Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oscar86 (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 19 July 2006 (→Standardisation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WPF navigation

Lower levels of the National League System

Is there a great need to have separate articles for each division of every league in the NLS? Steps 1-6 I can understand, but below there it seems a bit unnecessary, as there's not much that can be said about, say, the Anglian Combination that warrants four separate articles. I'd propose that all leagues at step 7 (level 11 overall) be merged into a single article for the league. By my reckoning, this would combine each of the following leagues into a single article each:

Also:

As well as being easier to navigate for readers, this would make Category:English football competitions more manageable. Thoughts? — sjorford++ 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me. Oldelpaso 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. If you need a hand drop me a line on my talk page. Qwghlm 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Person data?

Is it new? User Yonatanh (talk · contribs) is adding some sort of "person data" template in several players' articles. Would somebody check his contribs and tell me what is it about? —Lesfer (talk/@) 05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata is special metadata which can be added to biographical articles. This metadata can then be extracted and processed automatically (unlike conventional Wikipedia content). It consists of a set of standardized data fields which include basic information about the person, such as name, birthday, place of birth, etc. This metadata can be used for a variety of purposes, including advanced search capabilities, statistical analysis, automated categorization, and birthday lists. The addition of persondata will not affect the normal display of an article since the information remains hidden unless a user sets their user stylesheet to display it. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :D —Lesfer (talk/@) 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style of FIFA World Cup articles

I've been doing minor edits to 2006 FIFA World Cup, and I like the style that's used there — in particular, I think {{footballbox}} is much better than the tables used in 1998 FIFA World Cup, so I'd like to change other articles (starting with 1998 FIFA World Cup) to use that style... does that sound like a good thing to do? --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags or Emblems

After adding flags to the past winners part of Copa Libertadores de América, an inactive user returned, who had been working on the article last year. He expressed that previously, where now on the article below every team it says their country, and has its national flag, it previously had the club emblems. I noticed that User:Ed g2s removed on the grounds that use as decoration (i.e, they added no relevant information that could not be obtained from the link provided) was not fair use. User:Sebastiankessel argued in favour of the emblems, saying that the clubs enter to represent themselves, and no their country, where as I claimed that they do inadvertantly represent football from the league they come from, and as winnings are divided between the club and league federation of their home country, the country they come from was relevant. I thought it should be discussed here as this place works to make footballing articles uniform.

So, should international club competitions display the club emblems or the club's country's flag? Philc TECI 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The full discussion is here: Talk:Copa Libertadores de América. Like I said in the talk page club emblems look better and are more representative although I don't have problems with using flags either. And how about using both? Bruno18 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Phil could've expressed my opinions any better. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the fair use policy: "8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." As the Copa Libertadores is the subject of the article, not the individual clubs, Ed g2s is correct to say that fair use logos cannot be used. Oldelpaso 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oldelpaso - the rules on fair use are clear cut - they are quite clearly not allowed as decoration for templates or trophy listings. The choice is not between national flag and club crest, but national flag or nothing at all. I'm not bothered whether to include flags, but the main point is that we cannot use the club crest. Qwghlm 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh that was one of the points raised if you read the initial question, Oldelpaso just confermed it for us. Philc TECI 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Merge

Just to bring this to everyone's attention, Chuq has suggested merging aggregate score and the away goals rule into the Two-legged article. Post any comments you might have on this page. - Pal 13:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup

It would be nice to do something like the 2006 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles with the brackets etc.. for this season's upcoming FA Cup and then try to fill-in previous years competitions. Jooler 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like with the world cup articles? One problem is how incredibly huge the fa cup tree would be, considering it includes about 150 clubs. Philc TECI 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also the tree is uneven, not everyone starts in the first round. Philc TECI 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's uneven because new teams a brought in in each round, means you need to break it into sections, I'm not talking about one huge single bracket.I see what you say though about the unknown status of the following rounds, I hadn't considered that to be honest. I have a book here in front of me, published in 1960, which shows a bracketed table for every FA Cup from 1871/72 to 1958/59 (from the 3rd round on for the later competitions), so it could be done for past competitons anyway, but maybe for an ongoing competition you could break- it up by not having connecting brackets for the rounds which have not yet been drawn. Jooler 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season templates

