Misplaced Pages

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#International players in football club squads for an earlier discussion. Try not to fragment discussions. Thanks. (and no i don't think it is a good idea!) Woodym555 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the general consensus against bolding internationals in the previous discussion, little seems to have been done about it see: Sevilla, Barca, Atletico, Bilbao, Benfica, Sporting, PSV, Ajax Bayern Munich and VfB. Thats 10f from just 5 minutes of looking. We really should prepare a case against it and start reverting it before it spreads out of control. King of the North East (T/C) 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have to admit that i haven't even reverted it to Aston Villa F.C. yet. I suggest the reasoning used is thus: To maintain continuity amongst football (soccer) articles International caps should not be bolded. This is for several reasons. For teams such as Manchester United F.C. every player will be bolded. Playing at an international level means different things for different countries. To play at an international level for England/Brazil is on a different scale to say the Faroe Islands or Samoa. Bolding makes no distinction between the number of caps. If the fact that they have played for the national team is notable, then it will be listed on their individual and national team articles. The current squad lists are discussing what they have done for their club and not what they have done for their country. (We could write something to that effect in the Footy MOS.) Woodym555 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Ditch. The Rambling Man 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Woodym on this also. Govvy 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely ugly. Ditch. Alexf 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Woodym, wording to that effect would be great, you have my backing to put it in the MOS. King of the North East (T/C) 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, i have added in a section on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Clubs MOS page called To be avoided. Might be worthwhile if people checked it! Could probably expand it with other stuff like famous supporters sections. Woodym555 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen how many articles do this. Hertha BSC Berlin, PFC Levski Sofia, St. Mirren F.C., Lillestrøm S.K., ADO Den Haag, Olympique Lyonnais, Galatasaray S.K., Neuchâtel Xamax, Kilmarnock F.C., NK Dinamo Zagreb, VfB Stuttgart, Valenciennes FC, FC Sion, FC Metz, Helsingborgs IF, Everton F.C., LASK Linz, IF Brommapojkarna, Strømsgodset I.F., Columbus Crew, Stabæk Fotball, Borussia Dortmund, FC Basel, Rangers F.C., RC Lens, FC Dallas, Celtic F.C., Motherwell F.C., 1. FC Nürnberg, AS Monaco FC, Red Star Belgrade, FC Schalke 04, Real Zaragoza, Eintracht Frankfurt, AZ (football club), Sparta Rotterdam, SC Heerenveen, FC Girondins de Bordeaux, Hammarby IF, SV Werder Bremen, APOEL FC, AIK Fotboll, OGC Nice, AJ Auxerre, FC Sochaux-Montbéliard, Hannover 96, FC Lokomotiv Moscow, FK Austria Wien, FC Groningen, Getafe CF, VfL Wolfsburg, Odd Grenland B.K., Sporting Clube de Portugal, FK Sarajevo, AEL 1964, Hamburger SV, FC Red Bull Salzburg, SC Bastia, Malmö FF, Beşiktaş J.K., AS Nancy, NAC Breda, Racing de Santander, Le Mans Union Club 72, FC Utrecht, Willem II Tilburg, FC Metalist Kharkiv, Vitesse, GAIS, New England Revolution, ... the list just goes on and on. I think we should make absolutely sure that if policy is against doing this, that policy is well documented, and that if there are any users who are still bolding the names of players with international caps, they are made aware that such edits will be reverted. --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rasitler seems to be rather keen with bolding international players. Should probably have an an eye kept on.. Mattythewhite 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have fixed a large number, 80 or so. Phew! --Malcolmxl5 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive just done another 50 or so, UEFA 06-07, 07-08, and Champions league 2007-2008 participants. King of the North East (T/C) 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i do not see the harm in showing what payers have received the honor of playing on the national level.like i feel it shows that these players are some of the best in the country and that it should be shown. but that is my belief on the subject. and sorry for putting them in for the swiss leagues i will take out any that i see for i did not know before =X. (RissederEngel)

I quite like the idea myself. While in smaller clubs it works one way, when you get to bigger clubs, such as Manchester United, it also shows which players do not have international caps. - fchd 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea; but, just bolding the player names may be confusing (are they the team captains? new players? etc). Since most players have their country's flag beside their name, maybe we can develop a standard which modifies the flag icon in some way for international-experience players? Neier 06:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another confusing factor arises with players like Darren Anderton if he gets bolded in the A.F.C. Bournemouth squad, it implies that he has played international football whilst at Bournemouth. If people want to list this kind of information it could be done on Templeton United statistics, or perhaps on Templeton United international players, this would have the added benefits of listing former as well as current players that are internationals, and differentiating between Templeton United international players and Templeton United internationals (with other teams). King of the North East (T/C) 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. actually has a section showing all players who have ever won caps while at the club, broken down into current and former players. Obviously this would only work for clubs with comparatively few international players...... ChrisTheDude 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see the usefulness of indicating international players within a football club. International history of players regards only a single subject, that is the player. There's no link at all between international caps and football clubs, in short. Come on, Misplaced Pages is not a football almanac. --Angelo 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For a small club like Gillingham, though, it's a major event if one of its players is capped..... ChrisTheDude 15:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For which national team? Being capped for England is different than being capped for Liechtenstein, I hope you agree with me. In this case, you would agree we cannot establish international caps as "absolute" relevant facts, due to the fact they have different importance according to the international team. --Angelo 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Angelo I completely disagree. I see international caps as relevant information, no matter what the country. Being capped means you are among the best players in that country, and it is completely irrelevant that you would need to be considerably better to gain such recognition in another country. - fchd 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• 88.109.247.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), another ip, properly same person. Matthew_hk tc 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions on use of years in text

This may have been sorted/asked before, but what is the suggested use for links in football clubs', or footballers' entries? For example 2007, could be 2007, 2007 or even 2007. You could even have 2007 or many more. The last example obviously ought to be used at the right time, but is there a more specific case for particularly the first three?

