Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

[[:|WT:WPF]]

Football Project‑class

	Association football portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WPF navigation

Archives
July 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February 2007 - May 2007 Current archive (archived by bot) next archive

Capitalisation

{{Football squad2 start}} Per the Manual of Style headers do not take "un-natural" capitals. Most navboxen and infoboxen also abide by this, I have changed this one to use the same style - Current Squad => current squad. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Lets standardize national team templates

The template keep on coming.

Template:Canada Squad 2000 CONCACAF Gold Cup Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Matthew_hk t c 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ghana Squad 1978 African Cup, Template:Ghana squad 1995 FIFA U-17 Championship, Template:Ghana Squad 1982 African Cup. Punkmorten 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a tfd for those four. Neier 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to vote delete there, but no one actually bother to delete the deleted template from each players' article page. 121.44.13.175 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise the issue with whichever admin closed the discussion. According to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Templates_for_Deletion_page, the template should be removed before it is deleted. Neier 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we now have suitable momentum to keep most of the clutter out of the encylcopedia. I've created User:Neier/Soccer templates to keep track of the recent discussions. Neier 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo deletion

I've noticed the logo images of many national associations and related teams have been flagged for deletion due to their lack of a fair use rationale. The images need a licensing tag, such as {{Non-free logo}}, which in our case should be {{Non-free logo|football logos}} which will add the image to the football logos category.

But to keep the images we also need a written rationale as well as the {{Non-free logo}} tag.

I would suggest something like this:

Non-free media rationale – NEEDS ARTICLE NAME
Article	[[{{{Article}}}]]
Purpose of use	To identify the organisation and its representative teams. To appear only on the article on the Latvian Football Federation and the articles of its representative teams: Senior Under-21s Women
Replaceable?	Cannot be replaced with a copyright free alternative.

Just glancing at Category:All disputed non-free images I can see at least 25 football logos, all of which should be covered by this rationale. Therefore we need to act promptly. Sʟυмgυм • т • c 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure any logos I've uploaded have a fair use rationale as suggested here. This information is very helpful. Thank you. Jogurney 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the rationale. Much appreciated. BestEditorEver 11:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting line-ups

Just came across this, what are people's opinions on starting line-ups in club articles? Surely there is no one standard line up, due to injury, form, squad rotation etc. and so isn't this just conjecture and opinion? GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. As I put it in a previous discussion - the manager picks the team, not Wikipedia. Such an inclusion is inevitable POV and only leads to edit wars. It should be removed straight away. Qwghlm 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before somewhere. Anyway, yeah the consensus was that stuff like this is definetely POV. Either it's just someone picking the best players, or it's a "most common" line-up which is deceptive also - even if you pick the 11 players with the highest appearance stats, the line-up depicted won't necessarily be the most regular one. I think it was agreed that such pictures showing the line-up from a special match - a cup final, for instance - were alright, although I don't especially like them. HornetMike 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tip to seek out these starting line-ups: Check Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png and see which pages this image is included in. Punkmorten 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...as of the timestamp below, only this talk page links to the image - that's not an impressive tool to be using at the moment, really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He meant the "File links" section (half way down the Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png page). - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link, scroll down, discover the section called "File links". Punkmorten 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Silly me. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about national team starting line up like in this page, Germany national football team#Starting Line-Up. Martin tamb 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section's completely pointless, it duplicates (unnecessarily) info in the section below, it doesn't say how those eleven players were chosen (was it the starting line-up in a specific match? if so, which one? if it was the most recent one, who's to say that's the "usual" German starting XI?), plus the caps/goals totals for the players listed in the "starting line-up" section don't match their totals in the "current squad" section below!!! In a word (or two), bin it! ChrisTheDude 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - "Germany II starting line-up"? What on earth's that? I didn't know they'd made a sequel to Germany! :-) ChrisTheDude 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a wikipedia policy against this. It's news which is not allowed. Kingjeff 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League play-off finals

Just wondering if these would be regarded as notable enough to safely exist as articles. There was no mention of it at WPF:Notability. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so; it might not be the league exactly, but its close enough.. and are appearences in the League Cup enough to give notability? Mattythewhite 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "league play-off finals"? If you mean a standalone article for things like the 2007 Football League Championship playoffs, I disagree, otherwise we should also consider making an article for more relevant finals such as the UEFA Cup and Intertoto Cup ones. --Angelo 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Football League Championship Playoffs and I think notability would certainly stretch to a similar list for Conference finals. If you mean articles for individual finals, then I'd be inclined to agree with Angelo, above. To back him up, {{Champions League Final}} also has a few redlinks. Sʟυмgυм • т • c 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for actual, single-game play-off finals, such as those that occurred this past weekend in England. Since they're regarded as a different entity to the regular-season league, I think they'd be good for including statistics not valid elsewhere. The road-to-the-final (i.e., just the semis in this case) would be included in said article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, a standalone article about a playoff final of a second-tier domestic league would be excessive detail to me for the reasons I explained above. A better idea would be to consider splitting Football League seasons articles into "Championship", "League One" and "League Two" ones and expanding them. I am doing this way for Serie C, and there's absolutely enough space also for including playoff results. --Angelo 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible alternative: expanding [[Football League Championship Playoffs to include a short prose section about each match. Oldelpaso 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how long is the prose. What kind of content would you include? Give me an example, just to figure out what you really want to do. --Angelo 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a paragraph or two. The sort of thing that would be put in the lead section of a standalone article about a final or when using summary style, about the length of the current lead of, say, FA Cup Final 2007. I don't have a burning desire for any one method though. The one you suggest would work just as well. Oldelpaso 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, try it, and in case the whole article gets too long consider to split it by decade. Adding a reference into the Football League season article would be an asset. --Angelo 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indentation!) It should be pointed out that some Conference play-offs have their own articles already. See: Conference National Playoff Final 2003. HornetMike 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too keen on the match recaps that creep into these kind of articles. Basic facts are all we need. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Mourinho for GA status!

This WikiProject has produced several GAs and FAs on clubs, players and stadiums. But has any article on a manager achieved GA or FA status? Imoeng and I (both of us have been Chelsea fans for 4 years) have decided to collaborate to improve Jose Mourinho (who, as my nick suggests, is my idol, along with Jack Neo) to GA status.

As I am not aware of any GAs or FAs on managers to use as a precedent, and the WikiProject does not have a Manual of Style for manager articles, how should the article be structured? Perhaps there should be a discussion leading to the creation of a Manual of Style for manager articles.

Moreover, neither of us know much about Mourinho's pre-Chelsea days, apart from the information already in the article. I have noticed that while most articles are gradually improved through the "wiki process", GAs and FAs are usually the work of a core group of dedicated contributors. Hence, could a Porto fan (or a Jose Mourinho fan who is familiar with his pre-Chelsea days) join the collaboration?

An article I wrote, I Not Stupid, failed GA partially due to concerns over choppy prose. I speak and write British English at a near-native level (most of my friends speak Singlish), and am trying to improve my English to a native standard. Imoeng writes English at an advanced level. Although only FAs require "compelling, brilliant prose", GAs still require that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". Hence, the article would greatly benefit from someone who writes English at a professional level and is knowledgable about the subject joining the collaboration.

Finally, a GA needs lots of reliable references. Could members of the WikiProject recommend at leas three newspapers which are available online and provide reliable sports coverage? Having such newspapers at our disposal would make it much easier to provide references for each sentence, as well as help us find information on Mourinho's pre-Chelsea days.

