, hence meaning the POB should shift. User:JonBroxton disagrees, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than engage in a petty edit war. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had this discussion with Jon before; the correct format is "Wiki McPedia (born 6 November 1970) is a Scottish professional footballer. Born in Glasgow, he made his professional debut in 1989..." etc. GiantSnowman14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the government was rationing electrons again. The lede needs significant expansion; start a new paragraph covering his career to date, starting with "born in ****". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
All I'm doing is trying to maintain consistency. I've spent the last 6-8 months working to bring the articles on all the players currently playing professionally in the United States into some semblance of order, replacing infoboxes with the correct versions and adding proper formatting within them, standardizing the ledes, making sure they all have correct reference and links sections, and trying to ensure they all meet basic standards whereas before a lot of them were pretty awful. I specifically checked to see whether there was an issue with having dates of birth in with the place of birth, and there isn't (as per the discussion above), so I made the decision to put place and date of birth together. I understand that other articles don't have it, and that's fine, but as there is no firm guideline one way or the other, I'd really like to have all the US player articles of a similar layout. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it: you're doing a fantastic job. As far as I'm concerned the most important thing for short bios is that they contain as much information as possible so as to allow them to be reworked later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick glance at the references, ref number 25 could do with being written out in full and one of the external links looks to be a reference. In the lead you use the words controversial and suprising, which would be viewed as POV unless referenced somewhere in the text. Also in alt text the name isn't usually mentioned. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A few things from experience: The early life section needs sourcing and expansion if possible. IMDB isn't considered to be reliable and the "television and media" section needs expansion for it to warrant its own section. There are many unsourced paragraphs in "international career" and "Tottenham" and throughout the whole article paragraphs could be merged to help the prose flow a bit. Spiderone18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
National Team World Cup Tables
I found that the flags listed on the World Cup tables of national teams such as this one were immediately indicative of where the tournaments were held. Visually the flags are informative and personally do not agree with their removal. Therefore, I would like to reopen the discussion. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I dunno why they are being removed. They are all standardized and there is nothing wrong with them and they have been around since forever and is reflecting of the community consensus to have and to keep them around here. It is just one person going around and mass-changing them. Coverangrydude —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC).
Like I said, every discussion is honorable, but about this template, it´s nice to know where they were organised, and the flags are better than words (in this case). And if there is any issue about what flags to use, I agree the way it is, using the flags that were "on duty" of the organizing country in that moment. If this is about voting, I vote YES, KEEP the FLAGS. FkpCascais (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Far too many of these tables are presented with no key, so the reader is left to guess the meaning of GP/W/D*/L/GS/GA, various shades of brown, yellow and grey, and red boxes. More importantly, the set of tables that SdlV is suggesting be rolled out includes examples such as this:
The abbreviation of such tables (and their deletion where there is no match data at all) was undertaken (and so far I've done CONCACAF, CAF and most of AFC) after unanimous agreement in that previous discussion in June, in which nobody objected to the description of the practice as "flagcruft". Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
An easy remedy would be adding a legend to clarify most of those issues instead of deleting them. The thing about the previous discussion was that it happened almost half a year ago and has now has been long archived and obscured in an already obscure location. Yet you only started mass editing recently and only then would most people take notice of the issue. As for unanimous agreement that really is misleading when only two people responded with varying levels of support and you didn't exactly make yourself clear what was to be done. Transaction Go (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, isn't there a MOS policy that says that flags must be accompanied by the name of the country the first time they're used, and not just used in isolation........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, WP:MOSFLAG - three good reasons for which are (1) so that blind and partially-sighted readers using screen readers can access the information, (2) so that colour blind readers can still easily access the information, (3) so that people using non-standard displays or text-only displays (eg via WAP) can still access the information. Using flags alone (even when introduced earlier) stops all three sets of readers using the information to some degree or other, but naming them the first time is the absolute minimum mandated. Knepflerle (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What about those flags next to the football clubs or the flags next to football players? Don't they also supposedly fall in the same format? Why is there a double standard here?
Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.
Do we really need the entirety of that list dumped here?
But in answer to your question - no, those lists should also not contain flags without country names, for exactly the same reason. It might be worth discussing here a preferred format that meets the guidelines, and an efficient way of implementing it. Knepflerle (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The flags next to the players on roster sheets should continue being shown. Clubs are composed of different squads with many players. These same rosters are so multi-national that for many readers upon first glance they will have a clearer idea of their country of origin. The displaying of national flags may also be pertinent and facilitate readers when the 6+5 rule adopted by FIFA may or may not go into effect. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
May I remind everyone that MOS:FLAG allows flags next to athlete's name without the name of the country so long as they indicate the athlete's primary sporting nationality. So at least in a club roster's, the flagicon is fine. Digirami (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please could you point out exactly where in MOS:FLAG it says that flags next to athletes' names can be used without country names on first use? It says that flags for athletes should denote their sporting nationality, but I can't find anything that says they're an exception to MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Having both the flag and the full name of a country in Current Squad sections would make the tables unreadable. Flags are a good way to present relevant information in a very short and accessible way. If the guidelines say we should use the flag and the name of country, then the guidelines are wrong and ought to be changed, imo. The rules should exist to improve the encyclopedia, they are the means to an end, but they are not the end. The rules are never more important than the encyclopedia or the reader. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
But flags alone are not accessible to at least three groups of readers. As you say, our reader is the first priority, which is why we make the information accessible to as many readers as possible. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
To be clear: flags alone are still accessible to the colour-blind people you have described above. If you place your mouse on a flag, you will see the name of the country in the bottom of the screen. Try it with the Liverpool squad that Transaction Go placed here. As far as blind and partially-sighted readers are concerned, I can imagine that they have trouble with images as well. So should we stop using images on Wikipedia? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The mouse-hover helps the colour-blind but not the other two groups. The difference between images is that here there's an incredibly simple fix for all three groups - text. We shouldn't exclude them for little reason Knepflerle (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
See thats the thing. The MOS for flags is IMHO terribly lacking and not comprehensive enough. The thing about caring for the eye handicapped group leans on the over extreme side of caution and hinders what is a perfectly decent format for the overwhelming masses. The screen reader issue is more a technical issue. TV and newspaper was once black and white. And WAP and mobile services should now (or at least over time redirect to wikipedia mobile) and is also more a technical issue. All in all the MOS is flawed IMHO and falls outside our field of scope anyway.Transaction Go (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favour of the abbreviation of the tables, and the removal of the background colours - the text on the bronze is not easy to read. A short key for the column titles would be useful. More importantly, the flags should be replaced with the name of the host country, for the reasons given above - it gives the information in a perfectly accessible, immediate format and we can safely assume all readers can access and understand English language text. Knepflerle (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
But why is the country needed at all: what relevance is it to the articles on Germany or Wales that the tournament that they were not invited to/failed to qualify for in 1950 took place in Brazil? And if the table is abbreviated, then why tell readers of the Wales articles that they failed to qualify for an event in Chile in 1962, one in South Africa in 2010, and a number in unspecified locations between those dates? Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that it's irrelevant - I am only anticipating that the country would be mentioned on tournaments that had been qualified for, because there'll only be a separate row if they qualified for it. I think we're envisaging exactly the same table, just mine has country names instead of flags. Knepflerle (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
How not having flags or at least the names of where the tournaments were held confuses readers even more unless they click on every single wiki link to access information on each individual tournament. This Copa America table is an example. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If flagicons improve the list, it would behoove me to mention ignore the rules (but, understand what it means first). I don't see this as too much of a big deal in one sense: you move the mouse pointer over the flag and the name of country appears. Perhaps a small reminder to readers about that might be enough for a middle ground. Digirami (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This does not help people using screen readers or text-only browsers (such as are common when using mobile phones for example), and is not a solution. The flags can be used of course, but only in addition to the supporting text, not instead of it. Knepflerle (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Then I'm going to have to chose to ignore that rule, especially for the club squad list. I can't imagine a new format where the addition of a country's name is going to improve the list. If someone wants to know what country the flag represents, they can learn (since they are already reading an encyclopedia) and click the flag to take them to the article on that respective country. If you have an idea for an acceptable improvement, let's hear it. Digirami (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding a nationality column would be a perfectly workable solution. For those using screen readers and text-only browsers the links may not appear at all, and they shouldn't have to repeatedly click between pages to get the same information we could provide with a single word.