Peanut4 01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest linking to the page that the page you are linking from is most likely to be linked to from. For example, if you were doing an article on a footballer and you were writing his/her year of birth, then you would most likely link to the year 2007. On the other hand, if you were doing an article on a club, and you were writing about an event in that club's history, you would more likely link to 2007 if it was a general event, or 2007 if it was an event such as winning a major trophy. - PeeJay 01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of winning a title I'd suggest linking to the appropriate season of the respective competition. I've done that most recently at Borussia Mönchengladbach. -- Madcynic 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. You've both replied exactly what I thought. But there must be hundreds, probably thousands of entries out there incorrectly linked then? Peanut4 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you just volunteered to change those hundreds of entires? ;-) -- Madcynic 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been changing the many I've seen but not sure I've changed them all correctly. Normally it's been changing 2007 to 2007. Some ought to be 2007. As for doing them all, I'll see if I get chance ;-) Peanut4 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually take out links to individual years when I can be bothered. They usually don't add anything as navagational aids. Over-linking is something to be avoided, in my opinion. - fchd 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the Misplaced Pages MOS regarding dates says that years should be linked when used in conjunction with the day and/or the month. Otherwise, I would agree with you. - PeeJay 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree about overlinking. You can almost link every word. I thought the cyan link on the photo caption on Defender (football) page was a prime example. I'm not sure why in an entry about the intricacies of our beautiful game, you need a link to a secondary colour? But I digress. Peanut4 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite... the MoS states that years should only be linked when used in conjunction with the day and the month. For example, 1 January 2008 would be linked, but January 2008 wouldn't. robwingfield  15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I meant about taking out links to individual years - where the day and the month is also stated, for instance the date of a match, that should stay according to the MOS. - fchd 06:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that linking to the season of a competition in case of a title win or somesuch has a beneficial side effect: You tend to create the page if it still is missing, to avoid the red link ;), at least I tend to do that. Madcynic 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If more than one date from the same year is mentioned in the same section, should the first one take the form 1 January, 2007 and the second one 2 February, 2007? Or should the year be linked both times? --Jameboy 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say both linked. It doesn't quite look right otherwise. Peanut4 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK:Archive

Do we have any archive of football related DYK's. If so, where. Please let me know, it's important. Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh 07:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have one. Oldelpaso 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just started one at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Did you know, though at the moment it is very incomplete. Oldelpaso 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've substantially added to the above, so it should be close to complete now. My method was fairly unscientific, namely trawling through the DYK archives searching for the word 'football', which probably won't have caught every article but should be very close. I have also added a link to the new subpage from the main WPFOOTY project page, under the Showcase section: please feel free to expand this link or move it around as you see fit. Many of the early DYKs don't have the template on their talk page that states when they were a featured DYK, hence I was unable to add the dates for these. Can someone let me know how I find these out? Also if there are any facts which have since been overtaken by events or disproved (and I haven't yet checked if there are) it might be good to have footnotes for them. --Jameboy 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Really good work ;) We've started a DYK section in ] 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Denis Law

Hello all. I'm just about to nominate Denis Law at WP:FAR. The promotion was nearly two years ago and with the tightening of areas such as WP:CITE, WP:MOS (for which the Law article has many problems) I do not believe it would get close to FA today. Thoughts/objections before I go ahead? The Rambling Man 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The original nom hasn't edited in over a year. I think the article has issues but it could be easily rescued. I think an FAR would be good for it. Unless someone is willing to take it on that is. A good copyedit would benefit it hugely. It also needs an image from somewhere. Woodym555 11:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take it to WP:FAR. Compared with the only other footballer FA (Bobby Robson), there is a considerable amount of work that needs to be done. The Rambling Man 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's done. All contributions to both the article and the FAR are greatly appreciated. The Rambling Man 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot about Gilberto Silva also being FA :-), but your point is a good one, there is a significant difference in quality. I have a book on Denis Law somewhere, will see if I can dig it out and contribute. --Jameboy 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, cough, I meant ex-footballer, obviously...! The Rambling Man 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have listed as being FAR on the main page. The link is Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Denis Law. By the way, i have rejigged the Featured content on the main page. Can everyone look at the discussion above for what else needs to be done (In my opinion anyway). Thanks. Woodym555 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Manager templates