~~If satisfied with the assistance I receive, I will consider joining this WikiProject, as I intend to contribute to articles pertaining to Chelsea F.C. and football in Singapore.~~

~~--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Sounds like a candidate for the /Article improvement drive rather than this page. Incidentally, I don't like your tone when you say you will join the Wikiproject if you are "satisfied with the assistance". If you want the assistance of others you would be better off demonstrating your commitment to it by being bold and contributing yourself, rather than making demands as if this Wikiproject works for your benefit. Looking at the last 100 edits to the Mourinho article, you have not made a single one - it seems to me you're asking a lot of work from others to help on a pet project without doing any yourself, just as you did several months ago in another GA drive. Qwghlm 10:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought he was coming across like a bit of a pompous ass :-) ChrisTheDude 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I don't know that guy. Imo eng 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to cancel the planned collaboration. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to replace national team flag templates

Hello, I am not a regular member of this WikiProject. I usually spend my time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template work. And that brings me here...

Some of you may have noticed the internal changes to the {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, etc. templates earlier this year. The main effect of these templates is to provide a parameterized mechanism for consistently rendering flag icons. I would like to add national sport team templates under that system.

Currently, there are almost 900 individual templates (found in Category:National football team templates. I am proposing to replace this set with four templates. The maintenance benefit should be immediately obvious; any updates to the common flag data structures will "ripple through" to all national team instances. There are several other benefits, listed below.

Here is the gist of my proposal: instead of a set of individual templates for each national team, there would be a very small set of parameterized templates. Any historical flag variants are handled by additional parameters. I have created the {{fb}} template to test this concept. The name "fb" was intentionally chosen to be short, to align with the current abbreviated naming of existing templates. The redirect {{footyflag}} has also been created if you prefer. I have yet to create the "fb2" (for rendering the flag after the name), "fbw" (for women's team) or "fbw2" templates, but you get the idea.

Using Italy as an example:

Current template	Proposed replacement
`{{ITAf}}` → Template:ITAf	`{{fb\|ITA}}` → Italy
`{{ITAfold}}` → Template:ITAfold	`{{fb\|ITA\|old}}` → Italy
`{{ITAf2}}` → Template:ITAf2	`{{fb-rt\|ITA}}` → Italy
`{{ITAfold2}}` → Template:ITAfold2	`{{fb-rt\|ITA\|old}}` → Italy
`{{ITAwf}}` → Template:ITAwf	`{{fbw\|ITA}}` not yet available
`{{ITAwf2}}` → Template:ITAwf2	`{{fbw-rt\|ITA}}` not yet available

I have already tested this system with all 207 current FIFA country codes, and 189 of them are working as expected. I know how to fix the remaining 19, but I haven't done it yet. It can easily be expanded to non-FIFA teams too. I'd like to get some feedback here before proceeding.

Another benefit to this proposal is that you can use the full nation name instead of the FIFA country code, if you prefer. Can't remember the code for Malaysia? (MAS? MAL? MYS? MSY?) Use {{fb|Malaysia}} for Malaysia.

Obviously, before making such a sweeping change, I'd like to get consensus that this is a good thing to do. If we agree to go ahead, then I am offering to make all the changes myself, so this is not a "make work" proposal that I am imposing on this project. The implementation can be phased in gradually, and nothing will break in the meantime.

Thanks for your consideration, Andrwsc 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I already implemented Template:Footyflag following the discussion we had a few time ago.~~ Yeah, it was just a redirect :)... And I did it; well I'm probably getting old. Anyway, I fully support your proposal, possibly using different template names (fb, fb2 and fbw are meaningless to me). --Angelo 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I guess my proposal has multiple elements upon which feedback can be given, so for anybody participating in this discussion, please indicate what you like and what you don't like, and I will try to sort it all out accordingly. Andrwsc 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly surprised that this proposal hasn't generated any discussion here, other than Angelo's one comment of support. Shall I interpret this as "silent assent" and boldly start making the changes? Andrwsc 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Non-silent assent'* WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and do it. In case you need some help, you can contact me. --Angelo 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! I will probably set up a "progress page" with a list of replacements that can be safely made and we can individually delete the old templates once they are no longer transcluded. Anybody who wants to run some AWB sessions can work from that progress page. I will start this sometime in the next few days. Andrwsc 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this the first time around, I guess. What is the impact on the server by switching these templates? Instead of looking up {{ITAf}} and making the simple substitution, now, it has to look up {{fb}}, and pass the ITA parameter, to compute the substitution. I would recommend to hold off on the mass substitutions until someone from the technical side of WP could comment on this. Neier 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely the same mechanism that is used by the {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} templates, both of which are transcluded in many, many, thousands of instances. We had a detailed discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template a few months ago and concluded that this system is appropriate. Andrwsc 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the U-21's templates? Matthew_hk t c 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll get to that. Andrwsc 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:fbu21 is ready to be used. In the next few days, I will start substituting individual existing templates to use this single template instead. Andrwsc 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of transfers

I'm not sure if we have discussed this before, but: Should we allow entries which list football transfers, like list of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season? Or do they constitute a violation of WP:NOT#INFO or some other policy? I have a bad stomach feeling about them, but let's hear what the rest of you think. Punkmorten 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so, however I'm experiencing a little trouble with several users (especially IP ones) who add new signings to the main club article even in case they're unconfirmed at all (I cannot even remember know how many times I removed Vincenzo Iaquinta from the Juventus F.C. article). This is just a little piece of a bigger problem. P.S. There is also List of Italian football transfers 2007-08, I guess they might be at least merged for now. --Angelo 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of transfers for Serie A also exist for several previous season anyway. For those new ones, I think they need to be merged soon. About that club article, I think it won't stop, it's not just Iaquinta in Juventus, I have seen more of that everywhere I browse the clubs article. It's up to the editor to keep maintaining them ^-^. Martin tamb 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in my opinion we can make something to prevent all that. For instance, let's not include team signings before the transfer market is opened (i.e., July 1).--Angelo 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for the club articles, right? I agree that the club squad shouldn't be updated yet until the new season, but lots of editor will just add players based on some rumours or unconfirmed news. Maybe for those club articles that are heavily vandalized (not sure if it is vandal), semi-protection for 1-2 weeks would be good. Anyway I just add merge tag on both pages. Martin tamb 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean that. For now I am just adding comments right above the team squads begging editors not to change it in the form . However I don't think these kinds of edits we're experiencing would fit into vandalism, they are likely to be mere blatant edits. --Angelo 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll use that whenever I'm removing unconfirmed transfer. Martin tamb 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but back to the original issue: Should we have lists like these, or should they go like the results pages? I am aware than there are at least a dozen more. Punkmorten 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. I don't know what should we do, but I find dozens more of them, you might be interested in a list, so if any of you would make any action, we would be consistent enough to include them all. list of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season List of Italian football transfers 2007-08 List of English football transfers 2007-08 List of English football transfers 2006-07 2005-06 in English football#Transfer Deals 2004-05 in English football#Transfer Deals 2003-04 in English football#Transfer Deals 2002-03 in English football#Transfer Deals 2007-08 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals 2006-07 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals 2005-06 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals List of Turkish football transfers 2007-08 List of Turkish football transfers 2006-07 List of German football transfers 2007-08 List of Hungarian football transfers 2007-08. Note: I'm silly enough not to see your tasklist page, perhaps this will complete your list. Martin tamb 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a Hungarian one! Definitely WP:IINFO. To me we can delete them all. --Angelo 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, see that the Hungarian ones only has those 2 Hungarian youngsters snapped by Liverpool. The 2007/2008 transfers from Hungary and Germany didn't even linked from any pages yet. Definitely not worth keeping. But if we do want to delete them all, there would be mass of rejection especially from English fans on their English football transfer out there. Martin tamb 06:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case let's start just with Hungary, Turkey and Germany. --Angelo 06:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

In James Beattie, his stats table gives (and User:Kingjeff persists) his 2007-08 stats. I disagree with this being included, as we don't even know if he will be playing there that season, and its not even started yet!