Fortunately the decision to exclude large numbers of readers on a personal aesthetic quibble is not your decision to make. The consensus suggestions at WP:MOSFLAG were developed over a long time for very good reasons. Knepflerle (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You would think so, but practically speaking, when you add that information in with the existing info (such as who is the captain, loans, etc), you will get a list that will look clustered and messy (even more so with countries and players with long names). But if the addition of a country's name prevents these squad lists from looking right and does not improve the articles one bit, then we should ignore that rule. That's why IAR exists. Digirami (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Improving accessibility to those relying on article text is a clear improvement. Excluding large classes of users in the name of your personal whims on aesthetics is not improving the encyclopaedia, so you can forget invoking WP:IAR. Knepflerle (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Improvement for far less than 1% of a population is not an improvement if it comes at the expense of neat organized list that the rest of us would normally read and should expect. You have not been able to show how adding all this additional text will or will not affect the readability for normal user given some of the concerns I have raised. Given that, I can invoke IAR. Digirami (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
What most of the people "in favor" of the flags seem to be forgetting (or misunderstanding) is that these "Tables" are supposed to be aids to the text that should be present in the sections where the tables would appear. Take as examples the nicely written articles on the Peru national football team ([1] and [2]; which would be good for other South Am. FB team articles to follow, such as Chile and Argentina) and the Scotland national football team ([3] and [4], which is a good example for European FB Team articles). The tables are just there to keep record of the team's performance, not to be an international flag-fest. The textual information from the sections are by far more important and instructive than the tables.--MarshalN20 | Talk21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to add that the flag being included for the teams of a particular country (Ex. Chelsea having the English flag) are perfectly fine for the standards of nationality and its association because it has an entity (whether it be a person, club, etc.) associated to it. However, in the case of the World Cup tables, they merely have years and flags. For example, in one hand we can say that Chelsea is an English football club (which makes perfect sense, hence the flag being perfectly fine), but on the other how can we say that 1930 is a Uruguayan year (which doesn't make sense, hence the flag being a problem and not a solution)? That's the logic I see behind it anyways.--MarshalN20 | Talk21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This version includes the flags and where the World Cup was held in a text format. This way flags can be used in addition to, but not as a substitute for text. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a good change and compromise but the country and flag are in the year column which could still raise some more potential issues. So to accommodate this, a "Host(s)" column should be made. As Chandler said align it to the left. Also while I agree with abbreviating tables like the Wales ones Kevin posted above, i.e. tables that have over excessive and overdone lines on the lower end of the spectrum that when abbreviated has only a few structural changes in the table and overall probably don't deserve a table, I do not agree or at the minimum do not think it should be obligatory to abbreviate tables on the middle or upper end of the spectrum i.e. those ones that feature alot of changes. Tables should be comprehensive, proportional and unambiguous to adhere to presentation and practicality standards where possible. Just as the flags alone can be confusing and misleading so can unnecessary abbreviating them down to year ranges when the table is meant to record each cup as individual entries to which year it was held. We can't assume that the user immediately knows that the cups are held every four years nor that there were no cups in WW2. Furthermore it makes figuring out how many cups the team missed out on between year x and year y confusing and hard to figure out. Saving space (at least vertically) should not be an issue (there are much much longer tables on articles elsewhere). Just because a poor table is abbreviated doesn't mean it should be done to the good ones. Abbreviating should only be applied to those that have over excessive lines and should be applied situationally depending on the article make up (some articles have tables next to each other for example) and should not be obligatory. Transaction Go (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I´m sorry, but here are people saying that blind people can´t see the flags, but can they see the text? This doesn´t make sence... FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And for color blinded people, it was alredy said that moving the mouse the country will apear written... Now we could think about the color-blind and without arms or hands... FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not what we're saying, see screen reader. Blind people can hear the name of the country written as text using a screen reader, but they can't hear flags. And then we have people using text-only browsing to consider, who can read text but not images. Knepflerle (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Some might, but the handling is far from consistent. Commonly-used text-only browsers, such as those on many mobile phones, wouldn't handle it at all. Knepflerle (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
From what I typed above. See thats the thing. The MOS for flags is IMHO terribly lacking and not comprehensive enough. The thing about caring for the eye handicapped group leans on the over extreme side of caution and hinders what is a perfectly decent format for the overwhelming masses. The screen reader issue is more a technical issue. TV and newspaper was once black and white. And WAP and mobile services should now (or at least over time redirect to wikipedia mobile) and is also more a technical issue. All in all the MOS is flawed IMHO and falls outside our field of scope anyway. Transaction Go (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Accessibility of flags in tables
A request was made at WT:ACCESSIBILITY to comment here. Briefly:
{{flagicon}} generates flags that are accessible. For example, {{flagicon|Peru}}→ generates a flag whose alt text is "Peru", and which wikilinks to Peru, so it's accessible.
Because {{flagicon}} links to an article about a nation, it should be used only when denoting a nation in general, not when denoting a national football team as is done in some of the examples above. The template designed for that purpose is {{fb}}; for example, {{fb|Peru}}→Peru generates a flag whose alt text is empty and whose wikilink is missing; this (correctly) causes a screen reader or a text browser to ignore the flag, and just say (or show) "Peru" (the generated text, helpfully, wikilinks to Peru national football team).
When a flag appears next to an athlete the template {{flagathlete}} can be used, For example, {{flagathlete|Diego Cavalieri|BR}}→Diego Cavalieri (Brazil).
It appears that there's some sentiment in the above discussion for a template that behaves differently, and that generates the equivalent of [[File:Flag of Peru.svg|22x20px|border|link=Peru national football team|alt=Peru national football team]]→. I suggest contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template about this, on their talk page.
I wanted to delete my previous coments, but anyway, the flags used in this situations are complementary, a bonus info... The main information should be allways written in the text. Adding the word next to it will make it unussefull and complicate. This templates using flags are very much as images, the main is the text, they are "complementary". This discussion should therefore include images, and they are everywhere, not only in FootballProject. I do understand the difficulties, but this flags aren´t really important. I also doubt that the screen reader could correctly interpratate any graphics or other kind of templates. Regards FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the discussion is drifting from the specific case of national team world cup tables to the general use of flags to represent countries, I recommend moving this discussion elsewhere. Any outcome of this discussion would affect many articles. Take a tennis-related article like 2009 US Open (tennis), which uses flags in the same way as football-related articles. This discussion goes beyond the scope of this WikiProject. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the discussion is broader than just football, which is why I suggested contacting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template. If there's consensus there to add a template for textless flags of national football teams, that'd be one way to improve the tables. If not, it suggests that the tables shouldn't use flags alone to denote national football teams, and should use {{fb}} instead. Eubulides (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that in neither of these exemples the flags should indicate the National Team. In the Wourld Cup and Copa America case, the flag indicates the host country, so it should indicate the country only. In the players lists it should be the player nationality that represents: Exemple, flagITA Fabio Cannavaro , the flag should indicate that he is Italian, and not that he represents the Italian nationalteam. Anyway, they are just complementary, couse next to them (in World Cup case) is the Year that links to that year world cup edition, so it would read it anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the original point
So we are agreed that a table with lots of empty lines is unnecessary? And that the location of a tournament in which a team did not compete is irrelevant to that team's article? And that a flag should not be used without the country's name, but that many readers would like to see a flag if a country is named (although I don't know why: I would suggest that more people can read the word Thailand or Bolivia than can recognise their respective flags)? So the remaining question is whether the name (and flag) needs to be shown in these records of tournament participation (which seems inconsistent to me), or whether we simply let the reader follow the link if they want to know more about the tournament in question. In other words:
I repeat what I said above: such a change would have so many implications for other, non-football related articles, that this is not the proper venue to make such a decision. This shouldn't be decided on this WikiProject. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was such a mass change made in the 1st place??? Everything was okay and standardized since forever. Why the sudden surge in so many issues that were seemly never here in the 1st place? Coverangrydude—Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
Copied from what I typed above.
That is a good change and compromise but the country and flag are in the year column which could still raise some more potential issues. So to accommodate this, a "Host(s)" column should be made. As Chandler said align it to the left. Also while I agree with abbreviating tables like the Wales ones Kevin posted above, i.e. tables that have over excessive and overdone lines on the lower end of the spectrum that when abbreviated has only a few structural changes in the table and overall probably don't deserve a table, I do not agree or at the minimum do not think it should be obligatory to abbreviate tables on the middle or upper end of the spectrum i.e. those ones that feature alot of changes. Tables should be comprehensive, proportional and unambiguous to adhere to presentation and practicality standards where possible. Just as the flags alone can be confusing and misleading so can unnecessary abbreviating them down to year ranges when the table is meant to record each cup as individual entries to which year it was held. We can't assume that the user immediately knows that the cups are held every four years nor that there were no cups in WW2. Furthermore it makes figuring out how many cups the team missed out on between year x and year y confusing and hard to figure out. Saving space (at least vertically) should not be an issue (there are much much longer tables on articles elsewhere). Just because a poor table is abbreviated doesn't mean it should be done to the good ones. Abbreviating should only be applied to those that have over excessive lines and should be applied situationally depending on the article make up (some articles have tables next to each other for example) and should not be obligatory. Transaction Go (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh to answer Kevin's point probably the 2nd table. The key here is consistency within the tables. So what should determine the table is how many single line entries it has and in this case not many. To the IP user yeah that is true but an intermediate solution/compromise can and should be reached in the meantime. And with CAG yeah these should never have mass changed in the first place since there was nothing really blatantly or outrageously wrong with them given how long they been here but what done is done unfortunely. Transaction Go (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You put align="left" before the tab, but why create two columns for host and competitions? There's no problem calling them "Country YEAR" see [5]chandler19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are correct and thanks for the help. But while we are making changes it would be prudent to consider any potential conflicts. The flag and country just shouldn't be under a year only column lest some other anal person takes issues with it. Transaction Go (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this idea. I do have to agree that it is an improvement from the other table, but the problem is that it creates plenty of irrelevant material on several (more than 1 or 2) National Football Team articles. Not all teams have qualified to the World Cup to the extent Brazil or Argentina have, and the vast majority of the Nat. teams only have a short record of World Cup qualification (if any). Having a long list of "Did not Qualify" is completely useless and simply takes up space in the article. Moreover, the whole concept behind having a standard table is for all articles to follow it. Obviously, if one article is going to have a flag-fest while the rest don't, the standard concept is not functioning.--MarshalN20 | Talk15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and, of course, then we also have the fantastic South Korea/Japan WC. It looks terrible in the chart with the flags. I checked it out using the "br" (<>) deal, but it still didn't fit with the others.--MarshalN20 | Talk15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was exactly wy we were using only the flag... And if other people can´t see the flag, they are not missing anything important. But, the flags are quite nice for soccer-lovers. They are simple, and give a "nice" additional information. FkpFkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're saying that there is nothing important about the flag, then why exactly must it be included in the article? Read over what you just wrote, and you'll see that the argument you propose is broken in its foundations. If it's not important, it shouldn't be in the article. Also, as a football-fan, my joy is to read the history of my team, drool over my team's uniform and hope to some day by random chance be able to play with the team, and to watch football games about my team and scream my lungs out in praises or curse words; oh, and most importantly, play football. I don't play football with a flag, or a flag-pole (Unless there is no goal and I use a random flag-pole(s) for the goal). What you claim to be simple is taking up unnecessary space.--MarshalN20 | Talk01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