I'm not a great fan of the manager templates (the ones that show all managers in the history of a particular club), but they seem like they might be here to stay. Assuming that there are no strong calls for their deletion – please shout if there are – I'd like to see them built to a consistent standard. Two very different ones, and a prime example of the variations, are the managerial templates for Aston Villa and Manchester United, which can be seen together at the foot of the Ron Atkinson page. The main differences, and my opinions on each are as follows:

• Width and height: I'd go for the same width as the squad templates, so that they line up nicely
• Name of team wikilinked or not: Prefer wikilink
• Dash between team name and "managers": No preference, but we need consistency
• Managers / managers No preference, but we need consistency
• v-d-e link or not: Prefer v-d-e link

In addition to the above I recommend setting the template to auto-collapse for pages with several templates, as you can imagine how cluttered the page footer will become for someone like Atkinson, once a manager template for each of his clubs has been created. I'd welcome people's thoughts on this. --Jameboy 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aston Villa one is the only one I've seen in that format, the Man U style one seems to be more standard. I agree they could do with a couple of modifications such as the auto-collapse setting. WATP • _(contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just add to that that there is no need to have succession boxes as well as manager templates, they give the same information and can lead to there being a huge mess at the bottom of articles, as at Bill Dodgin, Sr. — Gasheadsteve 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Villa one follows the standardised Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Templates i.e. the "fb". We already have a standardised format for navboxes. It is just that most do not yet conform. Woodym555 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need to make it auto-collapse and wikilink the club though. If that isn't the standard then maybe the standard should be amended? --Jameboy 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the auto-collapse. (though i have had problems in the past with editors who think that they are too complicated to use.) The background colours may have to change if you want wikilinks as i am yet to find a way where wikilinks can change font colour. I think the standard width needs to be widened slightly. This would allow more text to fit on the page and would reduce the amount of space that the templates take up. I also think that we need a concerted effort at introducing the standard format. The trouble is that every manager page has to be amended. i am sure a bot could do it. We need an agreed format first though. Woodym555 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of coloured wikilink: Argentinos Juniors. King of the North East (T/C) 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the example? Looks kinda wikilink colour to me. Your sig isn't but the wikilink is normal. have i missed something, browser probs? Woodym555 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

#0000FF. Probably not the best possible choice. The new example (below) seems to work, though. :) —StuartBrady (Talk) 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors,Argentinos Juniors —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of the North East (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point is made dear sir. :) (and so is mine after about 20 edit conflicts) (you could have done it in Claret and blue just for me though!!!)

In response to Jameboys first comment, i think i have found the prime example of over templates and inconsistency between them see Tommy Docherty. For an example of why our "fb" standard should be widened see Alex Massie. The boxes take up half the page. By widening them we could cut them in half. Woodym555 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have managed to get the Villa templates spread out on page when viewing tempates, but captains one is still a short stubby template on the Alex Massie page. No idea how to fix that, but maybe someone else here does. WikiGull 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't. I have reverted your changes to the captains template because well it destroyed it. On my browser at least it just continued on one line. It was showing perfectly correctly under the current guidelines. What you need to do is change the width settings on the "fb" template which is the standardised format that the footy project is meant to be following. The instructions on how to use the template can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Templates. It is still "stubby" because it is still wrapped in the {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} templates. Woodym555 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has revamped the Template:Football squad and i think now would be a good idea to start standardising the managers templates. We can just use the football squad template but insert the managers instead of the "football list start" features. Any objections? Woodym555 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

I have created a manager template using the navbox format. It can be found at User:Woodym555/Manager template. The end result can be seen here : User:Woodym555/Aston Villa Sandbox#Navboxes. I think this would give a good standardisation to the manager templates and it covers jameboy's points. Comments? Woodym555 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC) User:Woodym555/Manager template

Depending on how I size my browser window, some of the text is actually going outside the box on the right hand side (very strange!) If you can fix that then I think it would be a good standard to follow. --Jameboy 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i had that problem when developing it. I believe it to be a problem with firefox, do you use firefox? I tried it in IE and it works fine. I think that might be the major sticking point. I had a look on help desks, etc and it has happened before with the new version of firefox with no remedy offered. We might have to think about widening the fb boxes, or waiting for a solution. After quite a bit of thought i think the fb format should be widened but i do like the size of the club navboxes. It works for those boxes, whereas it does not work for the captains/managers ones. Woodym555 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the size of my window (IE7), I end up with managers on their own in a line. At my current one, Mercer is on his own on what is a second line, then the next seem to be fine. Surely they should all just flow from one to another and not have them jump. The use of {{-}} seems to be causing it. Making it the dot like the rest should be fine I figure. Also, the title text - Aston Villa F.C. - Managers, seems to be bigger than is the norm for the headers. Aside from that, a manager template seems a good idea. I'd prefer if it functioned like the "current squad" templates do though, as opposed to having to use {{·}} and fill it with  's. --Simmo676 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i will work on one like that in the morning, it might remove the text wrapping as well. The {{-}} acts as a line break or </br> so that it works on my screen resolution. Obviously not a universal fix!! Woodym555 23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, using Firefox. Regarding the fb boxes, it seems to me that there are two main types of templates:

• Those that generally appear on club pages, e.g. Lists of teams in a division, Club navigation template (these tend to get joined together)
• Those that generally appear on people pages, e.g. squad lists, manager lists (I don't think these need to be joined up)

