Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10

A head-up that there is edit warring over a prod going on at CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10. This seems to mostly be by User:SuperSonicx1986, who has been clearly advised on his talk page that the prod has been contested and that if he wishes to pursue this, he should now go to WP:AfD. He has received a 'final' warning and a final 'final' warning (as three weeks elapsed since the last one) but an IP has waded in too now. I have no opinion on whether there should be an article on this subject. The contention seems to be that there has been no official announcement of the tournament other than a statement in 1.4 on page 3 here that the tournament will be organised every year but whatever, WP:AfD is the next step not edit warring over the prod. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF is not a reliable source in this. The same thing happened for the Cup Winners Cup, the Giants Cup, and the Champions Cup of 16 teams which CONCACAF created documents of similar status as the above one and we all know how it ended up. Not to mention, there are media elements talking of a change of slot allocation.

That is why it is best to wait and see what does CONCACAF say FROM THEIR MOUTH, not some online book.

Okay, first, indent your comments so that we can distinguish them by using one or more colons like this ":," and also please sign your posts with four tildes like this "~~~~," so that we can tell who says what. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the competition won't take place next season, and even if we grant that you are right about it, there is still no excuse for your behavior over the last several months with regard to CONCACAF articles. You've engaged in a number of edit wars, refuse to be part of constructive discussion, and are generally a pain in the ass about everything. Please stop being a dick. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning and removed the prod again. However, I have to say that I would vote for delete in any AfD because there is no concrete information on the tournament whatsoever (no final venue or anything). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you know the final venue? It's a home and away series between the semi-finalists. Teams have already qualified for 2009-2010 (DC United already winning the US Open, and Columbus Crew will win the Supporters Shield in a few days). Ticket sales have already started for the preliminary round - [1]. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• User:SuperSonicx1986 received a 72-hour block for still doing this, but while blocked, once again blanked and prodded CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10 using IP account User:206.209.102.178, an account he has used previously. In addition to this obvious violation of procedures he has continued to edit war on pages Template:North American club football competitions, CONCACAF Champions League, Template:CONCACAF Champions League, Copa Interclubes UNCAF, and Copa Sudamericana, making changes that are consistently reverted by various other users. Nfitz (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • More vandalism by this user, this time using User:206.209.102.182. Are there any admins out there who can block the user, and the IP range? And perhaps semi-protect the page? Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism remains by User:SuperSonicx1986 using several IP accounts 68.215.154.112, 206.209.102.178, 206.209.102.182, 68.218.61.252 and 67.34.2.41. I request for a semi-protection to the pages mentioned above, atleast to anonymous users. JC 16:34, 22 Octuber 2008 (PST)

• I've requested semi-protection for several of these. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#CONCACAF Champions League Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And as is usually the case, semi-protection was refused. I've asked again - meanwhile SuperSonicx1986 continues to vandalise, with the user comment want to keep censoring, posting false information, and vandalising, that's fine. I got a lot more IP addresses where this came from and I will just make more, you fascists. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I would mention that the main SuperLiga article has also been vandalized, presumably by the same person, so it might need protection, too. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that one, but he's only hit it a couple of times. I've had problems getting an admin to semi-protect the ones he has hit a couple of dozen times! However the list I submitted is now semi-protected but only for a week. Keep an eye on SuperLiga, as he might now attack that one out of frustration. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The old "famous players" problem

Albedo Piazzolla has been adding famous/notable player sections to articles without providing an accompanying criteria. Should I be removing the sections (as I have done to a couple of articles), or slapping a {{Famous players}} tag at the top of the sections? I'd be inclined to do the latter if someone would actually take the time to build the list according to the criteria stated, but I don't think it is likely to happen. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, would criteria be needed for a "Notable former players" section in a non-League club's article? If the player has become notable (i.e., he has a Wikipedia article) since leaving the club, shouldn't this suffice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with Notable former players sections is that it is at best imprecise as to the chronology of that notability. For example, should Teddy Sheringham be considered as a "notable past player" at Colchester: notable among English players of his era, but his few months at Layer Road were entirely forgettable: Ian Wright is notable, but was he anything more than a bit better than other Kent League players while at Greenwich Borough?