Agreed - what is the point of having a completely empty row anyway. I think I'll remove it and see what happens. - fchd 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 season is the next season coming up. There is no need to remove it. Kingjeff 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Add it when the season starts. As it is now, it is just blank space. Absolutely bloomin' pointless. - fchd 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a very very minor things, most reader wouldn't even notice or bothered abut that. I thinks it's better to focus on the players biography (most of them need more referencing) rather than statistics (well it's not really statistics coz it'z empty column but its part of the stats table). I hope this won't continue to became big argument, it's really not worth your time to argue on such a small issue (well maybe some of you thinks that this is important, but for me this is just not). Martin tamb 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're to be consistent with the removal of the jumping-the-gun additions that are prevalent at this time of year, the blank line should be removed; however, Kingjeff has never been receptive to other people's opinions, so it's better to leave him be and focus on other things. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when a personal attack like yours is involved. Kingjeff 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps not when your personal attacks on me are involved! Mattythewhite 19:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack. It was a matter of fact. Kingjeff 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So calling me ridiculous for no just reason and putting in your edit summary to an edit to Luke Varney as "If you don't know about July 1, maybe you shouldn't be editing football articles." aren't some kind of insult then? Mattythewhite 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you that putting every single year of a multi year contract in the stats table is rediculus. I really don't think it can get any clearer then that. Kingjeff 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I agree with you on that! It would be utterly pointless. Such as having a season that is blank! Mattythewhite 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pointless at all. Kingjeff 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point to it then? It would be just as encyclopediac to have the 2007-08 season on as it would be as to have 2008-09 on, as neither have started, neither have any statistical information to them, and does he even have a contract for next season? Tell me that then if you're so sure he will be there for 2007-08. Mattythewhite 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I never knew Lukas Podolski was a sausage maker.. Mattythewhite 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha. (Sorry, but I had to remove the vandalism. Standards and all that...) - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on player transfers

There's a discussion on timing of player transfers here. A concensus is needed one way or another- some articles list "current club" as the club the player will join on 1 July, whereas others list their club prior to this date. Dave101→talk 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the situation is described clearly in the prose, its moot for countries where its currently the close season, as the player will play for neither in the interim. In any case, it will certainly be irrelevant in 30 days time. If its really causing consternation, use a footnote to explain it. Oldelpaso 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competition Years Manual of Style

Should there be a manual of style for competition years, such as MLS 2004, because I know that, and other articles, need some love. Bornagain4 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for deletion and page moves

I'm including the FC_Barcelona_squad article on the list to avoid people open just the A.C._Milan_squad one, and beleive the Barcelona one is quite the same without open it (because they aren't) or even don't see it at all.--ClaudioMB 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian footballers and categorisation

I've noticed that a lot of Brazilian footballers, most of whom are known by their first name or first two names, have been given a sortkey based on their surnames - i.e. Diego was sorted as Ribas da Cunha, Diego, which means he'd be listed under R. This is counter-intuitive, when Diego is the name he's comonly known by, and many people won't even know his full name. This occurs with a lot of Brazilian footballers, so if people could consider it when adding and editing Brazilian footballer articles, it'd make the categorisation much more useful. ArtVandelay13 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, why are Brazilian footballers named inconsistently regarding nickname/full name? Why Mazinho and then Paulo Sérgio Rosa? Punkmorten 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're only listed by their common name when there is no-one else of that name, or they are clearly the most promiment person of the name. ArtVandelay13 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo deletion - 2

Further to the section above, it is both urgent and imperative that all club logos have a fair use rationale in addition to the logo licence. (I notice that Derby County F.C. logo has bitten the dust).

The following seems to work as a sub-section in the Licensing section:

Fair-use rationale

obtained from the club website
low resolution image
no non-copyright version available, by definition
the logo is only being used for informational purposes
its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article

BlueValour 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads-up, the Jeanfield Swifts badge has this evening been deleted because (according to the edit summary of the editor who did it) the above boiler-plate FU rationale was deemed "inadequate".... ChrisTheDude 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean this logo? That was made by a user who doesn't seem to like fair use:[1]. --Angelo 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he's just got a personal gripe against me because I'm standing up to him (all those recent removals are images I uploaded). - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Player honours

Just making sure we're all on the same page when adding honours to a player's article. If they played at least one game in that season's competition for the club, then I'm listing the accolade in their article (not saying this is the correct approach). I have a feeling there will be instances of editors just adding the accolade if they made an appearance in the relevant final. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Norway a player has to appear in a certain percentage of the league games in order to win a league medal. I don't think there are any such restrictions on cup level. Punkmorten 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The league restriction also exists in England, I think it's about a quarter of the club's matches. And I'm pretty sure a player doesn't get a cup-winner's medal unless he is actually in the 16 for the final..... ChrisTheDude 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection for England is... for the Premier League it is ten appearances, minimum. For the FA and Football League Cups you have to be in the matchday squad (i.e. team or bench). For the Champions League these days, however I think you get a medal if you're part of the squad taken to the final (even the third-choice keeper gets a medal, I think). Qwghlm 09:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely 10 for an English Premier League medal (see here and here (last entry)). The SPL have also confirmed (in an e-mail) the same for Scotland. Fedgin | Talk 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It varies from country to country and from competition to competition, so it's worth familiarising yourself with the rules, where possible. In the Bundesliga and DFB Pokal, for example, medals go to the entire squad regardless of appearances. ArtVandelay13 13:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth starting a page for this sort of information? Might be handy to collate this information (which could go in each competition's page anyway) into a single page? Fedgin | Talk 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Jeremy Wilson's book "Southampton’s Cult Heroes" he says that after the 2003 FA Cup Final, 16 runners-up medals were initially presented at the Millennium Stadium (to the 11 starters plus 5 substitutes), but shortly after the final the FA sent Southampton 3 additional medals which the manager presented to Francis Benali, Jason Dodd and Kevin Davies for their contributions en route to the final. Presumably this is normal as I see no reason why they should have made this a special case. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly recent development, but according to the rules, 25 medals are given out to each of the FA Cup finalists, similar to UEFA (who give out 30), so it's reasonable to assume people like Luis Garcia or Hayden Mullins would have got one. ArtVandelay13 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that rationale though. Wikipedia isn't about "assumptions." What if a club had only used 16 players, through all rounds, in winning the FA Cup? Are you saying that we're to assume that 9 other squad members played enough of a part to get a winner's medal?! Just listing whoever was in the matchday squad seems the way to go, to me. aLii 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I add something that Fedgin has said, it's true that 10 games is a minimal, but EPL sometimes give special dispensation to first team player who suffers injuries during the season, for example, Alan Smith only played in 6 league games this season, but during the medal presentation, I heard that EPL has give him a special dispensation to get a winners medal. This may confuse the issue furthermore. Martin tamb 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about if a player played in the FA Cup third round then was sold two days later and his original club went on to win the cup? He'd have played one FA Cup match that season for the ultimate cup winners but there's no way that could be added to his article as an honour he'd won, surely? ChrisTheDude 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost sorry I asked now! Regarding Chris' point above: nope, in my eyes he wouldn't receive the honour. Of course, a lack of sources (online or otherwise) on the matter is making this all the more difficult. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not us to decide who gets an honour or not. If 25 medals are given out then 25 names should be attached to the honour. Kingjeff 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the source for the list of 25 names? I've never seen such a list officially published by the FA (or equivalent) ChrisTheDude 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranieri and Juventus