Has there been any work on creating pages for league seasons? Currently some leagues are similiar, but other season recaps are pretty different. I think this would be useful. Thoughts? Rballou 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squad templates

Championship Clubs

Recently I created the squad template for Portsmouth which meant every club in the Premiership had one. (I also created the Everton one)

There are only 3 Championship sides that have one Southampton, Wolves and Birmingham. I think that all championsip sides should have one and then we should move on to League 1. Basically all teams that have most of their players with wikipedia articles need one. Simply copy the code of another template and edit it accordingly. Use Birmingham as it has the code to put it in the championship squad category making sure you change the word Birmingham to the team you are making --SenorKristobbal 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I help with getting them done--Childzy talk contribs 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added Ipswich to all the relevant pages. Budgiekiller 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good to see response quickly SenorKristobbal 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cellpadding=0

I've just realised that the bordered header of certain templates looks ridiculously large in Internet Explorer (which is rubbish). It can be fixed by removing the cellpadding="0" text from the end of the second line.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global template

I might be missing something here, but why are we creating templates for every page rather than just creating one global template to which the information can be added? It would be relatively trivial to create a template the looked like the ones above but where the team name, team colours and player names (maybe setting an upper limit of 22 players) could all be added in as variables. --Daduzi talk 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that attempted bu Veila in his hard hats mandatory section its harder than it sounds. That would be excellent though. Also upper limit of 22 is just silly. SenorKristobbal 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very complex stuff that you are talking about, BTW i added the template to the Burnley FC players. Another point, it wont be possible to do templates for lower leagues as there are not articles for all of the players, see Bury F.C.

It's not that hard, really. The reason I was suggesting limiting it to 22 player was because then it could be fitted onto one template, but then I realised it could just be split across 3 templates like the current football squad template. I decided to play around with it and here's what I came up with: 

{{football squad2 start|teamname=Arsenal F.C.|bgcolor=red|textcolor=white|bordercolor=silver|squadcolor=#ffe0e0}}
{{football squad2 player|no=1|name=[[Jens Lehmann]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=2|name=[[Abou Diaby]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=3|name=[[Ashley Cole]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=4|name=[[Cesc Fàbregas]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=5|name=[[Kolo Touré]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=7|name=[[Tomáš Rosický]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=8|name=[[Fredrik Ljungberg]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=9|name=[[José Antonio Reyes]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=11|name=[[Robin van Persie]]}}
{{football squad2 end}}

Creates: Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 58: Invalid title {{{name}}}.

|} 

{{football squad2 start|teamname=Norwich City F.C.|bgcolor=yellow|textcolor=green|bordercolor=green|squadcolor=#ffffe0}}
{{football squad2 player|no=1|name=[[Robert Green]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=2|name=[[Mattieu Louis-Jean]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=3|name=[[Adam Drury]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=4|name=[[Jason Shackell]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=5|name=[[Craig Fleming]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=6|name=[[Darren Huckerby]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=8|name=[[Peter Thorne]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=10|name=[[Robert Earnshaw]]}}
{{football squad2 end}}

Creates: Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 58: Invalid title {{{name}}}.

|}

The squads aren't full simply because I was too lazy to do every player. So, what do you think, is this a workable solution?--Daduzi talk 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I would add a border colour aswell though, for 3-coloured teams (see Exeter City). ArtVandelay13 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done, and the examples above have been changed accordingly. --Daduzi talk 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (despite my earlier manual labour!) but the current templates use only the surnames (or used names) of the players to keep the size of the template down a bit. That's where the hard work comes in really I suppose because you'd need to link to Green instead of Robert Green (or Groin as we like to refer to him as....). But it's certainly an excellent start. Budgiekiller 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy enough, you just change the name field to a piped link like so:
{{football squad2 start|teamname=Norwich City F.C.|bgcolor=yellow|textcolor=green|bordercolor=green|squadcolor=#ffffe0}}
{{football squad2 player|no=1|name=[[Robert Green|Green]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=2|name=[[Mattieu Louis-Jean|Louis-Jean]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=3|name=[[Adam Drury|Drury]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=4|name=[[Jason Shackell|Shackell]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=5|name=[[Craig Fleming|Fleming]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=6|name=[[Darren Huckerby|Huckerby]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=8|name=[[Peter Thorne|Thorne]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=10|name=[[Robert Earnshaw|Earnshaw]]}}
{{football squad2 end}}

Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 58: Invalid title {{{name}}}.

|} --Daduzi talk 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, I understand the use of the pipe, but what I'm thinking is that by the time you go through all of this, you're not any better off than if you'd have used the original template. It took me about seven minutes to generate my template after i'd copied the current squad from the Ipswich Town F.C. page. Job done. It only takes one fan per club to do this and we're laughing, no real need to optimise things? Budgiekiller 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all by using variables for the colours anyone who wants to add their own team's template doesn't have to go looking through the code to find where the colour values are (and it also makes it easier to update the squads as it can be done from the main article rather than from the template). Secondly, it saves a bit of space by not having loads of separate templates all doing essentially the same thing, with each probably only being used on one page. Finally, and most importantly, it means that if it's decided later on to change the layout of the template only one template will need to be changed rather than having to go to every single club page and change the templates on them. Basically, it makes standardisation a whole lot easier, which is, after all, one of the main purposes of this project. --Daduzi talk 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood. Your third point is by far the most pertinent, and I do understand the main purpose of the project. As regards your second, it seems usual to add the squad template to each player within the squad, so each template gets used at least 22 times (or more!), and as for colours, does every league club's colour have a definition like green and yellow (e.g. Burnley - claret & blue, Coventry - sky blue)? Having said that, I totally, totally go along with the idea of a single template for all league clubs if possible. And I think we're about 60% of the way there. I do think that limiting squads to 22 is silly, especially with Chelsea, for example, who will have at least 22 world class players (as compared with Ipswich, who will have 22 world class toes!). Budgiekiller 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As regards colours, you don't have to use colour names you can use hexidecimal values too, like so:
{{football squad2 start|teamname=Burnley F.C.|bgcolor=#993399|textcolor=#9999ff|bordercolor=#9999ff|squadcolor=#cc99ff}}
{{football squad2 player|no=1|name=[[Robert Green|Green]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=2|name=[[Mattieu Louis-Jean|Louis-Jean]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=3|name=[[Adam Drury|Drury]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=4|name=[[Jason Shackell|Shackell]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=5|name=[[Craig Fleming|Fleming]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=6|name=[[Darren Huckerby|Huckerby]]}}
{{football squad2 player|no=8|name=[[Peter Thorne|Thorne]]}}
{{football squad2 lastplayer|no=10|name=[[Robert Earnshaw|Earnshaw]]}}

Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 58: Invalid title {{{name}}}.

(I was too lazy to change the squad list from the Norwich one) --Daduzi talk 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there's no way that the piping could realistically be automated by the template anyway - there's too much variation, some players go by first name, first name and surname, one of many surnames, a nickname, etc. Also some players' articles have " (footballer)" in them. It has to be up to the user. ArtVandelay13 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm very impressed by this idea, from a standardisation viewpoint. I have 2 easily remedied issues though:
1- the cellpadding="0" text on the first line still creates a mess when viewed in Internet Explorer.
2- for the last player, I've made Template:football squad2 lastplayer (without the pipe).
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{football squad2 lastplayer|no=10|name=[[Robert Earnshaw|Earnshaw]]}}

Lua error in Module:Navbar at line 58: Invalid title {{{name}}}.