As regards your idea about an article being sufficient notability, it would very much depend on which non-league club you have in mind: if applied to Cambridge United, we'd see every one of their players from 1970-2005: applied to Brett Sports it would be sufficient grounds. This variety of criteria as to how high the threshold might be set is why it should be justified on each talk page.

As a {{Famous players}} tag slapper-on, I would be say slap away on Sr Piazzolla's contributions, but given that the template includes the words "If no criteria is forthcoming, the section is liable to deletion", how long should the tag be in place before an axe falls? Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. He's re-added the list to SC Freiburg's article, listing players' caps for their respective countries. Some of them didn't receive caps whilst with the club, but it's better than nowt, I suppose. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion - players should only be considered 'notable' on the club page if the club itself (or acceptable local media) considers them notable - for example, Bradford City's notable players are those who have been voted by the Telegraph & Argus, the local paper. GiantSnowman 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if a player gained international caps whilst at the club, or started his career there (and actually played for their 1st team) and went on to become a top class player after leaving, then they can be added to that list, or if they made a significant contribution to the team, ie scoring the winner in a cup final Skitzo (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And how would you define a "top class player"? GiantSnowman 10:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

someone who starts his/her career at a smaller club (ie someone like Oldham) and goes on to be a regular player at a top level club (any premier league club). Skitzo (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what inspired you to cite Oldham as an example, but it is distinctly problematic. Oldham were a top level club from 1910-1923, and again from 1991-1994. Should every "regular" (and I share the Snowman's reservations over that word) player for those years be included? And if every "regular" player for Oldham in 1913 and 1993 is to be included, why shouldn't every "regular" player for every other top division team those, or any other, years? This seems a fine example of why the inclusion/exclusion criteria should be specifically settled at each team's talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that, for lower league clubs, a Premier League player who started there is indeed notable, how will you measure how many games makes someone a "regular player at a top level club"? GiantSnowman 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you people intentionally looking for problems? we are all football fans to be involved in this i presume, so we know what construes a "1st team regular", as for the Oldham example I am obviosuly going off current league status, please stop creating difficulties where there is no need to be. Skitzo (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm an just trying to help solve the problems that such sections cause. GiantSnowman 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the start of this topic, Albedo Piazzolla is still at it. I've left several messages on their talk page, but with no response. For example, they added a list to Arminia Bielefeld of every player who'd ever been capped and played for the club, not necessarily at the same time. Any suggestions as to a course of action? Dancarney (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing unqualified lists over tagging them with {{Famous players}}, and have done a few times. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

help please

someone keeps removing 4 players from the Leicester City Current squad list, the 4 players in question, may not have squad numbers but they are apart of the current Leicester City squad on their website, can you please help me keep an eye on this as they shouldn't be removed unless sold or loaned out. Skitzo (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are some of them out on loan? If so, they should probably be in the "out on loan" section, rather than the main squad list. But they shouldn't be removed completely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

no, as yet none of the people that keep being remove are out on loan, though 1 was just on trial at Cheltenham.Skitzo (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone is still removing players with no squad number, if its someone on here please state why, if not can people keep an eye on this please as all the players in the current squad section are listed in the player profiles on Leicester's website. Skitzo (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

it appears User:Wikinixon17 is the person removing them, can people please help me educate this user on the policies, the players are on LCFC.co.uk so they should be on here ... Skitzo (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronaldo

I'd appreciate it if an admin could temporarily semi-protect Ronaldo's article. An IP user has been adding the same unsourced/non-notable material (career assist totals) to it for a few days now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tap, tap. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piergiorgio Welby's father