They're very good to identify which World Cup you're actually looking at (I personally have them "paired" in memory mostly for with country that hosted), it adds a extra layer of information very concise for the majority of readers, and as seem to have be pointed out, screen readers should pick up on alt-text and therefore the name of the country. chandler01:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a perfectly decent standard across the board before, one that stood for a substantial amount of time that was used and added by various amounts of users. I'm all for having a standard throughout the board so long as it improves the quality of the articles which is the ultimate point of our edits anywhere on this site. But this clearly isn't the case as either way you punch it there will be hindrance to a number of articles. Things should be applied situationally instead of dogmatically because of a MOS or whatever reasons. Besides it is much more important for a standard to be applied within themselves first and forthmost. · The other point I was making was that doing this provides a reasonable, easy, immediate remedy that will solve most common queries without expecting readers to (know how/where to) navigate to get such info. · Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. · They are of intrinsic importance to the section subject in relation to the article. Furthermore as chandler stated they bring intangible value that is both rewarding and enrichening. Also they do not take up unnecessary space. Just look at the edition here. It barely takes up half the width of the page, in other words you can put two of these tables side by side no problem. See above. · Finally no one has explained the double standard that is the flags without names attached to those of clubs and people in accordance to the MOS:Flags. Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like. It has nothing to do with them being an entity as you said earlier. This is a purely an accessibility issue. I don't see why this should suddenly be applied to the MOS (no matter how flawed it is) when other violations run rampant. Transaction Go (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the matter with it? Yes, it's short but can be expanded. It has a reference confirming the generally-held views on what constitutes football notability. It should probably have a stub added. Eldumpo (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The player is at the beginning of his career: the article reflects that. Are you suggesting that it would be better that the article not exost at all, although he meets notability requirements? If not, what additional info is essential? Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I get it... Nevemind... But it is quite ridiculous. Even my neighbour that has played a couple of matches in the Portuguese First League some ten years ago is more notable, and neither of us never even imagined having an article here about him... Maybe we were wrong... Sorry to bother you guys. FkpCascais (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You should see the size of some of the articles on South America footballers. But remember, the size of footballer's bios depends on a) if there are sources that talk about them, and b) if users are willing to take the time to add relevant information to someone's bio. Until that happenes, you are stuck with examples like the one above. Digirami (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should think about whether these people deserve articles. But assuming they do, that's exactly what I'd want to see. It's sourced, and it's got as much as can really be written about him. What irritates me is when I see one sentence, untouched articles where no attempt has been made to source the "content". But I daren't AfD, because I can't be bothered with the inevitable 20kb campaign in favour of keeping the unsourced sentence. WFCforLife (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to amend the player statistic tables for certain players so as either to swap the Europe category with 'Other', or to add another column for Other at the end e.g. In terms of English and Scottish football this would allow the Full Members/Associate Members/Challenge Trophy competitions to be added to the stats. Eldumpo (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So the Scottish League Division One and the Scottish League First Division are not the same thing? Can't figure out the logic there....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, they're not. It isn't entirely anagolous to the English situation because the SFL changed the names of the division to Premier, First and Second from Div One and Div Two in 1975, long before the SPL broke away in 1998. Season 1975/76 saw re-organisation with the League undergoing major structural change, with the introduction of three Divisions of 10, 14 and 14 and re-named the Premier, First and Second Divisions respectively. per the SFL history page. ie "SFL Division Two" became the "SFL First Division" in 1975, whereas in England the Football League First Division pretty much continued on as if nothing had happened when the Premier League broke away. As I said earlier, Scottish Football League Division One should have its own article, but it certainly should not redirect to the First Division article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to 1975ish, there was a Scottish first division and a second division. After that, there was a Scottish Premier Division, a First Division and a Second Division. So the old first division was the top tier, and the new first division is the second tier. Hope this helps. --hippo43 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of the history (I'm almost old enough to remember the pre-Premier Division days), it just seems bizarre to state that (in any league) "Division One" and "the First Division" are distinct and separate entities. Am I understanding that you are saying that prior to 1975 the top division was called "Division One" but was not called "the First Division" and since 1975 the second tier has been called "the First Division" but has not been called "Division One"? Surely the two names are just interchangeable? Or maybe it's just me being thick. It wouldn't be the first time..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what it is. The old Scottish Division One is now the SPL, and the old Scottish Division Two is now the Scottish First Division. Scottish Division One and Scottish First Division are not the same thing. I know it's a little bizarre, but the original redirect was correct. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Errr, you do know that the first list is sortable eh?. Seems kind of redundant to me to make yet another list duplicating the same information.--ClubOranjeT09:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
"Greatest" claims
Way back in 2007, I started a topic on the insertion of "greatest" claims in football articles. These typically claim that X is "regarded by many as one of the greatest/the greatest footballers of all time". These claims breach WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL and should be removed. The leads should simply state the player's awards/achievements, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. For example, Cruyff's article is correctly worded, Maradona's and Puskás' are not. Opinions on removing these type of claims? Stu’Bout ye!16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a clear case of failing POV, and so should be removed. However, if a WP:RS says something like "Player X is considered one of the greatest players in the history of Burkino Faso", then I would say include it and reference it. GiantSnowman16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
But it should be attributed. ie, "GiantSnowman considers Stu to be one of the grestest Wikipedians", or "GiantSnowman's 2009 poll found Stu to be one of Wikipedia's grestest editors" not just "Stu is considered one of the grestest Wikipedians". Assuming GiantSnowman is an authority on the subject :-) Most of the articles involved don't have claims like these, just results of various surveys as the source. In these cases the results of the survey should just be stated. Stu’Bout ye!16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, it should be put into context. If it just says "this player is a legend" or "this player is the best ever", then remove at once. Oh, and I think you'll find that my 2009 poll found JohnnyPolo24 to be one of Wikipedia's grestest editors; a late flurry of votes put you into second place Stu! GiantSnowman17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the statement 'one of the greatest' is a bit pov on most footballers bio's who have had success. But on the likes of someone like maradona or pele it would be suited. Although statements like 'one of the most sucessfull' are generaly unquestioned.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC))
If an article, in this example Messi's, states that "he finished as runner-up in 2007 and 2008 for the FIFA World Player of the Year award" then I think it's pretty well understood by the name of the award that he's one of the best in the world. The encylopedia needs to reflect verifiable facts, not opinions. The same should go for examples of players who have had notable success for their own countries. Landon Donovan is probably the best-ever American in the sport, but again, to say so would be POV; it's preferred to highlight his six Honda Player of the Year awards and American international scoring records than to use superlatives. Facts trump opinion. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Staff in US soccer squad templates
Squad templates from every county in the world have manager only, yet American ones, such as Real Salt Lake, have multiple staff...is this acceptable? Personally I think this is too much - where do we draw the line? - but want some consensus before we start editing them, as I have had my edits reverted. GiantSnowman01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that someone had done it on the San Jose Earthquakes template, and thought it was a useful, informative addition, so I added the same info to all MLS and USL squad templates. I like it, and providing we limit it to the main three of four people (General Manager, Head Coach, Assistant Coaches) I don't see a problem. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
But surely we want uniformity across football articles of all nations? And outside the US, there isn't such things as General Managers etc. GiantSnowman01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Uniformity on the quality of the information, absolutely. Uniformity on the way stats are collected, absolutely. Uniformity of what info is in club template boxes - not necessarily. The info that's available varies from country to country, and what is important to one country is not always important to another country. As you say, General Managers don't really exist outside the US, but they are an integral part of US sports teams... as for the others, I actually think adding the senior assistant coaches to club templates (like adding Ray Wilkins to Chelsea for example) would be a nice touch, and would give more at-a-glance detail to the club templates with regard to the most senior backroom staff. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I could perhaps see adding an Assistant Manager to squad templates, but beyond that we are entering a slippery slope - where do we stop? Physio? Kitman? Groundsman? Receptionist? etc. GiantSnowman01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest having no more than four or five staff members per squad template. Head Coach/Manager, obviously. One, perhaps two senior assistant coaches. The senior goalkeeper coach. And perhaps one more "management" person, like a General Manager for US teams, or the person in the Sven Goran Eriksson role at Notts County or its equivalent. I think that would add a nice level of management/coaching detail to the templates without going overboard.--JonBroxton (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with assistants, but the General Manager/Head Coach setup is an essential part of sport generally in the USA. I think limiting it to those two is the way to go. 82.13.161.114 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We stop wherever the notability stops. That apparently varies from country to country. I'd be cautious about including the "four or five staff members" JonBroxton suggested unless they're covered by multiple secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk08:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to the financial structure of American sports, the GM role is integral in all major professional sports: soccer, American football, basketball, ice hockey, and baseball. The GM performs all roster and personnel moves as well as all contract negotiations. The coach/manager is generally only tasked with the "in-game" aspect of the sport, though occasionally in American sports those roles are both handled by the same person, such as Bruce Arena for the Los Angeles Galaxy. To my point though: I think that the GM role should be included where applicable. I could also easily understand the inclusion of top assistant coaches. I guess one way to put it is: is the 37th senior roster player more notable than the coaches/managers? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Category:Georgia (country) international footballers
This actually came across my mind when I was creating some articles on Georgian footballers recently. I would agree with you. Unless Georgia (the state) decides to secede from the Union, I don't think we're going to be running into Category:Georgia (state) international footballers. And if secession does happen, I think a lot of things that are more important will need editorial attention. I'm in favor of this change. Best, Cocytus[»talk«]04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This proposal never should have been placed in the speedy rename section, since it actually directly contradicts speedy criterion #6 that is listed there. If it is going to have any hope of renaming, it needs to be nominated for a full discussion. Once it gets opposed at the speedy stage, it can be removed after 48 hours. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I recently added some more detail to Jaime Moreno's biography, but now the text I added to the page appears in a small font, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to make it appear in normal size. Can anyone help? It's two sections towards the bottom of the page. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if someone can help me to understand better this tag. I like it, it is quite usefull for players biographies which were donne some time age and never actualised since then, but I also find it in cases where it doesn´t wuite make sence. The exemple I talking about (I saw more, but now I remember this one) is about Nenad Jestrović. He is currently in an advanced time of his career, he´s without club, waitting for some good contract, if not, he´ll hang-up his boots. So, hi´s situation is Curret club: Free agent, wright? Hi´s situation is not "unknown", as the tag says. Should I remove the tag? I have also another question. There is some User:Rettetast that is removing the "Retired" or "Free agent" from the current club place in the infoboxes. Is he right? He makes sence, by saying that those words are not clubs... but on the other way, using this words makes a reader understand inmedistely his current status. Any sugestions? FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The infobox documentation has long said to not include the current club when there are none. I also think it would be bad page design to say that the current club is "retired" or something similar. However the information is important and should first sentence in the lead. But the infobox should a short summary of some facts from the article and the goal should not be that it contains all important information. Rettetast (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I just want to know if there is consensus about it, so I do it myself when find those situations or when I´m making some biography in that situation. Regards.FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the principle of recording 'foreign' players in domestic leagues is a sound one, although not sure if it warrants one for each season. Would it be too arbitrary to split by decade? Also, I notice that Andy Dorman is included on the list under Wales, but his article states that he has expressed an interest in playing for England, Wales or USA, so maybe he should move to the England section as he's English born? Eldumpo (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