I was thinking of that myself, but was worried it might make things too confusing for editors. Thinking about it, though, there's no reason why {{football squad2 end}} couldn't be added to {{football squad2 lastplayer}}, making things even easier. I hope you don't mind but I changed {{football squad2 lastplayer}} to include the ending brackets, so now we don't need to use {{football squad2 end}}. I've gone ahead and changed the usage guide at Template talk:Football squad2 start accordingly. Oh, and anyone who's worried about 22 player limits, there's no limit to the number of players you can add to this template. --Daduzi talk 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also gone ahead and removed the "cellpadding=0" --Daduzi talk 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the template looks fine, but in what sense is this easier to use (automatic) as compared to what we're already doing? Budgiekiller 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it means that anyone who wants to add a box to a page can do so without having to know HTML, and anyone who wants to change the squad list can do so direct from the article page rather than having to go to the template. It also means the look is standardised across all articles. --Daduzi talk 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is excellent as it creates templates identical to the current ones butmakes it easier to make new ones i.e. no need to change old ones. Only one change I would make - have background forced white. Colours of team are in header, good idea to have all backgrounds white. SenorKristobbal 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand the RGB values too (I'm an image processing engineer!) but I was just working out how your new template would make the generation of new templates easier. I understand that for the Wikipedia servers life is a bit a easier, but now, if we go ahead with this, we'd need to go back through all Premiership clubs and some Championship clubs replacing all the existing templates. And we're just moving away from Wiki markup tables and towards the template. And, once more, don't get me wrong, this is all heading the right way, but I'm just being cautious about the overhead involved (in either direction...). Budgiekiller 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mental breakthrough - deal. Daduzi, thanks for your patience in explaining the advantages. They're all good. Keep up the good (great) work. Budgiekiller 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, and I'll try. --Daduzi talk 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If users want to add the coach, it is possible to type "Coach" instead of the squad number for the lastplayer.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Everton one with the new template. It did show the tiniest problem which I have fixed. You put a normal space after a non breaking space which caused the template to get too big as between the player name and the | there were 2 spaces. I removed the standard space and left the nbsp in and now the template looks identical to before. I also removed customisation of bg colour on the names. As I say colours in the title are great but all white for this bit with the players in just looks better. AS for adding coaches I think its best we keep them off as they aren't eligible to play in most cases - obviously if they are include them SenorKristobbal 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: When putting the categories on the templates it puts every player into the categories See [1]SenorKristobbal 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem - overlapping see Osman's page SenorKristobbal 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC) FIXED OVERLAPPING SenorKristobbal 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the categorisation problem's gone too now. Was that you or me? --Daduzi talk 23:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neither its still there I was tinkering with the Everton template and I completely removed the categories from that page at one point as I saw you put a category in the main template but that removed the everton template from the category as well as the players SenorKristobbal 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains it. I'm absolutely baffled as to what has caused this, though, as the <noinclude> tags are on the template. I might raise this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) as this is a bit beyond my capabilities. And by a bit I mean a lot. --Daduzi talk 23:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised it myself although you may be able to ask better questions if you want to add to it SenorKristobbal 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have gone away now (I changed the first </noinclude> to <noinclude>).--Daduzi talk 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep looking good I think its problem free now SenorKristobbal 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New players

I was thinking about the guidelines for the global templates (seen here). As far as the squad number field (no=) is concerned, I think that the use of 'new' instead of '--' (or "tba" or similar) for new players should be encouraged since it shows that players are new signings rather than youth players who probably shouldn't be on the list anyway. The only loophole is players who've returned from loan and may not be restored to their old number. Is it prudent to make this minor guideline or just leave it open to interpretation? It is a problem that only really presents itself during preseason.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps instead of new "tba" could be used as this would suit loan returns as well as new signings. SenorKristobbal 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike "tba" (as I mentioned above) as it doesn't explain why it's "to be announced". "new" does.  Slumgum T. C.   23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to know why? New cannot work due to loan returns. Any explanation would have to be an * with an explanation at the bottom which would make the boxes too big. SenorKristobbal 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical flags

Hi everyone, I was looking for feedback on an idea I had, of using parser templates to make flags change based on year. People tend to go to a lot of effort on sports articles to make sure, say, that the 1934 shows the Kingdom of Italy flag with the coat of arms. My idea (fairly easy to implement) is that we should add a parameter to flag templates (and templates which use flag templates) so that users need not lookup when the flags changed, but merely put in the year of the competition and the correct flag is shown. This would not only make life easier for adding new competitions (especially long result tables), but also save us a lot of work if a country's flag changes.