This Italian - who became famous as a right-to-die activist - had a Scottish father (hence the unusual name) who was a player for AS Roma in the 1940s. Does anyone know who his father was? GiantSnowman 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on him on the Italian Wikipedia at Alfredo_Welby. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the It version suggests he wasn't in fact Scottish at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that...I presume then that Alfredo's father was the Scot...GiantSnowman 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created the article at Alfredo Welby. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Islington Corinthians

A notable club? Seems not to me. Article was created by a user whose username matches the name of the author of the book listed in the article - possible spam? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely fails the (mostly) agreed-upon club rule for participating in the FA Cup or top ten levels in the football pyramid. Probably fails the more general notability rule of significant coverage in multiple independent sources - there is one self-published source. I did find this BBC London link but it's written by the same guy to promote his book. There is little substantive coverage elsewhere - not even on fchd - just a lot of off-hand mentions. I've flagged the article with these issues and may AfD if they're not resolved in a reasonable time. Qwghlm (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there may have been a lot more coverage, world-wide, in the press during their worldwide tour - it must have been quite a novelty in a lot of places at that time. Has anyone asked the author of the book for sources, or has anyone seen the book and if so is there any list of references in there? I wouldn't expect to find much on the internet about a club from this long ago. They're listed on the tours of the US Soccer Hall of Fame (see http://clubetabanka.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html), google is pointing me to a reference in a Winnpeg paper of 1938 (http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glp&search=%22islington%20corinthians%22%20%22the%20times%22&img=\\na0009\6786965\40871150_clean.html) but I can't get any deeper than that at the moment. If the club themselves aren't notable, their world tour by itself may well be. - fchd (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the tour got multiple independent coverage at the time then the club effectively got the same, and I would have no objection to the club's inclusion. I'm about to drop a note on the author's page. Qwghlm (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say if the world tour would be notable, then the club should be, and the world tour's coverage should be in the article about the club. It would be difficult to have an article about a tour of a club and then not acknowledge the club itself. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Wiley

Could do with a hand on Alan Wiley, cheers. Beve (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hat-trick of hat-tricks

I'm not sure exctly how rare this is (hat-ricks in successive matches), nor at what level it would have to be achieved to be considered noteworthy. Charlie Ide completed the feat tonight, for Wivenhoe Town, and I have noted it at his own article and on Hat-trick: fair, or am I getting carried away on behalf of my second team? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Rhodes (footballer) did it in 2003, and it's not on his page. Not sure if it's on hat-trick page. There's no reason why not to put it on his own page, it certainly should be. But like you, I'm not sure how common it is. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup winners

I notice that in most cases, break-out lists of the winners of a competition follow the naming convention "List of X Cup winners" eg List of UEFA Cup winners, however for the FA Cup it is at FA Cup Final. Should the list be moved to List of FA Cup winners, and, if so, is there a case for the article FA Cup Final to remain in place but be turned into more of an overview of the final and its traditions eg the venues, Abide With Me, 39 Steps, etc.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The FA Cup Final is an event in itself, and worthy of its own article. – PeeJay 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. GiantSnowman 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. - fchd (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start at lunchtime then :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just started on a list of Football League Cup winners. – PeeJay 12:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture plagiarism!

Just been looking at Simon Russell's myspace, and look at where he got some of those photos from! Feel quite flaterred really, whilst also thinking "I took those bloody photos!" Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's the same as with any text, and it's free to re-use but should be under the GFDL licence? Not that quoting such got me anywhere last time I needed to do. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Matty, who's the girl with the lollipop? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You should feel honoured mate! GiantSnowman 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiller

I've just created articles on two German internationals of the early 20th Century with the surname Hiller who were uncle & nephew - Arthur and Marius; does anyone know if Franz Hiller, who played in the 1970s, is another relative? Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway

What happened here? There are now over 40 subcategories where 1 category would suffice. I thought there was a concensus against developing all of these subcategories for types of expatriates in a specific country. Am I wrong? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a number of these subcategories were deleted at AfD, followed a few days later by a keep no consensus decision on another bunch of similar subcategories. I raised the subject here in order to try and gain some consensus and consitency on the issue but there was not enough interest shown to end the confusion over Xian expatriate footballers in Y categories. EP 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the clear conflict of interest on the 2nd AfD close, the guy who closed it (Good Ol’factory) !voted keep in the first debate meaning that he cannot possibly have closed the second contradictory one from a NPOV. EP 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I agree that these subcategories are unnecessary and will cause a large proliferation of categories with only 2 or 3 articles in them (in other words a case of overcategorization). Can we try to build a concensus and them take them to CfD? Jogurney (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

It looks like it isn't working, there are sections at the top that haven't been used in a month and the newest section in the most recent archive is a month old. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be because there were two threads by Jacoplane (talk · contribs) that use a non-standard date format and that was confusing the archive bot. I have manually archived them to the appropriate archive pages, and I'll see if MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) likes it now to start re-archiving. Qwghlm (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked by the looks of things. It looks like the footbo spam link was causing problems as well. Qwghlm (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also been bold and added in some code for HBC Archive Indexerbot (talk · contribs) to take care of archive indexing - this means in future it will be easier for us to find old stuff in the archives, I hope. Qwghlm (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK it seems to have worked. So we now have an automatically-updated list of archived topics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive Index that links through to old topics along with their title and date, so finding old discussions will be easier. I've taken the liberty of using an smaller & more automatic archive box on this page that doesn't need manual updating as well. Hope that's OK by everyone. Qwghlm (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The sortable index table looks useful, well done EP 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

North Road (stadium) peer review

The peer review of North Road (stadium) is crying out for some comments. It's been listed for 11 days and only ChrisTheDude has replied. Any comments would be appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks. – PeeJay 20:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 1923 FA Cup Final, which has been listed at PR since 15 October and has attracted no review comments at all so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Julian Valentin

Can a mod please re-create the article for Julian Valentin - the kid is finally, FINALLY making his MLS debut for LA Galaxy today. Confirmation is here [2] - thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've left the updating with the new facts to you or another more knowledgeable editor. Qwghlm (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Morgan

I want to create an article about a former Manchester United player named Hugh Morgan, but I am unsure about how to disambiguate the article title. The subject of Hugh Morgan (footballer) is a Scottish footballer born in Lanarkshire who played for Liverpool in the early 1900s. However, the Hugh Morgan I intend to write about is also a Scottish footballer born in Lanarkshire, and he too was active in the early 1900s. Does anyone have any suggestions as to a disambiguator I can use? – PeeJay 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By date of birth..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If not then by position? Qwghlm (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with date of birth, i.e. Hugh Morgan (footballer born XXXX). пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Liverpool player should be moved to Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1869), with the (footballer) page turned into a disam. GiantSnowman 11:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to mention that when I started this discussion I didn't know Manchester United's Hugh Morgan's date of birth. However, like an idiot, I had forgotten to check one of the sites I regularly use to see if they had it, and they do, which has now made this whole discussion a rather embarrassing and unnecessary display of shoddy research on my part. Nevertheless, after creating the new article at Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1875), should I also move Hugh Morgan (footballer) to Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1869)? – PeeJay 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the confirmation of that, GS. – PeeJay 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I started to suggest that 10 minutes ago (hence edit conflict) and my browser crashed. Simple disamb page at original (footballer) page? Heightwatcher (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually let the (footballer) pages redirect back to the more generic disambiguation page, jumping to the relevant section if there is one (e.g. Andrew Mitchell (footballer)) - there shouldn't be more than one dab page for the same name, IIRC. Qwghlm (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I've just done it. Peanut4 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 1928-29