An overview of foreign players in the league throughout its entire history? Fine. Season-by-season? Nonono. And Dorman should be moved to England until he reresentes a different nation. GiantSnowman12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
None of these lists are worth anything, whatever time period they cover, unless each player has a reference to prove they played in the league in question and one to prove they hold the nationality in question. Preferably instead of the flags. Also, not at all sure that "foreign" is a suitable choice of word to use in the title... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To those wondering where Dorman should go, take a look at this, spotted on the page: "A player is considered foreign if he is not eligible to play for the national teams of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland." (Although I wouldn't include the RoI in the "non-foreign" teams.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done)13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, FIFA are far from perfect, and in many cases not a particularly good source. But between those two sources I would personally trust FIFA more. WFCforLife (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, RSSSF (which reveals Voisey played in a Victory International in 1919), doesn't list the manager. Do you have a source which does so I can add it to the article? Cheers, GiantSnowman18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"England - Player by Player" by by Graham Betts has a short bio for Voisey, but says nothing about acing as "manager" for England. Sorry - but I will add his dates of birth/date to the article. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Suicide is precisely what the German police say: "Wittke erklärte, dass alles darauf hindeute, dass es sich um Selbsttötung gehandelt habe" (Wittke (police spokesman) declared that everything looks like has been a suicide) kicker.de. So the IPs may have a point. Madcynic (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Spiegel online, his agent has confirmed it was a suicide, although I don't know what facts are behind that statement. Press conference scheduled for tomorrow. Madcynic (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Can Angus be a short form of Andrew? I have often noticed that UK sources tend to use short form, whereas continental use full names.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
His name was Angus M. E. Carmichael according to the Litster CDROM of postwar players in Scotland. There was an Andrew Carmichael playing for Kilmarnock 1954-57 (no appearances for the first team) but I don't think that was the player in the Olympic team Angus was a fullback, Andrew an outsideleft --Cattivi (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Has already earned four caps for Mexico but is somehow eligible to play for the US- what's up with that?!? Can someone enlighten me please? GiantSnowman23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The article says that there is a new FIFA rule whereby "players of any age can make a one-time change of footballing nationality if they hold citizenship in their new country and have not played in a competitive match at senior level for their previous country". It looks like Castillo has only played in friendlies and youth internationals for MEX, never a full competitive game, and so is eligible to make a switch because he was born in the USA. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the key word is 'competitive' rather than 'senior'. Maybe if he'd played for Mexico in a World Cup qualifier, or a CONCACAF Gold Cup game, as opposed to friendlies, it might be different. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that Castillo's article needs rewording then - saying he "has yet to make an appearance for Mexico in an official match" is just plain wrong. GiantSnowman23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Goal.com says that "FIFA relaxed the rules on switching national teams, letting players of any age make the shift, provided he does not have any senior caps" - but Castillo does have senior caps, four of them according to his article and three according to NFT. GiantSnowman23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Right. So it looks as though all Castillo's senior caps came in games which were not part of official competitions; i.e. friendlies, which when combined with his US citizenship would make him eligible to switch. I agree that his article needs re-wording to make this clearer. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In resonse to the Novo and Almunia remark, it's not FIFA rules stopping them. The respective FA, SFA, IFA and FAW have an agreement not to use players in this way, for fear that it could threaten the future of four seperate national teams if players are declared eligible for "England" or "Scotland" based on becoming "British". Unfortunately, this doesn't sell papers, so the press decide to ignore it. WFCforLife (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
F.W. Hobbs
A goalkeeper by the name of F.W. Hobbs played 24 Football League games for Blackpool in 1927–28, but he isn't listed in Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. If anyone finds him in one of their books, please pass on his full name. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
And Mobbs went on to play for Grantham Town - "Goalkeeper who had previously made appearances for Gainsborough Trinity, Blackpool, where he played in 24 games during their 1927/28 Division Two season, Aldershot and Newark Town. He played for Grantham in the first game of the 1930/31 season at Mansfield Town and then missed just two league fixtures during the whole season. Died 1973 at Gainsborough." Nanonic (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Playing for Al-Hilal probably makes him notable anyway. They're fully professional, and one of the best teams in the AFC. That said, it could do with an Arabic source or two IMO (I doubt English equivalents exist). WFCforLife (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Internal linking help
Greetings all. I created this article today and have been working on it meticulously. I could use some help with some of the internal linking to subsections within the article. I want the qualification links in the table of the first phase of the Clausura to go to their respective groups in the tournament, and not to the Apertura groups. I don't know how to do that, so can someone do that for me or show me how? Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I've fixed them. I might have missed some but hopefully you can get the general idea from those edits. Let me know if you need any more help. WFCforLife (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup. General consensus was the deviation from WP:COMMONNAME in the interests of a little consistency is a good idea for cup competitions, especially as when they're being discussed in past tense they are frequently referred to by their generic names by reliable sources (as it would confuse readers to refer to them by obsolete sponsored titles). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sponsors are ephemeral, and can lead to confusion. Take the Football League Cup as an example. In its history it has been the League Cup, Milk Cup, Rumbelows Cup, Coca-Cola Cup, Worthington Cup and now Carling Cup (plus any I have forgotten). Oldelpaso (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All those cases are not the same, for example the Emirates Cup, Umbro Cup, Setanta Sports Cup (and perhaps others) they don't have any underlying names, those names are not only sponsor names, but the actual names. A big difference from the Carling Cup vs. the Football League Cup imo. There could be the same deal with Veikkausliiga which is the name the league was founded with. chandler19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.
Chandler - I did not say they were like that for the same reason. I said the opposite. I actually said myself that they were like that for different reasons.
The point I am demonstrating is that occasionally there are cases where we use the sponsored name. Therefore, saying that we always, always, always use unsponsored names is false. This is hardly complicated. Knepflerle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you're arguing against something that nobody has said. I don't believe that anyone has argued that we should contrive up names like "Arsenal pre-season friendly tournament" for the Emirates Cup. The question was "is there a reason that these particular articles use the sponsored names while their footballing equivalents don't", and all the examples given were temporary sponsorship situations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We understand the difference, but the guidance above might have been misunderstood by the casual reader, and the myth propagated further.
It's important to make crystal-clear that any statement of the type "Tournament names/Stadium names don't use names of sponsors" is just not true. It's a mistake so often repeated in discussions that it needs putting to bed once and for all. Let it be on record that there is a small class of examples where we do use the sponsored name, even if the majority do not. Knepflerle (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I think in a cases like Gambrinus liga Knepflerle has a point, that is a sponsor name on a league, which seems to be named 1. Liga [7] (uefa doesn't use sponsor names for any leagues I've seen, the exception being the Finnish league which might be an exception just because it not just a sponsor name but the only name), Czech WP has it at "1. česká fotbalová liga" chandler00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The issue on that particular article appears to be that nobody can decide on a generic title, according to the move discussion. In that case, going with what appears to be the universally-acknowledged common name (including sponsor) is the least worst option. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Chandler, that's an interesting point about the name of the Czech league on the Czech WP. So although there's been a lot of banter, it doesn't sound as if anything has changed. Avoid sponsored names where possible, but use sponsored name if a non-sponsored commonname consensus can't be determined or a non-sponsored name simply doesn't exist. Am I right?
Additionally, I'd be in favor of moving the Gambrinus liga – and other similar examples where an official name if available – to its official name. The Gambrinus Liga talk page shows two previous move discussions, but those discussions occured 1½ years ago. The latter discussion produced 3 of 4 editors supporting a move, but all three supporting a different move. Because of that, I'd like to open it up here first since more eyes will see it. Czech 1. liga, Czech First League, or what? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't move it just for the sake of moving it. I'd prefer to see what English reliable sources (preferably journalistic rather than statistical or official) refer to it as before any decision is made here. It's not doing irrepairable harm to our naming conventions right now, so there's no urgency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
One step ahead of you... er, kind of. But that's exactly why I didn't actually nominate it for a move. What's wrong with having "Gambrinus Liga" redirect to a proper name? It's very possible for Gambrinus to drop their league sponsorship, similar to the example of Carling to the Football League Cup. If and when Gambrinus does that, 'Gambrinus Liga' will become a redirect anyway. Similar to all of the redirects that lead to 'Football League Cup'. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Search engines pick up on the current title. It avoids unneeded overhead on having thousands of links going through a redirect instead of being direct. And basically all the other reasons behind WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is handy only insofar as it provides some benefit to readers and editors, which moving this to either an opaque Czech title or a contrived English one would not do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm updating some of the articles on current MLS head coaches; can someone with access to such things please take a look at the article for Gary Smith (footballer born 1968) and see if they can fill in the stats blanks for his playing career? Soccerbase doesn't go back that far... Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was about to fill in the stats from www.allfootballers.com, but the chronology differs from the article. www.allfootballers.com gives:
1985-86: Fulham - 1 appearance
1986-87: Colchester United - 11 appearances
Then (no dates as not in Football League): Enfield, Wycombe Wanderers, Welling United
1993-94: Barnet - 9 appearances
1994-95: Barnet - 4 appearances
Then (no dates as not in Football League): Aylesbury United
I was wondering whether allfootballers gives historical data for cup and other matches for all players? If so, can someone with a subscription help me out with sourcing List of Fulham F.C. players and List of Fulham F.C. players with fewer than 50 appearances. I have added most players who have complete stats on soccerbase (1996-97 until 2009-10) but for older players Neil Brown only lists league appearances. Please let me know if you can help. 03md16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I recently nominated the article for FA review. I wanted to post a notification of that here and invite any of the project members to join in the review and provide feedback. Thanks! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Georginio Wijnaldum
Does Georginio Wijnaldum look strange to anyone else? This is what it looks like to me, can't exactly figure out what's wrong with the page. JACOPLANE • 2009-11-12 18:49
Hello WP:FOOTBALL, hopefully you guys can help out here. I stumbled upon 1. deild some time ago, and have been puzzled over whether any action needs to be taken in regards to the name of the article. 2. deild redirects to Faroe Islands 2. deild, so I figure that at the very least, the article ought to be moved to Faroe Islands 1. deild, correct? Further, each season of 1. deild football seems to have its own article, from 1. deild 1976 all the way though 1. deild 2004. Is there some kind of naming convention for seasonal articles that WP:FOOTBALL employs? I figure again at the least that these should be renamed to Faroe Islands 1. deild 1976, etc., but I wanted to clarify and get additional opinions.