I posted this on a the flag-related wikiproject but got no responses...would people uses this, or is the current set up fine?

Basically, the result would be something like this:

Code Result
[[{{country flag alias DRC}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|2006}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|2002}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|1985}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|1968}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|1960}}|32px]]
[[{{country flag alias DRC|1900}}|32px]]

Moszczynski 17:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There still is a problem with your proposal. If a flag changed in 2006 for instance what happens when the year stated in the code is 2006? Which flag would appear? The one before the flag change or after? Even if you ask for a full date, there will always be a problem. Think of Serbia and Montenegro who split in 2006. After the country had split the national football team represented both new countries with the old flag if you follow me.

It is a good idea but I think it might be better if we keep it the way it is at the moment... Julien Tuerlinckx 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great idea, since I have had the experience of having to trawl through several pages to find the right flag. As for countries maintaining their flags even after dissolution, you can simply put in the year before or whenever to achieve the desired result. Saves more time than the current method. Benjy613 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox linking(?)

I just thought that this would be the place to point out the inconsistancies of the various style guides concerning football player infoboxes.

Note the differences between:

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players (everything linked)
  2. Template talk:Football player infobox#Wikilinking (nothing linked)
  3. Overlinking (ambiguous)
  4. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (unhelpful)

Ideally the top three should have a good concensus, and all four have been quoted at me by various editors. Personally I've been making partially linked infoboxes like: Boudewijn Zenden. Basically some anal retentive admin got on my case that they should be like that soon after I started editing here. Anyway it's time that we came to a proper concensus and updated 1 & 2. aLii 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be something for the Infoboxes section on the templates page, that well, doesn't have any content whatsoever (I also believe the content should be available on the template page as well). I personally like 1 better. I think the info box is a good way to quickly navigate information that might be buried on longer pages (players with long histories, etc. might list all the clubs somewhere, but it is easier to get to them on the infobox). --Rballou 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and rebranding of FIFA tournaments

Hi, I'm not part of the WikiProject, but I just wanted to point out the rebranding of several FIFA competitions (see Talk:FIFA#Rebranding_of_championships), and wanted to ask you guys to change any of the relevant templates accordingly, as well as any categories. I was starting to do it myself, but noticed that templates are standardized so I didn't want to mess them up. I am however changing the relevant articles, but anyone willing to help is more than welcome. Thanks, --Gabbec 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which templates in particular are you talking about?--Daduzi talk 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, Template:FIFA U-17 World Championship, Template:Women's football and Template:International club football, as well as Categories with the previous names of the tournaments. For the first template, it's the heading, the 2007 edition and the v-d-e links at the top right that should be changed; for the second, it's the U-17 women's (the U-20 women's isn't a "world cup" yet); for the third it's just the Club World Cup. Thanks, --Gabbec 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all the templates have been changed to link to World Cup rather than Championship. For the U17 one I set the link to World Cup but set the title as "U-17 World Cup/World Championship", since otherwise it looked a bit weird on the past tournament pages. I'll have a look at the categories later. --Daduzi talk 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regards, --Gabbec 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of youth players

Recently I've discovered several articles (all stubs) of actually unknown players who simply are or were part of youth squads for teams such as Inter, AC Milan, Juventus and so on. Usually, these players appeared no more than a couple of match, or even did not appear at all, in the first team. Since I don't think these players are notable enough for having an article here in Wikipedia, I ask you if it would be a good idea to submit them all for deletion.