So we don't necessarily need a one size fits all solution, we could have two standards. Just an idea, as I thought that trying to get all the footy templates to one single fb standard may be tricky(?) --Jameboy 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made two of these templates for Holland and Ajax. Here are all the relevant templates: Category:Football manager history templates. I definitely feel that some standardisation would be a good idea. I also feel that these should supersede any succession tables, no need to be redundant. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-4 16:52

Yes, i think the idea is that these will supersede succession boxes and have done in some cases already. Once we have created a definitive and fully operational navbox then we can add the clause that they should supersede succession boxes. I think that all squads should follow the football squad template as well. I agree with all of Jameboy's points about fb, people pages, and standardisation. Woodym555 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I created the first one, the idea was that it would supercede succession boxes, and I removed any which were applicable. ArtVandelay13 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the current state of play on these templates? We need to move to standardisation ASAP. The Gordon Strachan article is a case in point; there are five templates with three different widths; some collapsible, some not; some with "v.d.e.", some without. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most extreme case of recentism ever........?

Boston United F.C. - the section on "Re-Building The Pilgrims For 2007/08" is longer than the section devoted to the club's entire history! ChrisTheDude 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the usefulness of such a paragraph? I would remove it all, if you agree. --Angelo 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The section also just looks like a list of transfers, which I'm sure are discouraged from club pages. Peanut4 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hard to justify its existence. A sentence in the history about changes to the squad should suffice (IMO of course). Woodym555 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed whole section. Davnel03 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamworth F.C.

Can someone please help keep an eye on Tamworth F.C.? The user User:Stew jones is reverting mine and User:Robwingfield's edits. The user is at least giving a reason for reverting Rob's edits, which are to the "Notable Players" section, which needs changing anyway, as its subjective and POV. His revert to my edit is changing "Current squad" to "Current First Team Squad", which is against the MoS and is incorrectly capitalised. Also, he's adding bold for player's who have been capped internationally and Transfers, which, funny, we've just been having discussions about, which we all know what the outcome's have been.. Thanks, Mattythewhite 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there's no discussion about it on Talk:Tamworth F.C. Perhaps a politely worded explanation there would do the trick. Oldelpaso 08:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried engaging him in discussion in the past on other articles to no avail, as have others. I'll add something to Talk:Tamworth F.C. anyway... robwingfield  11:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go: Talk:Tamworth F.C.#Disputes around style and notability of players. robwingfield  11:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Current season in infobox

Relating to a previous discussion, please note this edit to S.K. Brann. We need to come to an agreement about whether this is acceptable, if it is, add a new parameter to the infobox, if not change the footy MOS. I am undecided at the moment, anyone who feels strongly either way should make their case. King of the North East (T/C) 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with adding a new parameter to the infobox. Better leaving the old separate box, or even better to include nothing at all. --Angelo 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly a fan of the club season articles, but if they exist, it makes sense for them to go in the infobox. Number 57 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I follow the dicussions in this page and will follow whatever consensus that is reached here. I made the change because it was a better solution than using the large {{current sport-related}} template. Rettetast 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re: old-timey playing positions

As I'm sure you're aware, we now have stub categories for players based on playing position and decade of birth. If I create a stub for a player from before the 1960s and the source gives his playing position as "centre half", should I use the stub category for a midfielder or a defender......? ChrisTheDude 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that an "old-timey" centre-half would fall under the category of "midfielder". However, it is difficult to determine an absolute date for when the centre-half migrated from the centre of midfield to the centre of defence, so I understand your dilemma. - PeeJay 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the same problem with Jack Pitt. He was a wing half. After a bit of pondering I categorized him as a midfielder in the end. — Gasheadsteve 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the old positions could be grouped into "full-backs" (right-back and left-back), "half-backs" (centre-half and right and left wing-halves) and forwards (outside right, inside right, centre forward, inside left, outside left). I would class the full-backs as defenders and half-backs as midfielders, while the forwards are obvious. - PeeJay 13:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think centre-half might be the only one which would cause the problem cited above because, as you rightly point out, over time it changed from a midfield position to a defensive one. Full-backs have always been defenders and centre-forwards always forwards, and if a source lists a player as "left-half" or "outside-right", terms which were essentially abandoned along with the 2-3-5 formation, you know where you stand, but with a centre half, especially one from the 1950s/60s, it's not so clear cut.... ChrisTheDude 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, this seems like somewhat excessive stub sorting to me, I don't see how it aids navigation or finding something to work on, but maybe I'm wrong. Robotforaday 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections about players' international careers

This is a topic that's been bothering me for a while; Should player pages have a chronological biography or should they be sectioned off into club and country? I guess there's no hard and fast rule needed, but I prefer the chronological way (e.g. see the Javier Mascherano article).

Over the summer, I put a lot of time and effort into rewriting the Fernando Torres article, but have come back to the site after a period of inactivity to find that it has been re-sectioned from chronological into club & country. My gut tells me to revert it to back to the way it was written (this version) partially because I prefer it that way, but also because no rewriting has gone into the re-sectioning, it's just a mindless copy&paste effort — it reads better in the order it was written.