Several IP users are continuously changing the Juventus F.C. article setting Claudio Ranieri as new head coach despite the fact he will become effective from July 1 and a Serie B season with caretaker manager Giancarlo Corradini is yet to finish. I would also suggest to semi-protect the Juventus article, because I think this issue will go on for a long while, together with the "usual" adding of rumoured transferred players (Iaquinta in Juventus's case). --Angelo 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a note to say that Ranieri will take over on the specific date. It's not a rumour is it? aLii 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a note for it, however this was continuously deleted and changed by several IP users. The July 1 date is a fact, being noted also by the official Juventus website [2]. Anyway, the article has been semiprotected now. --Angelo 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

May other titles in international competitions or tournaments, apart from them held by FIFA and UEFA, be mentioned in the articles about National teams? - Sthenel 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would include them, the Kirin Cup for example was a fairly notable event in the (recent) history of the Scotland national team. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in a section named "Honours" not generally in the article. What about the World Military Cup and Under-17, 19, 21 championships? - Sthenel 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Honours section of an article in my first reply. With regards to those examples, none of them are competed in by actual full national teams (although under-21 honours could go on the relevant under-21 national team articles) so shouldn't be included. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you! - Sthenel 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing often appears in club articles, but it's best to give unofficial competitions their own subsection of the honours section. ArtVandelay13 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent creation

I'm notice both article is created back while recently it was deleted because concern of crystal ball:

The problem is FIFA is not officially announced the list of the team will be participating, it just said 204 teams. This mean it could change until draw and no source list down the team so far.

I hope some of the actions can be taken. Thank you --Aleen f1 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish_Cup_2004-05 up for deletion!

Perhaps you should have a look at this one chaps [3]. The nominator also questions the need for the articles on all the other seasons too.... Nick mallory 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily kept. Nick mallory 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it had already been put on the list of nominations for deletion. There's no need to advertise the fact here as well. Qwghlm 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro

Unfair if redirecting Serbia and Montenegro but Yugoslavia did not get a redirect. KyleR Giggs 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a little more context? Its not clear what you are referring to. Oldelpaso 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report

It looks like the report is not suitable to include in footballbox, i have found that the link was empty. The problem occur because FIFA had develop a new website interface, and the web address for the report also alter. So, please consider to include report in the future. --Aleen f1 06:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you clarify what you're referring to? What report? What infobox? ChrisTheDude 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link report in any edition of FIFA World Cup, you can press it ans see what happen, is "error", so should it include in footballbox, not really a good idea. --Aleen f1 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. What a shame, someone obviously put a lot of work into putting all those (Report) links in. 2006 FIFA World Cup has plenty of these, and infact so do all the World Cup articles. It'll take a LOT of work to fix. Stupid fifaworldcup.yahoo.com! I can't abide sites that delete pages. aLii 15:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sport is good alternative. They never delete match reports. Kanaye 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we must have solution, how to avoid this problem again? --Aleen f1 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've not deleted the pages, just moved them here[4] --Yatesric 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional flags

Is there a consensus on the use of a regional or state flag next to the name of a player, as well as their national flag? The CE Sabadell article has got a whole load of Catalan and Spanish flags next to each other, and it's a bit hard on the eyes! I think in cases like this the Catalan flags should be removed, which may offend people from Catalonia, but Spanish is the nationalality that is recognised by FIFA. Gasheadsteve 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this for players who have represented Catalonia and The Basque Country, for example? Blogdroed 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these regions and territories are recognized by either UEFA or FIFA, so do not include them. --Angelo 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Spanish club articles use them, and they need removed. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be removed, it's completely irrelevant. ArtVandelay13 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional flags are also used on the Canada national team article GiantSnowman 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Evans' personal life and playing career

Does anybody know eneything about Steve Evans', the Crawley Town managers personal life because I require it if I want to promote the article to GA status, I have done everyting else on this list except that, if you do add to the article but do please rember to cite your sources. Also can you please check for that I have done everything on that list correctly. Can you help me in expanding the playing career as well. Kingjamie 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe S.K.

I'd like if some editors would check out Talk:Fenerbahçe_S.K.#propaganda_and_disinformation. Usually, these discussions include only two people, so if some editors would be so kind to voice their opinion, it would be beneficial for the article. Thanks! CAN 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems With Participants Page

My name in the participants page is all messed up, I've given up on it... if anyone can fix it please do then tell me how :)MichiganCharms 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it while adding myself, the problem was adding a space between | and - in the table row code. - MTC 06:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot and National Football Assocation logos

A large number of national FA logos are soon to be deleted unless they have a fair use rationale added, see this retired user's talk page for a large number of these. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roses Blue

Have a look at this article. To me it's a possible speedy deletion candidate, let me know your opinion. --Angelo 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd speedy it. Basically a test page, which wouldn't really contain suitable content for an article even if it was tidied up significantly. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue against speedying it, only because it will give the author time to save the information if he wants to use it at a later date. He'd be more than a little annoyed at losing all his work in a heartbeat. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a duplicate of what's on his userpage. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am speedying it and storing its content in a textfile in my notebook, in case he asks for it. --Angelo 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)~~ I requested "db-test", however this was declined citing opportunity to move this content into userspace, so I did it. --Angelo 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category indexing

I noticed in the Austrian football competitions category that the league competitions have been indexed according to the tier that they represent (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.) Could be usefully applied elsewhere in my opinion. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the look of that. - fchd 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, the only issue I can think of is that in England many non-league leagues (!) have changed level multiple times in recent years (eg in 1979 the Southern League Southern Division was at level 6, right below the Conference, now it's at level 8) - presumably we'd base it on the level the league is at now? And presumably defunct leagues from before the pyramid really existed would have to stay indexed by name? Just my two pence.... ChrisTheDude 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to do this for Category:English football competitions, but then I realised the Football League has its own category. As such, the different tiers won't show all in the one category, which is a minor annoyance. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

There appears to be a conflict between the Manual of style for biographies and that for footballers with regard to the content of the opening paragraph. The Marian Pahars article was recently edited to remove his place of birth from the opening paragraph as in conflict with MoS:BIO. Which of the two MoS has precedence? Daemonic Kangaroo 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them I think. In any case we should consider some kind of harmonization between the two Manuals of Style, there is a little incompatibility between them. --Angelo 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at biographies currently on WP:FAC, most do not put the place of birth in parentheses. Which is news to me, as I must have written dozens of articles by starting Person (born date in place). However, as Denis Law and Gilberto Silva reached FA with their place of birth in the opening paragraph, it looks like either is acceptable. Oldelpaso 10:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted players and managers