The players are: Alessandro Matri, Patrick Kalambay, Ignazio Abate, Ilario Aloe, Luca Antonini, Federico Piovaccari, Leonardo Bonucci, Domenico Criscito, Domenico Germinale, Leandro Greco, Pietro Pipolo, Marco Andreolli, Tijani Belaid. --Angelo 14:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always thought that the general rule was "If they've played any top league level games then they are notable". From a cursory glance over those articles it looks to me as if those players are notable. The main problem is that the articles are just (sometimes untidy) stubs. Would you say that even Scott Carson was notable if you just looked at his stats? aLii 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carson was part of the English team in the last World Cup, so he is a notable player. My question is: does a youth team player become notable by just playing a few minutes in a Serie A match? None of these guys plays regularly in the first team, and none of them is part of any national team. --Angelo 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that stats don't tell these players apart from someone like Carson, infact a lot of them have had much more of a football career, games-wise at least. Just because I've never heard of them doesn't mean aren't notable. I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Knowles for an example of what exactly is notable. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Knowles (2 nomination)), cheers, aLii 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO, they should be fine:
Looks like the articles are OK even if the players have never made an appearance, given that the clubs in question are at the very top level.--Daduzi talk 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Statistical Sources?

Apologies if I'm recovering well-trodden ground here, but I'm new to the association football articles. I started by trying to rationalize some of the World Cup articles, in the process of trying to build my own (non-wiki) database of World Cup goalscorers. What I quickly found was a morass. In the first World Cup, in 1930, there are at least a half-dozen major discrepancies in goalscorers between the various sources of information. The most famous example is of course Patenaude's maybe, maybe-not hat trick. You'd think FIFA would be the official source, but the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that FIFA is wrong. So that middle Patenaude goal: was it Patenaude, as claimed by his teammates and some articles at RSSSF? Was it an own goal by González, as in the primary RSSSF report? Was it Tom Francis, as claimed by FIFA's official report? And that's just one example. My question is, WHO does Wikipedia rely on as the deciding word? Right now, different pages claim different things, which drives me crazy. At the very minimum, if we DO accept multiple versions of the story, the fact of the controversy should be mentioned in EACH of the articles where it occurs, in the form of "some sources credit this goal to X, this article is relying on the version in source Y."

Some candidates I've seen for official reference are: FIFA (as archived online on the Yahoosports pages); RSSSF (whose pages also disagree with each other); Cris Freddi's book The Complete Book of the World Cup 2006; and presumably others. What I would LIKE to see is Wikipedia settle on a single preferred source. I think it should be RSSSF, but I'm open to other ideas. I'm finding it a little hard to believe that the world's most popular sport doesn't have authoritative base for its most important facts -- baseball in contrast has records of the most mundane imaginable facts about players who played in the 1870s. I mean, come on, these are WORLD CUP goals, and no one knows who scored them? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are all valid sources. In cases where there is a dispute of some kind it should be noted as such. In the Patenaude case you could perhaps list two conflicting links or perhaps one like this from thefa.com. The FIFA website is pretty poor in my opinion. rsssf is usually good. I've decided that news portals (bbc, yahoo, etc.) are as good a source as any. However as you say there is a distinct lack of a comprehensive source - a gap in the market perhaps? One huge gap is statistics from the South American leagues - trying to find stats from when some random Brazilian was 19 can be almost impossible. Even Pelé is terribly documented! aLii 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't consider that link to be a valid source; it's the FA, but it's a general-interest article without sources. I'm referring to the difference between the rsssf report and FIFA's official match report. These are both "official" and yet in disagreement. I have in front of me a printed copy of The World Cup: The Complete History by Terry Crouch which echoes the FIFA report. Apparently Complete Book of the World Cup by Cris Freddi credits Patenaude with the hat trick, no goal by Florie and no own goal by González.
It appears that conventional wisdom around Wikipedia is that Patenaude's hat trick is a myth; the story is discounted with a great deal of sarcasm when it comes up. I have no axe to grind either way; I don't give a damn WHAT we decide, as long as we decide SOMETHING and stick to it and defend it rationally. I love football but I love data more! And, if anything, Subiabre's "four" versus "one" goal count bothers me more. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see how rsssf is more official than theFA. In my eyes rsssf is good, but on a par with wikipedia in that it's written by knowledgable members of the public. We are talking about an incident 76 years ago which only 800 people witnessed and I'm almost certain there's no footage of. I guess if you could get two different FIFA sources that agreed then that would be the best one could do. If you're just looking at one half-FIFA webpage there's plenty of room for the odd error to creep in :( aLii 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I stand now, and what I've been making changes based on: official FIFA game reports ONLY. Other FIFA documents, produced by who knows what department of a vast international organization, especially when they are prepared for promotional purposes, as opposed to official record-keeping, bear much less weight in my mind. It all comes back to the OFFICIAL GAME REPORTS; these are the source of all else in the FIFA realm.