Anyway, because I'm feeling lazy I thought I'd try to have a discussion about the issue before doing the editing. Who prefers each way? Why? Should I revert the article? aLii 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I tend to separate out once there is enough info to create at least a 'stub' section for the International career, purely because I think the article jumps around too much if you are constantly switching between club and country. Each seems to flow better if you deal with them separately. I wouldn't like to see a hard and fast rule though, I think it should depend on the player concerned and the editor's preference. For example, if someone only won one or two caps, it might be better to merge it in. If an article reads well I think the section order should be left alone. --Jameboy 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer splitting it into Club career and International career sections myself. Although the two careers run in parallel, and affected by one another in terms of injuries and stuff, they are separate and, in my opinion, they should be treated as such in the player's biography. - PeeJay 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally Prefer splitting because club and country are different levels of football, although chronological order has certain advantages. Like Jamesboy I wouldn't like to see a hard and fast rule. I would suggest that there are hundreds of player articles out there needing expansion, infoboxes, appropriate categories etc, maybe it would be better to focus on improving them, rather than simply reordering fairly comprehensive articles. King of the North East (T/C) 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I personally prefer club and country seperated, as for me, that makes it easier to navigate, rather than cutting from one to the other all the time. But having said that, I wouldn't go into articles that are already well written and well organised and go changing it just because that's my preference. We don't need a hard and fast rule. Robotforaday 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer splitting into club and international career. However they are not entirely independent of each other obviously and I can't see any problem in references to each other particularly international in club. E.g (and this is quickly thinking off the top of my head), say for Emile Heskey. In club section, you could say. "His form at the start of the 2007-08 season for Wigan earned him a shock call-up to England after X years." The international section could then give more details about it. Injuries would obviously take affect in both, particularly the likes of Beckham and Rooney in recent years. Peanut4 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way can work. I'd advise keeping it in whichever format was being used first on a particular article - there's no point making changes for the sake of it. Oldelpaso 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Northern Irish clubs

Does anyone have any opinions on the level at which clubs become notable in Northern Ireland? I am unsure about the notability of clubs in the NAFL Division 1A (the 5th tier) and dubious about that of the following:

• Northern Amateur Football league Division 1B (sixth tier) Orangefield OB F.C.
• Mid-Ulster Intermediate League: Laurelvale F.C., Tandragee Rovers F.C.
• Derry and District League: Don Bosco's F.C., Top of the Hill Celtic F.C., Trojans F.C. (Premier Division), Culmore F.C. Downey's F.C., Lisahally F.C. (First Division), Ballymoor F.C., Foyle Harps Y.F.C., Tristar Boys F.C. (Youth teams)
• Fermanagh & Western League: Enniskillen Town United F.C., Enniskillen Rangers

If no-one has any opinions to the contrary, I am minded to nominate all clubs from below the 5th tier for deletion. Number 57 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think they could probably stay, but maybe no new ones should be created? matt91486 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref infobox?

I'm about to create a bundle of stubs on the ref's at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup but can't seem to find an appropriate infobox for them. Has someone else already created one for refs/assistants/officials? 86.21.74.40 21:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is one yet, but I think that it would be a very good idea to create one. - PeeJay 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mocked one up at User:Nanonic/test based on the football player infobox, you can see it in action at User:Nanonic/test1. I would welcome comments from people on whether this is appropriate (especially from those more familiar with match officials and their status) before I move it over into the template namespace. Nanonic 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. Fedgin | Talk 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been moved into template space at {{infobox football official}}. Usage instructions are included. Nanonic 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding current season tables

Hi, on the Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy there are a number of tables that i think are not really relevant to a wiki. Mainly these are the 2007-08 tables of games played and of Under 18 top scorers. Should i just remove it all? Seems incredibly WP:RECENT to me. Comments? Thanks Woodym555 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your point. Note they are not relevant to Misplaced Pages, not "to a Wiki" where they may be relevant, depending on that particular wiki's aim. Just thought I's point out the distinction as I have seen that error made before. :) Alexf 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo :( .I am sure that some wiki, probably a football one would have it. I don't think it is even relevant to Wikinews. Woodym555 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic names

I don't wish to be Anglo-centric but, as this is the English language Misplaced Pages, can someone explain why so many article about players from Iceland use their Icelandic names rather than the Anglicized version, e.g. Þórður Guðjónsson or Willum Þór Þórsson. See Category:Icelandic footballers for a complete list. I for one have absolutely no idea how to pronounce these names or in what order they should be sorted. This is not done for players from other parts of the world e.g. Russia, Greece, Israel etc. so why the different treatment for Iceland? --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In Russia, Greece and Israel they use the Cyrillic, Greek and Hebrew alphabets respectively, the Icelandic language uses the Latin alphabet just as English does.