So, my question is...what exactly should be done with these articles? First, are they notable enough to exist? Second, do they need to be renamed? Those are the issues to be figured out first. Thanks for any and all input, GlassCobra20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of WP:SOCCER, but thanks for popping by anyway ;). The league is notable enough, although I'm not sure about the seasons. As for the naming convention, we have Football League Championship, Serie A, Division 1 and Fußball-Bundesliga. On that basis I don't think 1. deild is a particularly bad name, but they should definitely be consistently named.
I don't know the leagues, but assuming 1. deide karla is the correct name, my suggestion would be to name the Faroese articles 1. deild and 2. deild, keep the Icelandic articles as they are, and potentially put hatnotes on the Faroese and Icelandic articles leading to the other country's similarly named division. WFCforLife (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Faroese 1. deild also has a second name (at least in here), as its season articles go under 2009 Faroe Islands Premier League Football, for example. The Faroese league system in general spans only over four levels. The Icelandic 1. deild karla ("karla" meaning "men", by the way), however, is the second level of the Icelandic league system, with the Úrvalsdeild being the top league there.
What should be done now? Well, given that we have two leagues named 1. deild, and assuming WP:NAME has been correctly applied, it would probably be the best to turn 1. deild into a disambiguation page and rename the articles 1. deild (Faroe Islands) and 1. deild (Iceland), respectively. If WP:NAME has not been used appropriately, determine the most common name for the Faroese top league and put it there. Once this has been done, move all season articles to the agreed new names (and don't forget to use the format "<season> <name>" as per this consensus). Finally, move the related categories and stuff. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head...09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We might wanna opt for naming these leagues in English translations. Bundesliga is called Bundesliga in English, rather than Federal League, and that is fair enough, but I seriously doubt these leagues have any common name in English. And incidentally, all national leagues are notable, even if some countries are very small. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Fenerbahçe S.K.
User:Cambazero has a habit of adding players to the squad list of Fenerbahçe S.K. regardless of whether they play for the club or not. They've been warned several times but to no avail. Could an admin keep an eye and perhaps block if they persist? Ta. Dancarney (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well since he (I assume) has an account, protecting that article won't stop him from editing/vandalizing it. I guess you can try blocking him completely. If anyone out there knows how to do that, help the guy out. Digirami (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The article is already semi-protected. I was suggesting a block on the user, which I've figured out how to request properly. Dancarney (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my monners (this question is originally written in Talk:CAF Women's Championship). In the official website of CAF, this competition is called African women Championship. What would we do? Should the title of this article be changed? or can we leave it as it is? If you have some knowledge on African women's football or CAF football competitions, please help me. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Krisztián Németh
Anyone know where I get the details for Krisztián Németh's U21 appearances. I can find three so far, against Luxembourg (06/06/09); Wales (12/08/09) and Italy (13/11/09). I am pretty sure he made his debut for the U21s as far back as 2008, maybe 2007. Anyone provide me with a source to check, so I can update the infobox Steve-Ho (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
WikiLinking ATHLETE failures consensus
Do we have a consensus anywhere on wikilinking (red-link) WP:ATHLETE failures in club articles? There are plenty of clubs about that pass criteria themselves, but have squad lists where the largest proportion of them fail, and probably fail WP:GNG as well, but all players have redlinks which just seems to me to be an encouragement for editors to create a deletable article. --ClubOranjeT04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. Are you talking about possibly deleting a club article based on the fact that a squad's list is mostly red-linked? Digirami (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think he means squad members at league clubs who have not played a match that would render the player notable, or regular members of a Conference team who have never been attached to a league club, although many of his treammates might have done (if the Anglo-centric example can be forgiven). I remembering asking the question a year or two ago, and the reply was that they should be "blacklinked": red-links suggest that an article should exist but as yet does not, which is not the case for such players. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct Kevin, no beef with the club article, but if it is an article on a low level non-professional club (ie, second tier NZ) then I don't think the players should be redlinked as they have no notability by virtue of playing for that club, and should only be linked if a legitimate article exists--ClubOranjeT08:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely delink them. More often than not, when an entire low-level squad is linked en masse, one or two players with relatively common names may appear blue but actually link to a completely irrelevant article. Bettia(talk)09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:WEB, any who are likely to get articles (i.e. anyone who probably passes notability, but who doesn't have an article) should be redlinked. The rest shouldn't, for the given reason. In practice this doesn't matter for English teams (because they've got enough eyes that articles are usually created for players the minute they hit the ATHLETE threshold) but it's worth remembering for other leagues. For instance, by a quirk of history and the nuances of the GNG anyone who plays for Ayr United should be notable even though the players in question might be part time (the Scottish First Division is treated as fully pro even if it isn't in practice), so the whole squad should be redlinked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree on principle, although I'm sure there is going to be an exceptions (none that I can think of off the top of my head, but it's possible). It's likely that there are players out there who at their present situation do not meet the notability of ATHLETE, but probably did sometime in their career. Digirami (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary: my example above about ex-league players at Conference clubs gives an example of players blue-linked although their current status would not merit it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That's absurd. Would you delete an article on the Premier League in favor of the 2009-10 season articles? The articles just need some work on them. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting very confused by the career stats table on Sean Morrison's page - basically I'm trying to include his loan to Southend in the 2009-10 season, but can't seem to work it out. Anybody care to help me out? Thanks, GiantSnowman11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Stats are grouped primarily by club, not by season, so I would suggest that if he returns to play further games for Swindon this season, that those games be added to the already existing row for Swindon in 2009-10; if the move to Southend becomes permanent that a bracketed note of loan status at Southend be removed at that stage. I would suggest that loans don't need a subtotal. I have set up a sub-page of my user page rather than have lots of tables on this talk-page, and am perfectly happy for others to post their suggestions there. I do this without checking precedent. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thorpe made his debut for Blackpool on 29 March 1911 and appeared for the final time on 25 October 1913, at which point he was sold. In that time, he played in all of the club's 98 League and (FA) Cup games. It's not a record for the club — Georgie Mee holds that accolade with 195 — but it must be up there for a games available/games played ratio. - Dudesleeper / Talk17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - the official Blackpool club historians are Gerry Wolstenholme and John Cross. Wolstenholme tends to write the club history books. The earliest book I have, "The Khaki Years" goes back to the 1915-16 season only. I have contact details for John Cross if needed?--♦Tangerines♦·Talk21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
From youth squad
Currently working on List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10 and wonderd if players that raised from the youth squad and are given a contract with the senior team are counted as a signing of the club and should be added to the list? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
^There was no official World Cup Third Place match in 1930; The United States and Yugoslavia lost in the semi-finals. FIFA now recognizes the United States as the third-placed team and Yugoslavia as the fourth-placed team, using the overall records of the teams in the tournament.[2]
^There was no official World Cup final match in 1950.[3] The tournament winner was decided by a final round-robin group contested by four teams (Uruguay, Brazil, Sweden, and Spain). However, Uruguay's 2–1 victory over Brazil was the decisive match (and also coincidentally one of the last two matches of the tournament) which put them ahead on points and ensured that they finished top of the group as world champions. Therefore, this match is often considered the "final" of the 1950 World Cup.[4] Likewise, Sweden's 3–1 victory over Spain (played at the same time as Uruguay vs Brazil) ensured that they finished third.
Rather than expecting us all to go and review the style guides, please clarify what elements of them are better met by this?