As the MoS suggests, every club article should have a couple of paragraphs about noted players and managers. The intriguing question is: can we find a well-defined, reliable way to define a player as notable for a single team? Let me reveal you also Italian clubs don't have neither official player awards such as Player of the Year or Centenary/Historical XIs. Any ideas? --Angelo 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one area where the project MoS is a little outdated I think (though the fact that most of it has remained constant for so long is testament to the great job Johan did when he created it). If there is a suitable defined set of players, such as a hall of fame or award winners then the section works and is NPOV. In the absence of anything like this, enlarging the number of players mentioned in a Statistics and records section can be a partial substitute, along with a link to List of Template F.C. players. Another option is that used by Gillingham F.C., which uses players who gained international caps while at the club, which seems a good idea if they are relatively few in number. For managers, on Manchester City F.C. I listed those who won a major trophy while at the club. Oldelpaso 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only included internationals on Dundee United F.C., with those who won caps during their time with United listed in bold. As managers are relatively small in number during the club's history, I think it is suitable to either list them all in the case of a newly formed club (e.g., Airdrie United) or those who have won something/been manager for several years (e.g., Jerry Kerr and Jim McLean at Dundee United or Dario Gradi at Crewe Alexandra). Fedgin | Talk 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not official by any means, but Football Italia have listed their Historical XI's of the 18 biggest clubs. Since they are the biggest clubs, all the players are probably allready listed though. Sebisthlm 09:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To include only international would not be good for teams such as Palermo that used to be a yo-yo team (from Serie A to B and then back for several seasons). I would state to include such these players:

Individual record holders;
~~Players who received a full international cap during their time spent with the club~~; not good for top-flight clubs such as Real Madrid, as this would include many of their players.
Players with a very high number of appearances with the club (e.g., 150-200);
Players who scored a very high number of goals with the club (e.g., no less than 50);
Players who received official individual club awards (Player of the Year, Historical XI member...), when available;
Players who won an official individual award in a nationwide, continental or worldwide basis (Golden Ball, FIFA Player of the Year...).

Any other? Probably, as this list would be very short for minor teams. Suggestions are welcome. --Angelo 14:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a draft of a possible proposal to solve the issue. Feel free to improve it. --Angelo 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese footballers

Again, some footballers were named by User:KRBN for deletion.

Lino Galea Christopher McKay (football) Reuben Gauci Adrian Ciantar Malcolm Licari Trevor Templeman etc.

some should, by AFD, by some should not. Matthew_hk t c 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

Hey all, just a quick word to say that Bobby Robson is now up for peer review. I know some of you prefer this information on the project page, it's there too, but I'd like to encourage even more of you to contribute in order to push the article all the way to featured status. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yid Army

I am not sure what is going on, on that article, is the page even needed? Maybe it should be deleted. Thoughts? Govvy 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content, no interest. Merge it with Tottenham. --Angelo 13:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be just deleted! :/ Govvy 12:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it could be expanded upon.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it could either just be incorporated into the main article (all two lines!) or just deleted. --EH74DK 13:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity football (soccer) fans

I can't help but wonder if the above category - and those below it - could be considered overcategorisation. The football team you support is not a defining characteristic, and it's also quite hard to source. ArtVandelay13 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd CfD it. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and done it. The Rambling Man 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland under-21s

Another proposed new category. Republic of Ireland under-21 international footballers seems a fairly logical one as there are a lot of players on wikipedia who played at that level (many of whom didn't move up to the full side) so it would be beneficial imo. As usual, I'll await comments/objections before going ahead. Hope all is well with everyone. --EH74DK 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent - similar categories already exist - go for it. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Templates on Final Pages

Anyone else think that this is a good idea, i wanted to discuss it first as some people might have objections to it but it think it could provide useful links. (Bones999 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That sounds fair enough, although the final shouldn't be a link on the template. ArtVandelay13 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeh agreed would clutter the templates, just see what other people say before implementing it Bones999 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man City review

Manchester City F.C. has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs)

Basque flags in Athletic Bilbao and others

Look at this article and how the Basque Country flags are featured in it. In addition, the current squad section is definitely a mess: I fixed it but this was reverted. I do not support inclusion of nations unrecognized by UEFA and FIFA. Let me know what you think. --Angelo 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Basque flags should be removed. GiantSnowman 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, you also have to watch out for Catalunyan flags on related articles. Having the Basque flag on Athleitc's squad is particularly silly, as they will only sign Basque players. ArtVandelay13 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. UEFA/FIFA recognised countries only. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hanskarlperez readded the Basque flags on Athletic Bilbao. I reverted it, however I ask you to watch this article in case he would make it again. --Angelo 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Logs on national team articles

I've seen game logs on the USA, Mexico, Canadian men and Canadian Womens' national football team articles. Is this not considered news? Kingjeff 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they're news or not, but I have to personally admit that I rather like them and find them useful, considering the usually mention who the NT is playing next and how they've performed recently. I don't see that as being any different than say the results described on the Concacaf Gold Cup page, with past results and upcoming fixtures, along with goalscorers... --Palffy 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that remark. Che84 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Career (league) totals in infobox

Copying the issue from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players talk page:

I've seen (and added myself) players' career totals to infoboxes (see Alan Shearer, for example) and wondered if the line should be added to the template on the project page. I'm not too keen on listing the players' career span to the left of the totals (as seen in Shearer's article), however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be parties both for and against keeping the career totals in the infoboxes, so please add your reasoning/opinion to the discussion below. --Palffy 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section of career doemstic games played is unneeded because we have a career table box for that which really gives the career stats a good section in the article itself. Kingjeff 18:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost positive that more player articles have an infobox than have a "career table box". (This isn't a reply to Kingjeff, so he shouldn't feel the need to respond directly.) - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any reason why this line should be removed. It provides an at a glance record of the player's club career, surely that makes it useful to the reader? Dave101→talk 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can easily be done with a career stats table. Kingjeff 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which will clutter the main text area of the article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those player stats tables are ridiculous: unwieldy, a waste of space, hard to update, rarely updated and vastly inferior to other sites which are designed for statistical data. The infobox gives a much more useful overview of a player's career. ArtVandelay13 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A career total in the infobox can be useful; but should it include clubs outside the professional leagues? See John Burridge for example; he has played for several "non-league" clubs for which stats are not easy to find, so there are gaps in his infobox, but he still has a total shown. (I haven't checked the arithmetic, but this is presumably simply a total of the stats that are shown.) Without his non-league stats the total is not accurate.

As for the tables in the articles, I wouldn't agree that they are "ridiculous" although they must be correct and up to date. The one on Alan Shearer was both inaccurate and incomplete until I edited recently; likewise for James Beattie. If they are accurate and complete they make a useful appendix to an article about a player's career; for example, they enable you to see when a striker had good periods and when their career was in the doldrums, which is not always mentioned in the article. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingjeff insists on reverting the "Career" total in the Andriy Shevchenko article, despite the fact there is no consensus here to remove this information. Dave101→talk 09:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This space soon to be filled by Kingjeff claiming there is a consensus and that we should either get glasses, get new glasses, or stop being babies. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for clubs' individual seasons

As some of you may have noticed, I marked certain clubs' seasons articles for speedy deletion today. It is my belief that these articles are much too over-specific for Wikipedia, and the subject matter does not deserve to have a whole article devoted to it. I would appreciate other Wikipedians' views on this matter, especially an opinion on why the articles should be kept. - PeeJay 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going out on a limb here, but wouldn't it have been prudent to enquire about this before you added the {{db}} tags? - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may be of debatable notability, however you made a mistake by marking them for speedy deletion, they cannot be absolutely elected for it. --Angelo 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos, but instead of talking about the mistakes I made, can we not just talk about their eligibility for deletion? - PeeJay 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good thing to have. WikiProject Baseball is doing season article for all 30 teams. Kingjeff 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they doing the right thing, though? How do we know they're not making the same mistake we are? - PeeJay 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a notorious argument. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user PeeJay about the lack of notability for any one club's individual season, but not that the articles merit a speedy deletion. Try bringing one to Afd to see what consensus emerges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