Removing the non-English characters from Icelandic names would be just as stupid as changing the article name of Petr Čech or Nemanja Vidić. - MTC 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely Þ and ð aren't letters from the Latin alphabet. Articles should be titled to reflect their common usage in English, and I think Þórður Guðjónsson, for example, would normally be referred to as Thordur Gudjonsson. - PeeJay 11:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As MTC says, Þ and ð (both variations of "Th") are part of the Latin alphabet in the same way that Č or é is, and are not transliterations as in the case of Russian, Greek or Israeli names. Just because we don't use these letters anymore (they were commonly used in English until a few hundred years ago), doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used in cases where it is still in common use. Number 57 11:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being used in article names, but I think it's silly for them to be used in links from non-Icelandic pages, for example FC_Barcelona#Current_squad, or, even more ridiculously, {{FC Barcelona squad}}. ArtVandelay13 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the eth and thorn characters is correct, as per User:Number 57 - fchd 11:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME states article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) re-iterates this. But, as long as there are adequate redirects in place to help you GET to the article, it really doesn't matter which display for you use. Although usual form, in my experience, is to move the articles to a anglicised page name and leave the foreign name as a redirect but it's horses for courses really. Nanonic 11:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Football FAC need feedback

2007 UEFA Champions League Final and James Milner are current FAC which are in desperate of feedback. Buc 11:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also List of Liverpool F.C. managers which is a current FLC, that could do with some feedback NapHit 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Great London? London?

Do you think Old Trafford is in Manchester, or Greater Manchester? I go through the wikipedia articles, and found that the whole part of London is called "Great London". So is it need to say that Emirates is in Great London? I couldn't get the sense. Raymond Giggs 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually Greater London, not Great London - see that article for an explanation of the difference between the two.... ChrisTheDude 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Trafford is in Stretford in the borough of Trafford, which is part of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, but is not in the City of Manchester itself, as my fellow blues delight in pointing out. London is an unusual case, as the City of London has a special meaning, and London can be defined in a number of ways. This can all get rather confusing for a non-native. In short, Arsenal's ground would generally be referred to as being in "north London". Oldelpaso 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular use for Arsenal's ground would definitely say it is in London. Old Trafford, though I would say isn't in Manchester, but is in Trafford, Greater Manchester. - fchd 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Because PeeJay keeps editing into "Old Trafford, Manchester" all times, in this year's Champions League and Carling Cup article. Raymond Giggs 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Talk about name-dropping. Anyway, should we really be using counties when a town/city would suffice? Surely it would be better to put "Old Trafford, Stretford" or "Old Trafford, Trafford" instead? Similarly, how about "Emirates Stadium, Islington" and "Stamford Bridge, Fulham"? - PeeJay 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that regular use places Manchester United (and Old Trafford) in Manchester similarly to clubs in Greater London being placed in London. --Malcolmxl5 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08

One of the weirdest articles I've ever seen around here. Please enjoy it and then tell me your opinion; do you think we might consider deleting it, considering we already have a Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season article? --Angelo 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be nommed for deletion as a lower quality duplicate. Does Spain have the same copyright rules as Britain? Am i correct in thinking you are not able to list the games until they have been played? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Spain's laws are more relaxed than in Britain. As far as I know, you can post the entire fixture list freely. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted due to the existence of Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. Perhaps a redirect to that article should be set up in place of the fixture list. - PeeJay 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just nominated this article for deletion after a PROD request of mine was contested. Discuss the matter here. --Angelo 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

High level category renaming proposed

See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 27#Category:Footballers by club and subcategories. I think I'm right that the top level category should be renamed, but the subcategories should not. Perhaps someone from this project can drop by and comment? Apologies for the late notice (not my nomination). Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request rename proposal (Liga)

The Swiss 1. Liga should be renamed, in order not to confused with La Liga (Spain), Portuguese Liga, Liga I (Romanian), or all these "Liga" should be considered, likes the great work for Bundesliga. Matthew_hk tc 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Portsmouth 7 Reading 4 is it notable?

Is the Portsmouth 7 Reading 4 artcle notable enough to merit an article or should it or prodded? Kingjamie 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prod/AfD it. WATP • _(contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a blatant example of recentism. I can't think of a single example where a run-of-the-mill league match should pass the bar of notability. - fchd 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod it, it's just a domestic league match with some unusual result. I don't really want an article for each match ended in a 7-x result, unfortunately the subject is not eligible for speedy deletion, so PROD and traditional AFD are the only ways to request the article to be removed. --Angelo 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, AFD i think. You could try and put some of the info in the Premier League 2007-08 article. Don't think that there is much info that can be moved though. Woodym555 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not a sports magazine. Recentism and all. AfD IMO. Alexf 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cruft in my view - an extraordinary match but it needs nothing more than a mention in Football records in England - its not a deciding match like a cup final or season finale. Qwghlm 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To AfD with it. Ref (do) 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is currently under PROD process, and will be hopefully deleted in five days. --Angelo 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

btw the guy that created the article (Materu) also removed the delete prod. Govvy 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Now it's listed at AFD, have your say there. --Angelo 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adamboyd.jpg

I did not upload this image, but does anybody know of any criteria that can help save this pictur from deletion, as it helps improve the quality of the Adam Boyd Good article. Kingjamie 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much that could be done to save that particular image. I'm sure there's a way of getting a free alternative. - PeeJay 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It fails WP:FAIRUSE #1 and might fail #8 as well (does it really add significance to the article? I doubt it). All you can do is to look for a free alternative. --Angelo 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although he isn't a regular at WP:FOOTY, I happen to know that User:Bretonbanquet is an Orient fan - maybe it would be worth asking if he's got a camera he could take to a game and try to snap Mr Boyd in action.....? ChrisTheDude 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, that's a good idea Kingjamie 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets get a merger with this...