Why is the readers' attention to be drawn to those matches that were settled on penalties or after extra time by having them in colour? They are no more important than other finals/play offs. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As said, it's based on the Featured list, so I presume it follows the guidelines that exist for lists... different colour probably not because they're more important but because they're special cases. chandler07:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur with User:Kevin McE. The notation is enough, colour just emphasizes that which needn't be emphasized.--ClubOranjeT09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I think this is a huge improvement over the current table: clean and informative without statistical overload. That said, rather than using a key, could unusual conclusions just be explained inline? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I prefer this to the existing table: neater and shorter, with no loss of info. An alternative was proposed in the referenced earlier discussion, in which the scores for the third place play off were omitted, and notes were integrated into the columns, rather than having a column of its own: such potential variants might be something that people want to bear in mind in comments here. Is it our intention that whatever table we agree on here become the project's preferred format for all such tables: there are similar ones on articles for continental championships etc. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't make a difference for me. Neither "work" as they should in 800x600, both work in 1024x768. And I say removing the third place match and people won't get the overview to see how the third and forth places are decided, nor that at 2 World Cups decided in different ways from the other chandler17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I was led to believe that this was presented as a summary, not as an almanac. It is arguable that any number of ways could be used to differentiate between third and fourth place over the various tournaments which this style is supposed to cover. It could also be argued that as this is just a proposed layout and not actually some template with a rigid format that it can be easily tweaked on a per-article basis if specific detail is required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
or alternative spelling... Was just getting round to adding some references to it, and noticed the different spellings, both in the article and in the real world. Ages ago, the page was moved to McCaffery, and then back to the current McCaffrey, with the edit summary "spelling was right after all". However, although -rey is the more frequent spelling and the one used by Neil Brown (the only source currently in the article), there are several decent reliable sources, including Soccerbase, Carlisle United website list of managers, and the 1990-91 Rothmans yearbook, which have -ery. Anybody got any opinions as to whether the spelling was right after all? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Following up on that, contemporary reports from The Times over several years, some now cited in the article, consistently use the -ery spelling, so I've copied a version of this thread to the talk page, and intend to move the article to what seems to be the correct spelling, unless there are any sound objections. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Players infobox2
Hi. I have been having a major problem. Since I´m editing many players biographies, in many cases I´m completing players careers with many missing information in the infoboxes. In many cases (like 50%) it´s the missing clubs from the early careers, and the "new" infoboxes make me that job much more difficult, since it makes me have to change all the clubs in the sequence, while in the "old" infobox, it was just adding it. This way, many times, I end giving up adding clubs since it´s much work to do it. But, it´s sad, since having the complete as possible careers it would be nice... I find this a major minus in the new infoboxes ( club1, club2, club3,...). Opinions? Help? FkpCascais (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It may take a little bit more time, but using the new infobox is not only (in my view) easier and nicer on the eye, it is actually neccessary for accessibility & readability reasons. GiantSnowman19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has been using this exclusively lately as well to create women's soccer profiles, I agree that it's definitely a pain in the butt. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way around it and it's just something we have to live with. The end result for Infobox2 definitely looks much better than Infobox1, so it's worth it in the long run. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I found it a little bit of extra work, but after a bit I switched to a format that makes it easy to copy lines up or down, then it is simply a matter of copy-paste and whizz through changing the 1 to 2, 3, 4 etc.. eg:
One or two users don't seem to like it and re-format to single line per parameter, but once I've filled it out I don't care that much if that's how people like to spend their time. I've seen a couple of other users use similar format but puts clubs second - I find that a bit harder to read because all club names are different lengths, and my way makes it easy to keep fields line up for easy reading. --ClubOranjeT07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...but still it is much of a problem when I find some source with clubs for the early career couse I have to change the numbers in all the sequence to include some club or clubs at the begining. That has been the main reason I was delaying the use of new infoboxes couse many times I´m completing the careers throuot some period of time, being the initial clubs the ones that are harder (but not impossible) to find. What happends if I do it in one line as the old one? FkpCascais (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If you mean "do it in one line" as in "stick all the clubs in one field separated by line break tags", then you have the same problem that footybio2 was designed to eliminate: that the format of the box makes it impossible for screen readers to match clubs with years. I should point out that in the end we're going to get a bot to update all the existing articles to use the new format: if you feel more comfortable using the old format then go ahead and do so. An infobox which is temporarily inaccessible is better than no infobox at all, and it's best if our most productive editors are kept productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally have been using infobox2 and have no complaints. Each has their pros and cons. While I do agree the re-numbering is sometimes a pain, in the overall scheme of things I prefer 2 to 1, and that's why I use it. To each his own, however. Cocytus[»talk«]13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know and agree that it also looks nicer. Well, if somebody anytime remembers a way to make me easier my "early careers" inclusion, let me know. I thank you all very much for your opinions. Regards for all! :) FkpCascais (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at, every time you have to add missing clubs to a players early career you have to manually change lots of numbers instead of just adding a few <br>s. It's annoying, but it wouldn't be such a problem if people took the time to properly research a players career before creating an article and misleading career chronology.
But theres little hope of making people do things properly when editors like Mario1987 and his sockpuppets were allowed to get away with creating misleading and inaccurate junk for years before he was recently indefblocked for his sockpuppet abuse and copyvios. King of the NorthEast19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That infobox is a load of rubbish - his official profile only says he played for Arsenal (as youth), Crystal Palace, Brentford, and Tamba Bay Rowdies, before moving into non-league - nothing about the other League clubs he apparently played for, or his spellin Holland. The guy fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG! GiantSnowman11:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a free source to confirm that? It seems you have to pay a fiver to view that info :( All I can find on this subject is a forum discussion saying he played against Barnet, which may well be correct but wouldn't cut as far as verifiability goes. Bettia(talk)12:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Rothmans he was a used sub First round second leg against Barnet. Also born 1-11-1971 in York. (Same source) He never played for RKC--Cattivi (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The career in the infobox from Hereford down to RKC is an exact duplicate of the career of Phil Starbuck who managed Hednesford in the past --Cattivi (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Have we agreed on a standard format for these? Some clubs list everything in various corresponding Group/List pairs, but others greatly utilize the Above and/or Below fields to link to articles and/or sections in the club's main article. Some articles use club colors on the Title bar while most others utilize colors on the Groups as well. Some utilize an outline around the Title bar. There are other variances as well. Do we even want to bother with building a consensus? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's practical to come up with hard rules. Our coverage of different clubs varies enormously in depth, and what works for one won't work for others. The simple advice to stick to the layout suggested by {{navbox}} (i.e. stick to horizontal rows and use key-value if it's practical) should see us fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation
Is there a standard? i.e. (footballer born 1990) > (goalkeeper)
If there preference is for the birth year to be the standard then I will change all the Port Vale players, also changing their namesakes, to reflect this preference.
Agree. Just to clarify though, (footballer) is preferable to (footballer born 1988), but (footballer born 1988) should be used if there are two or more footballers. WFCforLife (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case, disambiguate using year of birth.
But in response to GiantSnowman's comment, I think the order for approaching disambiguation should be first nationality then year of birth for the simple fact that footballers are more likely to be known by their nationality than the year they were born.
And to future queries, what is mentioned here are broad guideline. If there is a better way to disambiguate, like between Rafael Márquez and Rafael Márquez Lugo, use it. Or, as what has been done with many Brazilian footballers because their prolific use of common nicknames (like Anderson), use the players' real names. Digirami (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
But what about nationalities that are controversial, such as footballers from Northern Ireland? Due to the many problems regarding "POV" (a load of bull in my opinion), some Irish editors insist on using "(Northern Ireland footballer)", while the corect denonym is "(Northern Irish footballer)" - so which one do we use consistently throughout Wikipedia? Using DOB is just so much more hassle-free! GiantSnowman11:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hassle free, but it is an odd way to disambiguate footballers based on a relatively unknown, rarely mentioned fact. There are two articles Cristián Suárezs out right now. I guarantee you that they are more than likely to be known, and differentiated, by their nationality (Cristián Suárez the Chilean, and Cristián Suárez the Ecuadorian), than their year of birth. This would go across the board. Hypothetically, should another footballer named Leo Messi comes along and he was Mexican, I'd think he would more likely be know for that than the year he was born and we would/should disambiguate based on his nationality (the original, in this case, would not need disambiguation because of his fame). Digirami (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Where nationality is controversial it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. On the specific subject of the term "Northern Irish", the forced retirement of the primary antagonist in that domain should hopefully put an end to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the Irish leagues are controversial. This player appears to have won a League title and played in a Cup final, so I'd say he was notable. I'll give the article a wee tidy up to make it look presentable. GiantSnowman21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the IFA Premiership get enough RS coverage that we can just declare it notable by default? I'd very much like for us to go by the spirit of the rule rather than constantly poring over contracts (which is quite literally wikilawyering). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk02:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias might be a useful read. Do you also do the same for New Zealand National Soccer League as I see bucket loads of press on that... and the Victorian Premier League and the NSW Premier League, I see plenty of coverage of those. What about the Maltese Premier League, judging by previous arguments there is plenty of coverage of that in Malta. Then there is the Cypriot First Division, Veikkausliiga, Algerian Championnat National.... Do you just want to do the IFA Premiership or do you arbitrarily want to declare FAI Premier Divisionfully-pro too? I see bugger all coverage of either of those myself and all I see coming from this is another spate of 5-minute wonders who have not actually done anything notable. Lowering the notability bar just should not even be discussed until the notables are covered. And until then they should not rely on WP:ATHLETE, they should be proven to pass WP:GNG --ClubOranjeT00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite get this. You say at the start of that comment that you see "bucket loads of press" on some less notable leagues, and then at the end (after a list which may or may not be in decreasing order of notability) you say you see "bugger all coverage". Are both of those comments intended to refer to the same leagues? This certainly wasn't a request for a general lowering of our NGs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk09:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"Do you just want to do the IFA Premiership or do you arbitrarily want to declare FAI Premier Division fully-pro too? I see bugger all coverage of either of those myself" - seems clear enough to me that the "bugger all" comment refers to the Irish leagues specifically...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"The Irish leagues" could easily differ in notability though. For instance, the BBC gives only cursory coverage of the FIA, but does quite well with the IFA these days (presumably because it is, after all, a British league). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Who says those leagues are less notable? That sounds very much like someone's point of view dependant on where one lives. ABC doesn't seem to think so, they give considerable more coverage to the NSW Premier League and almost never mention FAI or IFA. TVNZ doesn't think so, they give considerably more coverage to the NZFC and almost never mention FAI or IFA. This is not the the free British encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That is why arbitrarily claiming players from those leagues notable by default and not players from all the other top level leagues in other countries is Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone making articles on these players, but someone needs to do the legwork and prove the notability, not just pump out articles on nobodies because they played a game in this league. As for Jody Tolan specifically - if that is all he has I don't see his claim to fame. No more notable than any player who has won both the Chatham Cup and the New Zealand Football Championship in my opinion. --ClubOranjeT11:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I fully agree: however, you can't exactly counter our systematic bias towards British subjects in the football domain by telling all the Brits that they have to edit articles on Kiwis. :) The Beeb happens to be far and away the most commonly-used RS in British football articles, so if it's devoting significant coverage to a given league then that does noticeably raise its profile. As I say, we can only cover what we know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't suggesting you do articles on Kiwis, - besides, they've been done. (-; Just highlighting the pitfalls of claiming presumption of notability outside the definition ATHLETE. --ClubOranjeT01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The mantra is of course descriptive not prescriptive. ATHLETE does not in principle say "thou shalt not have articles outwith the criteria given within" - it says that it can safely be assumed that subjects which fit the given criteria are notable because consensus is that everything within said criteria is always covered sufficiently by multiple reliable sources. The trick is to think of ATHLETE as "everything within is notable" rather than "everyone outside isn't". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It depends, as usual, on whether they've had significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Being the head physio for the England squad for nearly over ten years sounds like something which might have been picked up on, but that would require research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've linked to a couple of articles about him on the talk page, one of which refers to him as "legendary" and confirms that he was physio for England. (It's not clear to me whether this is enough to make him notable.) Stevvers (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the article using the sources you and another editor put on the talk page, and removed the proposed deletion. I don't know if there are enough sources to make him notable, there certainly aren't enough yet actually in the article, but don't think a prod is appropriate now. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thierry Henry
Looks like his page is experiencing some vandalism, which I can understand following yesterday's match against Republic of Ireland. Can someone have a look at it, I'm fairly lost in the history and barely understand some words used by vandals. Cheers everyone.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as there's some support for having a separate article on something like the France - Ireland match... And before that we had a long AfD about Chelsea - Barcelona earlier this year. Is it important to get a nobility standard for matches as well (I currently couldn't find one)... because every football game now a days get coverage from multiple reliable sources. Every game with a controversial decision gets double. Every game with a controversial goal gets triple. And I think in most cases (I include France-Ireland here) the controversies have natural places they can be merged to, for example 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round or Liverpool F.C. season 2009–10 (for the beachball game) chandler05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important to make clear that these matches would not normally be considered notable, regardless of AfD outcomes. As far as I'm aware, there already is consensus on that. But no amount of consensus here is ever going to override subjects considered to pass the WP:GNG. You can't legislate for every blade of grass. WFCforLife (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think to mention them on the respective articles i.e. ireland international football and france, then that would be all that should be needed, to have separate articles on every controversial decision then it would become farcical.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
Phil Babb vandalism
Can an admin semi-protect the Phil Babb article please; IPs from a forum have decided to start a rumour about him and vandalise the article accordingly. I have filed a request at WP:RPP but there looks to be a delay or backlog or something. Cheers, GiantSnowman21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me preface this by stating that I've read and understand the ruling set forth by MOS:FLAG in regards to sportspeople on this topic. However, I would like further clarification of why this ruling exists in regards to the nation a player represents. It seems as though, through a technicality, all flags were banned from sportspeople infoboxes, regardless of nature, because it would be a POV issue. However, the flags which represent National Teams for which a player has represented are included in this bunch as well.