To me it depends only to what team are you talking about. Man Utd seasons are of course notable, whereas Pizzighettone's can hardly deserve one. --Angelo 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm. Perhaps they could be diluted into, for example, five-year spans, but they're useful for information or statistics that may appear out of place in the club's root article. Also, until today, Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 2001-02 had been around since November 2002 without anyone becoming irked by its existence. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for drawing the line at "Pizzighettone"? I see none. —freak(talk) 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a top-flight team and never played in a relevant pro league (two years in the Serie C1). It would be pretty hard, if not impossible, to source the events in all this club's seasons. What I suggest is to consider featuring club season articles only for the top-flight ones (teams with a minimum number of top division appearances in their history). --Angelo 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if sources could be found, one would not be a complete fool to create such pages. —freak(talk) 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in improving many of the professional Italian club articles, and I can ensure you finding reliable sources gets harder and harder as you go down in the league pyramid, with the exception of teams with a past history in the top divisions (especially Serie A). --Angelo 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In an ideal world, we would have an encyclopaedia with no gaps in information, but this world isn't perfect and so finding sources without any gaps is impossible. Why bother working on articles like this for teams like Plymouth and Ipswich when the time would be better spent on similar articles for Man Utd, Chelsea and other top-flight teams? - PeeJay 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If fans of Plymouth or Ipswich or even Accrington Stanley want to work on articles on their teams' seasons and reliable sources are available, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Saying their time would be "better spent" working on articles on Man Utd or Chelsea seems very discriminatory against (and possibly offensive to) fans of the smaller clubs, as it implies WP only wants content on the "big" clubs. As a fan of Gillingham I can say that nothing would interest me less than working on an article on Chelsea..... ChrisTheDude 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem of how to spend time. If any editor is willing to work on them with a bunch of reliable sources, there's no problem in it. For instance I am spending time for bringing Palermo to FA, including by creating season articles (but I actually have reliable sources), rather than Juventus (to work on it would cause me some kind of allergy). In addition, to me Ipswich is notable enough to deserve single season articles (they played in the Premiership for several years, didn't they?). --Angelo 01:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it before, and I'll propose it again, merge all such articles into 5 or 10 year spans. – Elisson • T • C • 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, season articles unequivically do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Being something of a mergist, I prefer an approach of using History of X F.C. and splitting that into smaller chunks when the amount of material becomes too great. I suspect an AfD would produce a variety of opinions. Oldelpaso 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear there's apparent consensus against deleting all this information. I guess we can find a common solution by ourselves, it seems like a matter of choosing how large these chunks should be. --Angelo 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite happily support deleting all of them - Wikipedia is not indiscriminate and those articles are a pain to maintain and keep track of. People happily start writing ones for 2006-07 or 2005-06 but then get bored and leave them to rot, as well as leaving gaps for all the other seasons. Qwghlm 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested to keep only the ones related to top-flight teams, as they are much easier to maintain and source than for minor teams. --Angelo 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, provided that they are actually properly maintained. - PeeJay 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep for me, preferably with as much prose involved as possible. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? As fa as I can see, most of the information in each of the articles could be summed up in just one article, like they have done for Arsenal. There really is no need for so much detail, especially not a record of the results of every one of the club's matches. - PeeJay 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My current favourite is The Bhoys from Seville - all other article should be modelled on it!--Vintagekits 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that article only cover's Celtic's European campaign from that season, rather than recording and tabulating every single result in all competitions like the others. Also, you haven't answered my question about why you think all the season-by-season articles should be kept. - PeeJay 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that would get in the way of his promoting the Houdini of Wikipedia articles. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been an AfD on this subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangers F.C. season 2005-06. As I said in that discussion, WP:5 states that Wikipedia includes information that would normally be found in almanacs, and to me these articles fall into this category. Gasheadsteve 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says Wikipedia incorporates elements from almanacs, not that everything you would find in an almanac should go into it. If you can find comprehensive sources for each of these articles, then go ahead and make them, but please try and do them all the the same high standard. Personally, I feel that Wikipedia would be better off if people spent more time improving existing articles than creating what I believe to be useless articles. - PeeJay 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of people using their time more wisely on other articles. I write about topics that I'm interested in, and I'm sure that most other people are the same. I don't write about things because I think it's a good use of my time, I write because I care about the subject. If I wasn't writing about my club, I wouldn't be writing about Chelsea or Manchester United instead because I've got no interest in them, I just wouldn't write anything about football at all. I also disagree with your comment that people should be improving existing articles instead of creating new ones, that would lead to WP having far too narrow a focus. There is also no problem with sourcing articles about teams in the Premiership or the Football League because Sky Sports and the BBC both have pretty comprehensive coverage of them on their websites. If you feel that an article is useless, don't contribute to it, it's as simple as that. Gasheadsteve 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dots in club names - Norway

The dots in names of Norwegian football clubs are most annoying, not used outside Wikipedia, the Swedish teams don't use them - the dots should be removed once and for all. The topic has been discussed before, inconclusively, so I just want to establish consensus for this issue, so that a bot could be requested. In other words, does anyone here contest the proposed mass move? Punkmorten 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian teams use dots - and in a massive way. --Angelo 22:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing Italian teams right now - see the topic header. Punkmorten 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is technically correct, to signify the abbreviation. Or it is in the case of F.C. etc, I'm not sure on what AIK and such like stand for. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to signify any abbreviations, there are numerous articles with upper case multi-letter abbreviations that do not use dots (NASA, YMCA, .50 BMG, SKF, RMS Titanic, ...), in fact, football clubs seem to be one of the few areas where such abbreviations actually use dots in some cases. And as Punkmorten notes, the dots are very, very, very rarely used outside Wikipedia for Norwegian clubs. The same goes for Sweden and that is why AIK is at AIK and IFK Göteborg is at IFK Göteborg, since no one uses A.I.K. or I.F.K. Göteborg, even though those abbreviations in a way act similar to F.C.. I see no problem at all with moving the Norwegian clubs. And I hope that sometime in the future we may be able to move the English clubs as well (consensus for such a move has been reached in the past, just that the best way to do the massive task was not found). – Elisson • T • C • 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was regarding every team in the Wiki, as you mentioned Sweden too. Sorry. --Angelo 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, apologize for the confusion but I mentioned them as Norway's neighboring country. Punkmorten 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental block

I've gone and confused myself by having the terms "third-bottom", "third-from-bottom" and "four places from the bottom" going through my head (and an article) in quick succession. I'd appreciate it if someone wouldn't mind looking here and letting me know if Blackpool finished three places (because there are three clubs below them) from the bottom or four places. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth from bottom. That is how I remember it being called at the time (and as it would be called now too), as the bottom four teams had to apply for re-election and it was the first and only time Blackpool were in that position.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I came to the same conclusion not too long after I hit the block. Also, inclusive was the word I clearly wasn't going to think of earlier. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

IFK Göteborg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epbr123 (talk • contribs).