I feel S.S. Lazio records and statistics and S.S. Lazio European record only needs one article, obviously there needs to be a clean-up too. Opinions? - Soprani 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They can be obviously merged. Do it, then I'll come back to delete the unnecessary latter article (Lazio European record, I mean). However, it is better not to include unnecessary and superfluous information, such as match lineups, referees, --Angelo 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) In second thought, I would just delete the latter and keep the only relevant information, i.e. the first two boxes, in order to merge them into "records and statistics". No need at all to include all lineups, referees, scorers and so on for each of the finals, this clearly fails WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information). --Angelo 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war with the Liverpool F.C. home kit

Can the group please help settle an edit war with the Liverpool kit graphic? It shows no sign of ending.

Normally, it looks like this: a simple representation of the kit, with some detail:

However, User:Xhandler seems intent on changing it to this (his own creation), which has more detail than the simple kit graphic can handle (it doesn't particularly represent the real life kit)

What's not up for debate is that the crimson colour used on the second image is dead wrong. So - little help? ArtVandelay13 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F., Manchester United F.C. Have small details, don't see why Liverpool shouldnt (when they have more or less the same adidas design as Real's Home one). And the one you want doesnt represent the real life kit in any way. Chandlertalk 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chandlertalk 22:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have two criticisms of the kit that User:Xhandler did. First, the kit is not the right shade of red. It should be closer to what it was before. Second, the lines on the kit body should be smoother. Try doing this with Adobe Photoshop or something, not just shitty Paint, and maybe anti-alias the lines too. Other than that, I don't see why the kit can't have a bit of detail, like the Man Utd and Real Madrid kits do. - PeeJay 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid overly detailed or exact kits for a number of reasons that mainly boil down to a) maintaining the page when the kit's change and b) copyright. For b) we all know how anal wikipedia is about copyright's and the UK laws regarding copyright and intellectual property include the design of clothing. So, if you're going to use an overly exact miniature of a licenced kit, make sure you either file it under a very very very good fair use exemption or have attained the permission of both the kit maker and the club itself. If you're going to go even further and include miniature logos, then consider the fact individual clubs licence their use separately and that the Football League have succeeded in preventing all kinds of companies (including Panini stickers) from using them through the courts. In short, simple is best. Nanonic 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you. Too much of detail is quite unnecessary. --Angelo 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I made some small updates Chandlertalk 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including minor details is that they look a lot more intrusive at the size of the kit template than they do in real life. See the Manchester United or Middlesbrough shirts for examples. Let's just use the template as it was originally intended, to give an indication of the colours/kit used by the club, and not try and include each individual manufacturers' trademarks and foibles. - fchd 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it to the simpler version - trends in shirt such as the decorative stripes etc. change more or less every season, and it is better to get an historical overview of the kit than delve down into petty details. That said the football kit templates do look a bit dated, and there are so many of them it can be highly confusing when putting them together. I might start seeing if there is a compromise between making them simple and making them pretty. Qwghlm 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my monitor/eyes or has he changed the colour of the kit since you made all your comments above? I mean you're all talking about it being the "wrong" red, but I see those two kits as being the same colour. aLii 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the design too.. that's what the "Well I made some small updates" comment was... Chandlertalk 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

West Ham United F.C. player subcategories

I'd like to nominate the deletion of the West Ham United F.C. player subcategories:

• Category:West Ham United F.C. captains
• Category:West Ham United F.C. defenders
• Category:West Ham United F.C. forwards
• Category:West Ham United F.C. goalkeepers
• Category:West Ham United F.C. midfielders

As far as I know, these are the only categories with the club & position combination, and looks like overcategorization to me. Chanheigeorge 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is the only club with these sub-categories then I would support this. --Malcolmxl5 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of them, we have position categories, we have club categories, we don't need this intersection. ArtVandelay13 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put a requested category merge at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_1#West_Ham_United_F.C._player_subcategories. Chanheigeorge 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also:

• Category:York City F.C. defenders
• Category:York City F.C. goalkeepers
• Category:York City F.C. midfielders
• Category:York City F.C. strikers

--Jameboy 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added requested category merge at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_1#York_City_F.C._player_subcategories. Chanheigeorge 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Club Deportivo Sahara Español

Is this club notable? It seems to be part of a Mexican amateur division called Adecmac soccer league, and I sincerely doubt about the actual notability of the amateur league itself. Thoughts? --Angelo 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnley F.C.