In many of the non-sportspeople arguments, there are concerns that it would "imply" nationality and undermine the neutral POV standpoint of Wikipedia, such as placing a flag for place of birth, citizenship, etc. I can see how this could be tricky, such as with the example of Naomi Watts's case for Wales, England, and Australia.
To me, this looks like a blanket-rule which should simply be disregarded or changed when referring to the country an athlete has represented. I'm not implying or undermining any nationalistic points of view — it's a very clear cut fact that the nations represented by the other athletes are what the flags represent. For further example:
Do not emphasize nationality without good reason - The nation would be emphasized as that is the nation the player has represented in international competition.
Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death - This wouldn't be done as I'm only talking about the international representation.
Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available - This wouldn't be done as I'm only talking about the international representation.
Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance - Clearly an England flag would be used over a Great Britain flag as that would be the country represented in that case.
Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance - The flag would be of the nation the player has represented in international competition.
Accompany flags with country names - It would be.
etc., etc., etc. Even with the "Use of flags for sportspeople" section, it only says flags are DISCOURAGED. It does not say flags must not be used or any other type of non-negotiable statement. Can someone please enlighten me as to why we follow this rule in regards to a nation represented in football?— Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 November 2009
A good point well made; after all, the {{fb}} template exists. However, I have a feeling that it is something to do with accessibility/readibility or however you spell them...GiantSnowman23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
@GauchoDude, I'm not sure what article or infobox you are referring to, but I don't think there is an aversion to using a flag in the context of a national team appearance. The problem is using a flag to represent "nationality". For example, Olympic medalists often have a flag via the {{MedalCountry}} template (e.g. inside the "Honours" section on the Ronaldinho article). — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that flag I'm also concerned about, but my biggest peeve right now and the brunt of this argument are edits such as these. Granted the flag is in the infobox, but it's representing a nation in which a player has represented. It makes no inference as to origin of birth, heritage by blood, etc., which seems to be a major talking point for non-sportspeople infobox flags. GauchoDude (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I had been using the fb tag for ages as a nice and easy shorthand for national football team links (which gave us things like England), but was encouraged to use the nft tag instead, which gives us England. The whole issue around not using {fb was the appearance of a flag, which many on here felt was contravening WP:MOSFLAG; my only view was to ensure that we somehow ended up with a workable shorthand which saves us having to type things like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team in an infobox, when Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is much easier. I have to admit I like the flags from a purely visual point of view, and would agree to flags ONLY being used as an indicator for national teams and not place of birth, clubs, etc. I have been using nft, and have recently changed all US soccer players to reflect this, but wouldn't mind if we switched back to fb, as long as we have consistency. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of {{nft}} (and sorry for straying off-topic slightly)—I had made some changes to that template so that the correct link would always be rendered (e.g. "soccer" where appropriate), but that would mean it would no longer be subst'ed. I reverted that "fix" after a comment on this talk page. Should we re-apply the fix? Would anybody object if the template was no longer used by substitution only?
But why this great prediliction for including flags? I am certain that far more people can read and understand the word "Moldova" or "St Lucia" than can recognise the flags of those countries, and far fewer people will confuse the words "Netherlands" and "Luxembourg" than will confuse their respective flags. Why leave ourselves open to long debates about whether a French flag is appropriate for New Caledonia or Guadeloupe, when the simple act of writing those words avoids any likelihood of misunderstanding? And as MOS#FLAGS states that the name of the country must also be available in text, then infoboxes become crowded for no real purpose, and with no information added. Can we not assume that an encyclopaedia is a resource for literate people, who don't necessarily need little coloured boxes all over the page to retain their attention to information that they have come looking for? Kevin McE (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my point. Why leave ourselves open to long debates about whether a French flag is appropriate for New Caledonia or Guadeloupe, when the simple act of writing those words avoids any likelihood of misunderstanding? If the player plays for Guadeloupe, they get a Guadeloupe flag. If they play for France, they get a France flag. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Still looking for a somewhat logical reason aside from "well other people do it". Not everything is cookie cutter, this is an exception. GauchoDude (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Then there is your answer. Seriously though, I don't understand why this is so difficult. It would be the same as Ireland for rugby, they use a different flag than the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. GauchoDude (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of this. But you wrote If the player plays for Guadeloupe, they get a Guadeloupe flag. If they play for France, they get a France flag, which seems to imply that you thought they are different. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You guys are just waiting for someone to reignite the Guadeloupe flag debate, aren't you? Seriously though, I am not in favor of using flags in infoboxes in any instances. It especially bugs me when one is placed next to a "Coach", "Owner", or "Chairman" in the infobox of a club article. How is that relevant or germain to the club? If someone wanted to know about the person they should click the link to the article for that person. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not my intention: it was one of several examples I gave as to why the addition of flags can cause confusion, but very rarely reduces it. No advantage at all to having them in infoboxes, lots of reasons against. Clarity of information is a priority in an encyclopaedia: prettiness is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To add to the very good points in Kevin McE's list, we then have the interminable time-wasting rows over whether player X should have flag A, B or C when they are eligible to represent all three countries, but have represented none of them as yet... The correct answer in this case is no flag at all - picking any one is misleading. By picking one, you are making a definitive statement that that person has a single clear nationality, when the reality is more subtle and complicated. It is far, far better to be silent than attempt to be "pretty" and mislead. Knepflerle (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We're talking about flags in infoboxes accompanying the text line showing the country players have represented at international level already. Players who have not played internationally are irrelevant to this conversation. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As I previously stated, the flags wouldn't be to infer which countries a player would be able to represent be it through birth, citizenship, heritage, etc. It's a non-negotiable fact if a player has represented a country (hence putting "Canada" instead of listing all the countries he could possibly represent). The flag would be added for this part only. Consider this:
Do not emphasize nationality without good reason - It would be emphasized to show that a player has represented a certain country at the highest level of play.
Accompany flags with country names - The names of the countries would be accompanying the flags.