Now, these game reports may well be wrong. As you say, 76 years ago, a crowd of players with no names or numbers on their shirts in front of the goal mouth, no film or replay or probably even photos to go by -- there's bound to be differences. Wikipedia does not do original research. We collate the research of others. And by the standards of WP:V, our abiding standard is not TRUTH but VERIFIABILITY. If FIFA says Subiabre scored the goal, then we report that fact and a reference to it, regardless of what the real truth is -- if there is a "real truth".

RSSSF is NOT a verifiable source at this point. They make claims, but they do not support their claims with evidence of a standard that Wikipedia can rely on. I have no doubt that their research is solid and their facts more closely resemble the truth than FIFA's, BUT: they don't show their work. Unless and until RSSSF produces the actual evidence of the research that was done -- what sources, newspapers, eyewitness accounts, etc., that they used to arrive at their conclusions, they have little weight in an encyclopedia. The same goes for the printed resources people have used: if they actually discuss WHY AND HOW their facts differ from FIFAs, it must be considered speculation, I think.

The solution I arrived at was to base the articles on FIFA game reports, with FOOTNOTES that point out discrepancies with RSSSF. RSSSF has enough weight to be a "mentionable" source. Other discrepant sources could be added, if there are third opinions that hold some weight. What I really want to avoid is "some sources say" -- these are "weasel words". If you have another source, NAME IT. I also want to avoid the use as sources of third- or fourth- or fifth-party journalism, such as a newspaper article about "ten interesting facts about the World Cup" or some such.

I'm open to arguments from other points of view, but so far I'm not hearing any. I have already completed modifying the 1930, 1934 and 1938 World Cup pages to this standard. I hope that's acceptable. I also hope that if people think it's wrong they'll discuss it on the talk pages before just throwing out my work! \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I personally agree with your solution. aLii 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess to using RSSSF as a source, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that provided it's clearly cited. Users can determine its validity got themselves. While I do agree that FIFA is a more reliable source, they are themselves not infallible and so are subject to similar, though lesser, caveats as RSSF. I think taking FIFA over RSSSF is a reasonable guideline, but RSSSF also provides a lot of statistics FIFA does not, and which are difficult, if not impossible, to find elsewhere. If you want to find out who was the top scorer in the Iranian league in 1971, for instance, it's unlikely that FIFA would be much help. I don't think it's reasonable to state that RSSSF can never be a source, then, just that it should be approached with caution (as should 99% of sources). --Daduzi talk 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I totally agree. That's why I am including the RSSSF information as a footnote. But where OFFICIAL results exist from FIFA, I think we have to use them. Even if we know they are wrong. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


assists?

Are assisits actually recorded? If they are a documented stat, then they should be recorded on players' pages.

Sometimes at the highest level, but in general, no. While for some competitions, a company called Opta Sportsdata issues a plethora of semi-official stats for various things, such stats are frequently unofficial (often recorded solely for the purposes of fantasy football competitions) and can vary depending on the source. Unlike, say, ice hockey, relatively little importance is given to assists, for example, in the World Cup assists are used as a tiebreaker for the Golden Shoe, but are otherwise ignored. Oldelpaso 08:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{England-footybio-stub}} split

This has become very large, and the existing permanent categories aren't much use in finding enough sufficient stub types to split out to reduce it significantly. I've proposed two types for full and U21 internationals; if you have any comments on those, or additional suggestions, please contribute them there. Alai 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation

Can we sort out which infoboxes we are going to use for both Stadiums and players? I have seen two which I particularly like. Type in Gustavo Lopez for the football players infobox and Estadio Azteca for the stadium infobox. They are not mine but I think they are the best.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&oldid=64669493"