On Burnley F.C.'s page there is a section of club records. But the section also includes a top five list of current players of appearances and goals. Is this not a tad bit of WP:Recentism? Peanut4 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening ceremony

In football match articles is info about the opening ceremony required? Buc 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. The only opening ceremony I can remember that might be considered notable is the one from USA 94 when Diana Ross missed a goal from about 6 inches, which received (and continues to receive) coverage. Other than that, I don't think they're notable at all.... ChrisTheDude 07:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham City F.C. seasons FLC

I've just put Birmingham City F.C. seasons up as a featured list candidate. If anyone can spare the time to have a quick look and leave their comments, it would be much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 | Talk 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks in squad lists

Non-notable player's shouldn't have wikilinks in the "Current squad" section on club articles, should they? Just wondering, as the links for non-notable player's are being re-added on Halifax Town A.F.C., and wanted to know if this was definetley right. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, they shouldn't, because if they're not notable then they'll never have an article anyway, so will forever remain as a redlink, which is pointless ChrisTheDude 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be left unlinked (on squad templates too), otherwise it looks like an invitation to create. ArtVandelay13 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about people on the rosters who have never played?? Once they've played in a professional league, they are notable enough for an article, per WP:BIO, and I see nothing wrong with the red links. Invitation to create articles is not a bad thing. Neier 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking, as far as I am aware, about non-league (semi-pro) clubs where some players may have played at a pro level but others not (and are by definition not going to while they're at a non-league club)..... ChrisTheDude 10:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok–Thanks for the clarification. My knowledge of the various leagues in England is pretty sparse, so if there are non-professional teams listed, I agree about removal of the red links from their rosters. Neier 10:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that no active link should be given to a roster member of a club, unless he has played in a full professional league/cup game. Govvy 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Salomon Kalou

Someone keeps reverting me to use an uncropped image of Kalou with a stranger in the article. Perhaps others can keep an eye on it too. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-4 11:01

I just reverted and left a note to the IP user who reverted you. In case he keeps on changing, I would semiprotect the article for a handful of hours. --Angelo 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Danny Brown

I came across an article about a lower league footballer called Danny Brown, which had been vandalised (now fixed). He seems to have spent most of his playing career with non-league clubs except possibly with Barnet before they lost their Football League status in 2001. However, there were no sources to confirm any of the information in the article and Soccerbase does not have much on him. Does anyone know of some sources to verify the information given? Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've just come across what appears to be a duplicated entry at Daniel Brown. One or the other (or both!) will need to be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are some official profiles such as and that may help. Also , and should give you all you need. Nanonic 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nanonic. I have prodded one of the articles and we'll see where we go with the other. --Malcolmxl5 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No real point prodding one, just redirect one to the other and copy info over. Looking at the What links here they're both linked to from other pages, so a redir will result in the smoothest solution. Oh and checking out the Wanneroo's statement in the article, the club website does have a Danny Brown playing for them in their history but no indication of if it's the same one (so it's probably balls). Nanonic 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The soccerbase entry was clearly added without them realising he was the same bloke as they already had . Also, this Leyton Orient page gives some more info. Struway2 | Talk 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Football in England table cells

This template appears to have hit a slight hitch. I can't see why myself. Any chance anyone else can fix it? Peanut4 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just came across it myself, it's a problem caused by adding templates (specifically the flagicon) to the tnavbar-header section of the template. Removing the {{flagicon|England}} will fix it for the moment, but it's probably just someone fiddling somewhere. Nanonic 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it - a User:Carioca added an unnecessary | to the header between the title and flagicon which broke the code (bizarrely his edit summary was "fixed template"). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. For some unknown reason, the template was displaying wrong in my computer before I edited. Anyway, thanks for reverting my edits, as this fixed the problem. --Carioca 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Roosterrulez

I recently by pure coincidence stumbled across edits by this user. I was looking at the tag for one of the Leeds United history pictures and noticed it on the Sport in Leeds page. I went here to see how it was being used and noticed that this user has been copying and pasting the content of articles from one page to another. They have done this with all of the Leeds United A.F.C. History page, along with information from many other clubs in the Leeds area's pages to this page. I have reverted the edits to Sport in Leeds but I was looking through their edit history and noticed that they have been doing this with a few other pages as well. One easily noticeable edit is the page created History of Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. This is an exact copy of the history on Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. I was wondering what other users view on these edits were? Also in my opinion all of the Leeds City Vixens articles should probably be merged into the main article. It is unlikely that a large amount of information will be obtained soon to expand these articles from how they stand and the one page would suffice to hold all of the current information stored on all of these pages and be easily readable. Chappy _C 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The user does actually have a ton of good edits, but as you stated above, he has made very bad edits. Maybe leave a message on his talkpage about this matter? EDIT: This user has sockpuppets, see here for evidence. Davnel03 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy if you dot know what im talking about check by the way you can do the work because I have started them you can finish them!mattypc 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:ANI Chappy84, if you have problems with another user, take it there. As to copy and pasting, of course they do, we all do, it's how a lot of child articles are created - and also a lot of articles are only a copy and paste job from another article, especially history of pages, it's called content forking. Nanonic 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest a look at WP:SUMMARY as well. Many articles do this, although it should be a summary and not an exact copy. As a start though, it is very common. Woodym555 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Copying from parent articles to kick-start child articles is pretty common and all fine (as long as correct attribution is given in the edit summary). Copying back from the child article to the main one (as Roosterrulez has been doing, e.g. here) goes against common sense and WP:SUMMARY and should be actively discouraged. As for the existence of the articles in the first place, that's a separate matter but I'm not terribly fussed about it to be totally honest (except the mascot one, which is ridiculous). Qwghlm 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I partially take that back - the seasons article should be merged into the history one and the academy & reserve team are not notable enough for a page in my view. Qwghlm 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)