The flags would be representing the players in an undeniable, indisputable fact which clearly demonstrates their sporting nationality at the highest level they are able to. The ONLY reason why see this is an issue, again, is would be a case such as whether Edgar Castillo is a Mexican or an American. However, the flags would not be to push one way or another, but to highlight the fact that he has played for the Mexican national team or the American national team (or in his case, both). GauchoDude (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
But even in that infobox, both flags could be used. I think the use of flags to identify national teams is fine from a NPOV, RS, etc. perspective. It only becomes a style issue whether or not we want them. But attaching a flag icon to a person is potentially problematic, and ought to be avoided where possible, in my opinion. That's why we ought to remove them from chairmen and coach names, for example. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is. The only issue here, really, is whether to add a flag next to the country in the 'National Team' section of player infoboxes. I think the flags look good, but the bottom line is that I don't mind either way, as long as we're consistent. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, @Andrwsc, that's what I'm talking about. I think we should remove the flags from teams' infoboxes next to the names of people. Those clearly are implying a nationality one way or another. However, for players representing national teams, the bottom where it details which team(s) they have represented I believe should have a flag. It is not inferring the nationality of a player and the flag would be no where near the player's name, but only to represent the team he's represented. I think we're on the same page. How do we go about making this a change for the Football Project on wikipedia, somewhat akin to the notability requirements that we all uphold? I think it should be represented on the player template after some kind of vote so it's clear to all what we've done. GauchoDude (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The best way to do it would be to mandate that the {{fb}} tag be used when linking to whichever national football team they represent; that way {{fb|USA}} gives us United States, and the flag is shown automatically. Users would have to manually add flags to youth teams using the FLAGICON tag. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we should use flags in infoboxes. They create more problems (discussions what flags are "correct" etc.) then improvements ("more pretty" - which is very much in the eye of the beholder). --Jaellee (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaucho, for all your clear and valid reasoning about why some of the arguments against the inclusion of flags do not apply in the very limited circumstances that you propose, you have done nothing to explain why articles, and infoboxes in particular, will be enhanced by such an addition. Is there any encyclopaedic reason for having them? Is this purely a matter of aesthetic preference? Is it so that readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag? Or is it simply "we could, so we should"? Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
@Kevin McE, all of the above. It makes it very apparent and draws the attention (rightly so as it's a huge honour) to the fact that they have represented their country as opposed to just playing at various club teams (with the assumption flags are not included next to teams, which to my knowledge they aren't). It also makes very clear the difference between playing for USSR as opposed to Russia, since the flags are different. Flags on Wikipedia are used to emphasize nationality for good reason and I believe representing your country at the highest level more than qualifies. It also seems as though others agree with this notion as well. GauchoDude (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
← Lest it seem like I support the inclusion of infobox flags, I actually don't. I stated above that using flags to identify national teams is merely a style issue and not as problematic as using flags to identify people. But from a style perspective, my opinion has always been that flag icons are effective when browsing long lists or tables of items with strong national association (hence the flags). For example, it aids browsing of results pages where we use {{fb}} and {{fb-rt}} within long sequences of {{footballbox}}-formatted sections, as it helps the reader find individual teams of interest. In other contexts, international sports results tables benefit greatly from flag icons for similar reasons. But singular flag icons within an infobox draw undue attention to one particular infobox field, and certainly aren't needed for browsing/identification reasons. I would be ok with a consensus here to use {{fb}}, {{fbu}}, etc. for the "National team" section within {{Infobox football biography 2}}, but if we are !voting to determine consensus, I would prefer that the flags are not used. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
@Rettetast, By drawing attention to the fact that said player has appeared for a national team in their career in a quick and easy manner. It would rightly draw attention, especially for players with large playing CV's, to the fact that they've represented their country. Here are a few cases in point:
Lisa De Vanna - Female Australian international footballer with 50+ caps.
Danny Bailey - English footballer attempting to join every single club ever in England (sarcasm).
Looking at such long career lists, it doesn't appear that one is more notable than the other. However, those players compared to:
Carli Lloyd - Female American international soccer player with 50+ caps.
The flag next to the national teams represented make it simple to notice that Player C holds much more weight than Player A or Player B, when really Player A should be on equal terms. On a somewhat related note, I don't like how in Infobox Football biography 2, a player's medals are hidden. You shouldn't have to click "Show" to find out oh, said person is a 2x or 3x or whatever Gold medalist. Stop making profiles difficult. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So how do we go about mandating fb and fbw, at least in terms to the flags and only for members of the WikiProject Football? I'm assuming there has to be some further discussion before inclusion into the Player Template. GauchoDude (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It is disturbing to see you planning to "mandate" this, as you by no means seem to have gained a consensus to roll this out. Given that readers will generally look at one page at a time, the idea that a visual difference will lead a reader to make a judgement on the relative importance of players is, at best, counter-intuitive. There is a clearly separated section, with its own labelled header, to indicate national appearances: they are by no means "lost" among the club history. The assumption that a player is "important" if they have played internationally is a false one: there is no less important player on Gillingham's books than Rimmel Daniel, who has never even been named as a substitiute in a first team match, but he has three caps for Grenada. His one England B appearance might be one of the least significant times that Steve Bruce ever entered a playing field, so why should additional attention be drawn to it? Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's just as disturbing to see you on the other side of the fence with the same, if not less, evidence for the removal of flags to denote national team appearances. The fact that Rimmel Daniel has represented his country and Steve Bruce (relatively) hasn't is mute in that national team representation, with FIFA's sanction, automatically infers notability according to WP:FOOTYN. If Player A had represented their country and Player B hadn't, one could reasonably assume Player A is of a higher callibre and attention should be drawn to this fact full stop. The flags, while not inferring notability nor implying nationality, I feel rightly draw attention to, and make it easily distinguishable to see, which players have and have not represented their country at a national level. Yes, there are "clearly separated sections" like you mention, but these also exist for Youth Teams as well as Teams Managed. Big deal. GauchoDude (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
One cannot reasonably assume that a player who has represented his country is of a higher calibre than one who has not. Do you seriously believe that Rimmel Daniel is of a higher calibre than was Steve Bruce at the height of his career? The variation in standard between international sides is that many players in the Premier League who are from the major European nations have never got anyhere near their national squads, while players in the Conference South could easily gain selection for some smaller nations once eligibility is established. Readers of an encyclopaedia should be trusted to be able to read section headings, and recognise the names of countries. You have failed to address my comments on the redundancy of an argument based on comparing the appearance of infoboxes, when side-by-side viewing of them will not usually be the way they are read. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The flags are completely unnecessary for the infobox. The fact that a player has made international appearances is adequately represented by such appearances being listed in a separate section of the infobox. No flags. – PeeJay08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaucho, you seem to be confusing notablility with quality and/or importance. Playing at the international level gives an athlete a certain level of notability. It does not, however, infer a stamp of quality or a local importance to the sport wherever the individual may ply his/her trade for a living. FOOTYN is not WP policy; it simply exists to help explain notability within the realm of this project. Earlier in this discussion you responded in the affirmative regarding the inclusion of flags so that "readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag". That is certainly not a reason to include flags, and for that reason it should actually be avoided. See: WP:MOSFLAG. The very first point made in that section is "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". Additionally, the nation that an athlete represents does not necessarily indicate nationality at all because it actually indicates sporting nationality. Including the flag could draw attention to itself and increase the likelihood that an article misleads readers who don't thoroughly read the article or at the very least don't even read the entire introduction of the article. The inclusion of flags in infoboxes is in direct opposition to official WP policy. It emphasizes nationality unnecessarily and doesn't include the accompanying national name next to the flag. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
@JohnnyPolo24, Wow, incorrect on a number of levels. I'll go through them 1 by 1. #1. I understand that international appearances do not denote quality. However, it is a fair assumption that a player with a national cap is of greater quality than one without. There will be obvious exceptions, such as a Guadeloupe international v. a top level player in England, but it's not a bad starting point. #2. I understand FOOTYN is not law around here, it says that in a fairly large box on the top of the article. However, with people "in the know" as opposed to people focused on creating articles about plants, dinosaurs, or trains, it was created by and referenced repeatedly this community to infer notability, not quality. There is no objective way to flawlessly justify quality. One man's trash ... and all that. Yes, again, there will be exceptions (I don't think many would pick Kyle Reynish over Cesc Fàbregas). #3. I, in no way, affirmed "readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag" and find it offensive that you believed I did in the first place. I invite you to go back and re-read my response to that paragraph. The flags in question denote the PLAYER'S SPORTING NATIONALITY. Very rarely does a player appear for more than one national team. And the addition of flags, or multiple flags, is certainly not because I believe readers would like seeing their flag. #4. This community strives for consistency and the law says, more or less, don't use flags to infer nationality or heritage, which is the main reasoning for the opposition to my proposal. However, for nearlyeverysingleclub on Wikipedia, you are doing just that by placing flags next to the "important people". That, IMO, is a FAR more egregious breach of your Wikipedia law that a flag denoting a country for which a player has played, as opposed to inferring someone's nationality on numerous featured articles. And from what the "law" sounds like, it says "flags are discouraged" for sports infoboxes, not disallowed.
In conclusion (because this topic is tiring and we're all probably going to go back to what we were doing previous to it), there doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or another. Granted, I haven't gone back to literally head count, but it seems like more are against using flags per previous habits. While the general law persuades people to not use flags in sports infoboxes, they clearly are being used. Every major football team that I checked had flags next to "important people", which is clearly in violation of the non-biased law. FB and FBW use flags directly relating to this topic and are heavily used on player articles. The "law", while discouraging the use of flags in biographies, states there may be occasional exceptions. Flags are already being used to demonstrate a player's nationality for Olympic medals in sports people's biographies and this is no different. Not sure where to go from here, but I'll most likely not keep checking in on this topic from here on out. GauchoDude (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have offended you if that's the case. I said what I said because where after the question was posed you stated "all of the above" without making mention of sporting nationality, though you did make the point about USSR/Russia, so I apoligize for overlooking your intent. With your first point, I still disagree. From a guy who's seen a bunch of matches involving the bottom-feeders from CONCACAF, it's not a good starting point. Standards vary so greatly around the world, though those Guadeloupeans aren't half bad. Although it's true that players rarely represent more than one nation internationally, the new, relaxed FIFA regulations are going to allow many more players to make switches in the future, not to mention the guys who play for subnational teams, such as Guadeloupe. Edgard Castillo is still fairly young, but I'm extremely confident that guys like Jermaine Jones – guys who are old enough that they are in the last four-year cycle of the World Cup in which their talents are viable at that level – will be very common. I don't even want to get started on the WP:OR that is the "Important figures" sections; if they're important then there will be information about them in the "History" section. You also raise a good point about Olympians, and that's a difference that maybe we ought to reconcile if indeed the circumstances are the same. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with GauchoDude. This just seems like an excessive blanket-"rule" stemming from the reasonable neutral POV standpoint on people's birthplace. Transaction Go (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to, but when I saw that UEFA themselves are describing this as "the biggest betting scandal ever to hit the sport in Europe", I went ahead. Slightly tweaked your suggested name though. WFCforLife (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