Since the main reasons for this FAR seem to be lack of inline citations and some POV (what or where has not been said though), besides the strange thing about having only Swedish sources, there's not much for anyone else than me can do (unless you own a couple of books about IFK, which I would find very surprising ;) ). However, since this is the oldest FA we have on football, and since it was mainly written by me, not being fluent in English, the prose is not always of the highest quality. It would be very nice if someone could take a look at it, perhaps rewrite some less than good parts or just move a few words. I'll keep an eye on what has been done to see if someone mistakenly changes the meaning of a sentence (compared to what I wanted the sentence to say) or similar, so don't worry about that. – Elisson • T • C • 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question re categories

I have a question re the policy on categories. When we add a category to a player's article denoting that he was with a particular club, do we include it only if he played a competitive match for them, or do we add it if he was just on their books? I'm thinking particularly of players who began their careers through the youth systems of a particular club but moved on without playing in the first team. If someone could clarify the policy, I'd be grateful. Thanks - --EH74DK 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have said this before - My view on categories for players is that they should be all inclusive to allow player articles to be developed as fully as possible. If for example a player was with Arsenal, but left to play for Torquay United (ignoring the fact that relegation to the Conference now means such a player wouldn't be notable..) then I'd be able to add details on the Torquay side of things, but wouldn't know much about his Arsenal career. Him being in the Arsenal players category would hopefully allow someone else to spot that his article had been created and then add to it. This is an encyclopedia to be continually expanded after all. WikiGull 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're aware of this already, but your wording could be seen to be slightly ambiguous so I thought I'd best clarify.....players whose only pro experience was with Torquay prior to 2007 remain notable irrespective of their relegation out of the league..... ChrisTheDude 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's not what I meant - was meaning that if someone like that joined us now!WikiGull 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I thought as much but thought I'd best check ;-) ChrisTheDude 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that Steve Harris, the bass player with Iron Maiden, is in the West Ham players category based on his having been a youth player with them before switching to music - is this a valid inclusion.....? ChrisTheDude 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so. Had he been part of the first team squad, then yes, but not in this case. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoaxes

I'm pretty sure that Błażej Urbanowski and Błażej Poniatowski (last version with content) are hoaxes; same content; author with no other edits; no google hits. I thought I;d make sure, though. Any thoughts? ArtVandelay13 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very very likely, a 99.9% probability. In any case, a 17-years-old Polish-Canadian without any appearance in a first team squad would not be notable. WP:PROD for the former, CSD A3 for the latter. --Angelo 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the speedy (technically a CSD G7, but A3 works too). Oldelpaso 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the Urbanowski article removed the PROD template twice and added broken external links which return only error messages, in a senseless attempt to make it appear more notable. I asked him to stop it on his talk page. --Angelo 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the article could be speedied. ArtVandelay13 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought so, but I didn't find any criterion fitting the current situation. WP:HOAX states "hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates". --Angelo 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. No comment. --Angelo 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love obscure genres of music so I've made a mental note to check out that Polish soca :-) ChrisTheDude 09:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to those who notice these articles. It's something I never think to specifically keep an eye out for. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the interwiki links (as well as the external ones) lead to non-existent articles, and the article stated he won a top scorer award in 2002, when he would have been 12. Looks like a blatant hoax to me. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Whois to the supposed player's domain [6] (of course it has never been registered by anyone ever). The guy replaced the page with his own excuse. I think it is now eligible to be speedied (test page?). --Angelo 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The club he is supposed to have played for (GKS Gorzów Wielkopolski) does exist - but not in the top three levels of Polish football (approx. 100 clubs). The league award from 2002 refers to the town of Chełm's football league. Even if it is all true, there's not much you could describe as an assertion of notability. I'm going to speedy it. Oldelpaso 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Green

The article for Joe Green does not appear to conform to notability - this is an article for someone who never played a professional game and has been involved in part-time football since leaving Norwich's youth team. Perhaps whoever set up the article did it because he knows the person? Anyway, I'd welcome comments - I'm still familiarising myself here, so apologies if I've opened a discussion that has been done before. Is this an example of non-notable football articles that are deleted? Thanks - --EH74DK 11:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user page of the user who created it states "I go to a secondary school called Witchford Village College" - spot the connection. But you're right, the player in question does not meet the extremely non-stringent WP:BIO guidelines and can therefore be nominated for deletion.... ChrisTheDude 11:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, I changed the speedy to a Prod, as the line "He played for Norwich City FC during the years 1995-1998" is a claim to notability, so A7 is not appropriate. Although the subject's notability does not reach the required level, some form of notability was at least claimed and therefore it's not an A7. Hope that makes sense.... ChrisTheDude 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He only played at minor levels, so the author of the article was rather stretching it a bit! Still, no matter - thanks for your comments and assistance on this one. Let's see if it gets deleted. --EH74DK 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Football task forces (pt 2)

I think this will be of huge benefit to the Project...unless anyone has any objections I'm going to try and put together a proposal for an England football Task force, which can then be used as a template for the other Task forces (i.e. watch this space!) Paulbrock 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup Finals articles renaming proposal

I propose renaming all of the FA Cup Final articles to "YYYY FA Cup Final", rather than "FA Cup Final YYYY" as they are now. This would save on having to pipelink to the articles when referring to them in context, i.e. you would only have to type:

the [[2007 FA Cup Final]]...

rather than:

the [[FA Cup Final 2007|2007 FA Cup Final]]...

Obviously, this would be a pretty big job, what with over 100 articles to do, but I would like to hear people's thoughts on this nonetheless. - PeeJay 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. It's not just the FA Cup Final articles that would have to be renamed, it would be (for example) Champions League and UEFA Cup-related articles as well. If articles were to be named with the year or season first and lumped together, it would mess up the sorting in the relevant categories.

It can't be any more of a hassle to pipe FA Cup Final links compared with other article titles. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I'm reading. You mean you would rather do the lazy thing and do nothing than do some work and get things properly sorted out? This has needed doing for quite a long while. In actual fact, I can't think of a reason why the articles were named the way they are in the first place! - PeeJay 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the World Cup final articles are named year-first. There was a discussion about it here. I still say it's better to list the competition first, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you hold that opinion? It's all well and good saying you prefer one method over another, but you really should say why. - PeeJay 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my reason in my original comment. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But articles can be linked to from many other different articles, whereas sorting in categories is done from each individual article. The Champions League final articles are named [[Year Competition]], so basically it's either rename all the Champions League final articles to [[Competition Year]] or rename all the FA Cup final articles to [[Year Competition]]. Take your pick, but let's please have some level of consistency. - PeeJay 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, unlike its final, the Champions League season of that year is listed with the competition title first. But you're right, we do need some consistency. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you did move them, the right thing to do would be to change the year in the title to the season, so for instance it is the 2006-07 FA Cup Final. I've got no real preference for competition first or season first though. - fchd 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The most recent FA Cup final took place in 2007, therefore it is the 2007 FA Cup Final. - PeeJay 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the final of the 2006-07 F.A. Cup. If you look on most club honours lists, cups that span two calendar years but one season are listed with the season, not the year of the final. - fchd 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But while the competition spanned two years, the final only spanned one day, and that day was in 2007. Therefore it was the 2007 FA Cup Final, just like we have the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. - PeeJay 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely supportive of the status quo i.e., to list the tournament name first. --Angelo 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are in place already for most FA Cup articles so that e.g. 2006 FA Cup final works, however it is a good point to make. The majority of other sports finals article's are titled in the [[Year Championship]] form such as the 2007 World Series, 2008 Summer Olympics, 2005 All England Open Badminton Championships, 2007 Cricket World Cup etc etc. As well as all those, we have the same naming format for the World Cup (ie 2006 FIFA World Cup). I would support the change to a [[YYYY Competition]] format if a consensus agreed Foxhill 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see good arguments for each side, and looking through the FA Cup programme covers, it seems that there is clearly no definitive answer. Regardless, I don't see it as a problem that needs fixing. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Corinthians-related articles