I've literally just created the article for the FA Cup 1928-29, and as soon as I did, I got a message from User:CorenSearchBot regarding it being a "substantial copy of [3]". Seeing as I created the page without resorting to this site, which seems like a proxy and probably links back to this, please could someone check this and either let me know so I can tell the operator of the bot, or just tell them directly? I can't go to the link because of the internet filter at my work. Cheers. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is, I've just checked. Seems silly - maybe drop a note on the bot owner's page? Qwghlm (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Goal-line technology

A new article on goal-line technology was started yesterday (not by myself) - it has some references and not a bad start but has some issues with world outlook (mainly UK perspective and quite recentist) and some balance problems (particularly with the list of proponents & opponents). It would be interesting to get further editors' inputs into it. Qwghlm (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stan Ternent

This edit has made my night. An IP edited Ternent's article, stating "Huddersfield Town - the way he's going he aint gonna last long. He's wasted so much cash we now have a team of central midfielders". What does a registered user go and do? Slaps a {{fact}} tag on the end of it. Marvellous. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - such POV should always be reverted - with a suitable reason given in the edit summary, naturally. Qwghlm (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Academical

Please can an admin protect the Hamilton Academical F.C. article; IP users keep adding a player called James Hall to the current squad, even though he isn't listed on the official website OR Soccerbase and so doesn't play for them! Regards, GiantSnowman 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Done for a week. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GiantSnowman 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Striker

• The article previously called Striker has been moved following proper procedure to Forward (association football). However, the dab page previously called Striker (disambiguation) was then moved to Striker, thereby making all the thousands(?) of links to Striker land at a dab page rather than where they're supposed to go. Aren't people supposed to fix (or at least consider) potential problems like this before moving pages? and more importantly, is there anything can be done about it short of a massive manual disambiguation exercise? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the editor who moved it's talk page. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved them back. But here in England, most times that I hear the word "striker" it means a man in a work stoppage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both!! though I'm not sure I'd agree about the most common usage in England these days :-) I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote to Forward (association football) pointing to the Striker (disambiguation) page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting formations and XIs

Judging by these (1, 2) additions to the Nottingham Forest 2008-09 season article, I think someone from the Useless Stats department at Sky Sports is a Reds fan. Worthy of inclusion? Not in my opinion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, OR and unproveable. Going on most starts, as I've seen elsewhere, does not recompense for players playing in multiple positions. Formations change, players leave and enter. It's too much of a minefield. Delete on sight in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Peanut - delete without remorse! GiantSnowman 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that the sources given for the "starting 11" section are other sections of the same article. Excellent... - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Premier League

An IP keeps adding a list of all Israelis who have transferred to European clubs to this article. I've removed it several times stating that it's unnecessary, but he keeps re-adding it (along with adding a few players to the list of Premier League players, even though they never played in the Premier League (which was established in 1999). Could someone either semi-protect the article or have a word with the IP (who has just severely vandalised my userpage too). Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This has now spread to the Beitar Jerusalem F.C. article, where a list of every player Beitar has ever sold to a European club is being added... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Football (soccer)

Out of interest, why was it that we decided to leave association football's main category at Category:Football (soccer)? I thought the reason might have been that it would have taken a monumental effort to re-tag all of the related articles, but I don't think that the magnitude of a task should have any bearing on whether it gets performed or not. – PeeJay 14:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support all the categories being renamed, and the tagging can be done by a bot on request I believe. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've always wondered why the subcategories were never renamed when association football made the big move...GiantSnowman 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

With the above comments taken into account, I have started a CfR discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 31#Category:Football (soccer). – PeeJay 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Player Numbers

If a player plays for 2 different clubs at a time (By this I mean a first squad and a reserve squad), what would be the players number in the infobox? Example: Thomas Kraft, he plays for Bayern Munich (#35) and Bayern Munich II (#1). Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you not put "clubnumber=35 ([[FC Bayern Munich|Bayern Munich]])<br />1 ([[FC Bayern Munich II|Bayern Munich II]])" in the infobox? – PeeJay 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that works. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)