Just to ask you if is a Sport Club Corinthians Paulista Transfers article notable? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in my opinion this article should be deleted. Additionally, I ask you to check recent edits by User:Pedro Gabriel Kallstrom Henry: he created articles such as Ilton José da Costa, Ricardo Rosa and Cláudio Duarte written in a very poor English, some of these of debatable notability (Rosa seems to be merely a fitness coach, whereas da Costa is Head of Football Department, whatever it means). This user has also a past history of creating articles about all youth team players, regardless of their possible lack of involvement in the first team. --Angelo 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of transfer lists have been deleted, and these are mainly more general e.g. done by league rather than club. This article should also be deleted. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has now added this article - Dr. Fábio Luiz Novi - a football club doctor. Surely this is also not notable?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's just a doctor... what did he do for being notable, other than "helping many players of Corinthians"? It's clearly a CSD A7 speedy deletion case. --Angelo 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he, "atendencce Nilmar Honorato da Silva 2 times in 12 years,by a shoot of the same team,SE Palmeiras." And agree it is a CSD A7 speedy deletion case. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Portuguese is expected to be a Romance language, thus at least partly intelligible to Italian people like me. However I can't really understand what he actually meant to say in his Portuglish. Jokes aside, I have prodded two of his brand-new articles (Ilton José da Costa, Ricardo Rosa), as Cláudio Duarte apparently seems to have been first team coach for Brazilian club Gama (at least that's what I can figure out from what he wrote in the article). --Angelo 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that User:Pedro Gabriel Kallstrom Henry is not happy. He tried removing the prod on Ricardo Rosa, removed the two tags I placed on the Cláudio Duarte article (after I had tidied it up a bit) and vandalised my user page. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can theorically remove the prod template in case he can provide facts proving Ricardo Rosa's notability; he can theorically remove the two tags in case he is able to find and add sources and references for the subject; but he cannot vandalize a user page different than his. Noticed. Should he keep showing such a disruptive behaviour, consider reporting him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Angelo 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, good point. However, when he removed the prod and tags, he gave no edit summary and give no reasons as to why he was removing them, nor did he provide sources, nor explain why he was doing so even in the talk pages. Of course if he had given the information then fine, but not just simply removing them with no comment, ans especially given that at the same time he vandalised a user page. Such fun! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"national" team for subnational entities?

User:Godefroy moved all French dependency's national football team. I remember someone did that before for Hong Kong, so should wee move it back and give him a warning? Because i revert his edit but he moved to same page twice. Matthew_hk t c 00:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely. Revert it all and warn him, by the way he doesn't have the consensus to do so, as his move breaks all the current standards. --Angelo 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them all to their previous place. If someone wants to discuss the issue, there's enough space here to do it. To me it's better to leave them all as they are now. --Angelo 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who creates consensus? Just the two of you? Fine, I'll open a vote here and call the attention of various editors. We'll see what people think. Personally I think that calling "national" some regional teams such as the team of Andalucia, Spain (Andalucia national football team), the team of Corsica, France (Corsica national football team), or even (good grief!) Bornholm, Denmark (Bornholm national football team) is not just simply ludicrous as in the case of Bornholm, but it is also quite frankly POV. Implying that Andalucia or Corsica are nations distinct from the French or Spanish nations, which is what these titles do, is POV and contrary to Wikipedia rules (read WP:NPOV). I propose we remove the word "national" in the case of subnational entities (except subnational entities which have been officially recognized as nations by their parent states, such as in the case of Québec or Scotland), and replace it with the words "regional" or "provincial" as appropriate. Please vote. Godefroy 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, just in case you don't know this: WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Second, how would you define Scotland national football team? A "regional" one too? I don't think so. Third: in order to prove a consensus existed, here's an analogous case, read this. Fourth: CONCACAF calls Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guyana as "nations". A proof? Here it is. Need more? --Angelo 02:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot a very last thing: no canvassing. I am talking about this, this and finally this. Adieu. --Angelo 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you can also explain how the city of Cartagena, Spain, can possibly have a Cartagena national football team? Ridiculous, isn't it. Godefroy 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Cartagena national football team according to the article have played against the Faroe Islands national football team. The Faroe Islands, that is an autonomous region of Denmark. So by your reasoning the Faroe Islands national team should also be changed to regional. As perhaps should the England team too. Perhaps you could also stop vote canvassing now. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Why don't you instead answer the facts and objections here and stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate your point? This is not a crusade and, by the way, all the members in this WikiProject are smart enough to take decision by themselves, without any kind of votestacking. I would even cancel all that voting process below, polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Angelo 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just go with what FIFA says? Surely they have a list of national teams. If it's in their list it's a national team, otherwise it's a regional, provincial, or whatever form of representative team. Let FIFA worry about that, and just go with what they say. Removes any debate don't you think? - Shudda ^talk 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all national teams in the world play in FIFA competitions. Some of them play solely for CONCACAF, AFC and a few others I don't remember right now. Notably, CONCACAF defines the French dependencies and overseas territories that Godefroy want to be called "regions" as "nations", as you can see by yourself. --Angelo 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some also play in Nouvelle Fédération-Board competitions.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "national"

remove - replace with "regional" or "pronvincial" as appropriate. Godefroy 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that I put much stock in these easily-manipulated straw polls, but) Remove unless explicitly called a "national team" by the governing or regulatory FIFA body (or perhaps major sports publications, newsmedia, etc.) Albrecht 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave "national"

Strong keep With respect Godefroy, you are in no position to criticise others about consensus. The Falkland Islands have a national team apparently. I very much doubt that they consider themsleves to be a regional football team, the same as others no doubt. I doubt they would also prefer to be called the "Falkland Island self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom football team" (merely joking by the way). And just to add that I have serious doubts as to whether this vote can now be deemed legitimate given that the user who proposed it has canvassed for votes specifically to remove, on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark, Wikipedia:WikiProject France and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain, and also because the vote description has already been changed twice from what it was originally. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call the attention of other people to this poll too. When people open polls, what they do usually is they publicize the poll in as many talk pages as necessary to have as many people as possible taking part in the vote. If you're afraid of other people's votes, could it be that you're not so confident in your position? Godefroy 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't just "publicize the poll". You are author of votestacking, as you asked them to vote deliberately in support of your opinions, that's pretty different. --Angelo 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again Godefroy you miss the points made. Firstly you are canvassing for votes by using one opinion only, and not neutral wording against no canvassing. On all three projects you have clearly been votestacking, something which is deemed unacceptable, so there are clearly doubts. Also you have changed the vote description twice from what it was originally, changing the meaning of the vote so it is hard to keep up with what you are actually proposing, especially when you (ahem sorry but poor humour) keep moving the proverbial goal posts. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, asking the members on each of those three projects to, "Please vote if you want to remove the word "national" in those titles." is not merely publicising the vote, it is asking the members to vote in favour of your opinion only.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are not as stupid as you seem to imagine, they'll vote for whatever they believe is best, no matter what I wrote. Besides, I've changed the wording so as not to sound calling only for a "remove" vote. Happy? Godefroy 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And adding virtually the same thing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries is still missing the point. Yes you have used a different wording in your request to vote, but you are still pushing your POV and one view only and clearly still canvassing for votes for removal. A neutral publicising the vote would be to use neutral wording, just stating there is a vote, what it is about, but you are still pushing your view when publicising the vote. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a silly poll that stinks of WP:POINT but Keep at least until someone undertakes it upon themselves to verify the exact status of these teams. Previous discussion on this topic resulted in the usual heated conversation on what is technically a political issue (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive6#French regional teams). The article title of 'Blahblah national football team' follows the current trend, whether or not these areas are technically a nation or not is something that can be discussed in their respective article with references. Whilst we are mandated to be NPOV, this means avoiding BOTH identifying areas as nations and identifying areas as regions where this would be contentious. So back it up by improving the articles themselves. Foxhill 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]