Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 20 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WPF WT:FOOTY

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:WPF navigation

'Super' squad table

I wonder what people think about the table format now used on a few 'current squad' sections of club articles. A good example is Swindon Town F.C.#Current squad, it's also in use at Blyth Spartans A.F.C.#Current squad. Thanks. —Half Price 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First impression: I don't like it. Centred text is untidy, blocks between groups of positions are ugly, over-specification of position will lead to crazy multiplication of position descriptors a la Championship Manager, previous club irrelevant to their place in the squad (so is nationality, but....), notes section will be empty in most cases: sorry, but I'm not a fan. Kevin McE (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a table. I would rather see a template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is to ask why this format is being used when the fb squad template exists? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Convert this...*censored* of a table to fb squad as soon as possible. --Soccer-holic 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrible table, should go back to the fb squad template. A player's DOB and former club are not worth including on an article on a football club. Keep it to the single-season articles. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The execution is undoubtedly poor, but I rather like some of the concepts. The notes column needs to go, there's no need to show age as well as date of birth and the blocks between groups of positions look poor, but the general principle of including more info in squad tables isn't necessarily a bad one. That said, I would far rather see it done by editing fb squad rather creating odd splinter tables. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the proper squad list. The alternative version can still be viewed here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's very poor. The article is after all about the club. The players can have their own article if they warrant it.—Half Price 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Another beauty here: Kidderminster_Harriers#Current_squad Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the project

On its usual diligence. Consensus has been claimed to make informative edits such as this. —WFC— 14:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for context. It was requested this template be tested universally and when WFC pointed out the pointlessness of this my reply was Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the...? Digirami (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Christ on a bike. BigDom talk 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is such a stupid argument. I don't see what they have to gain from this. A big banner saying "The word football refers to the game of association football, durrrrr" doesn't benefit their project at all, it just makes Misplaced Pages look stupid. The article 'Football' is already shared by all 'codes' of the name. Is this some big rouse to get us to change our name to 'WikiProject Association Football'? That wouldn't bother me, what would bother me would be asinine hatnotes and unnecessary attempts at disambiguation. What next? "Robbie Earle is a former professional association football (soccer) player who is most well known, but not exclusively known, for his time at Wimbledon (not the town but the club named for the town). He also played internationally for Jamaica (the country, not the city in Iowa or the USS Cruiser)." Its crazy!--EchetusXe 18:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair. Who would have known before that an article entitled 'association football' would contain information about association football? —Half Price 18:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point actually. I got half way through it before I realised it wasn't about Aussie rules. BigDom talk 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, the serious problem is the proposal at Talk:Football#Hatnote that EVERY football article should have a hatnote saying "The primary meaning of the word football in this article refers to association football. Other codes will be disambiguated as required." Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How often is more than one code of football mentioned in an article about a player?! GiantSnowman 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I contested this unsanctioned introduction of pointless hatnotes. Issue is now closed I think, although I doubt it's the last we'll hear of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of sarcasm, very little helpful input. How about suggesting a decent solution to the issue or even taking part in the discussion? Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see there even being an issue, so a solution is not required. We have piped links for those who are confused, and it's not Simple English Misplaced Pages. We don't need to patronise our readers. This kind of hand-holding would set a truly awful precedent for the project and the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please delete that useless "footballword" template? Jared Preston (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason there isn't a major issue every other football code has the common sense to dab the word football. If every other code was to do the same it would be madness. The majority of members hear/read football and assume soccer. The is not the case for many others Gnevin (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Every time I write about a footballer or a football team I say football. It's very clear and is the complete purpose of a piped link. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is intended to be printed. Also having the user have to click to find out the code isn't really best practice, why not just say Association football? Gnevin (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to make a universal proposal to delete piped links then. As in my previous example, if you wish to expand "football" then you should expand "Irish", if, as you say, Wiki is intended to be printed (which is news to me... considering WP:NOTPAPER)... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Piped links are fine when the context has been established, football can mean several things. If you wish to make the case Irish should be expanded I am willing to listen to it. Printing Gnevin (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a bigger fight on your hands. We aren't Simple English Misplaced Pages. Context can be clearly established if someone is prepared to read the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How far should some have to read and know much knowledge of the code do expect a user to have? Gnevin (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as they need. This doesn't need some panacea. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better for our readers to have it clear in the intro and then forget about it? Gnevin (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)::

No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Where do you draw the line? Any term which is pipelinked, in your world, would need similar treatment. Let's not treat our audience like fools. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia must consider its reads fools so . You draw the line where as other codes do, by introducing the code in a clear way Gnevin (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this point has probably already been made, but surely the term "association football" would create more confusion than the current convention? Unlike other codes, I don't think I've ever seen or heard "association football" used outside of Misplaced Pages. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right as most of the world refers to it as soccer. But not, in general, in England (for example). Perhaps the hatnote would need to go as far as "association football (soccer)"? Really not neat. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That point has been made, repeatedly, among other points about universally applying a term that a significant portion of the English speaking world has probably never heard. Digirami (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Grimsby Town F.C.

Hi. I seem to be getting into a bit of an edit war on Grimsby Town F.C. In my opinion the history section is full of unref'd POV, heavily recentist, and in need of some major trimming back. but another editor disagrees and pretty much just undoes my edits, often removing tags. There's also a bunch of other (in my opinion) needless stuff, like the youth team squad, but the history needs enough help as it is. The views of others would be appreciated. Cheers! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Phil Jevons hit a wonderous 35 yard strike" - You may have a point Ilikeatingwaffles. I'm more or less a noob to conflict resolution, what happens now? Darigan (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"League standings for last 11 seasons" is one of the more random sections I've seen in an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just removed that section as unencyclopedic. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mutsuhiko Nomura

Hello. I am a member of Wikiproject Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I am trying to provide some basic sourcing for Mutsuhiko Nomura. I've found this page but that does not appear to qualify as a reliable source. I was wondering if any project members here would be able to assist. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Somebody has managed to managed to dig up Japanese language sources for this, so its referenced now. Please consider this request closed. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template cleanup

Would someone cleanup the Template:Lfpfr? LFP upgraded the site and all link were dead. For the newsite, please use Template:Lfpfr2. Matthew_hk tc 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Identical brackets

Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg & Template:LiguillaBracket. Why? --MicroX (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because the creator of whichever template was created later was unaware of the other one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I replace the Liguilla Bracket with the 8TeamBracket in the only 4 articles they are used in and nominate Liguilla Bracket for deletion? --MicroX (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it! GiantSnowman 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - TfD - However sometimes when we are bold, edit wars ensue. --MicroX (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Rawcliffe

he was english and he played in Italy, at Alessandria, in 1949, do you have some news about him? On italian wikipedia we want see if we can create him but there are doubts about his surname, maybe it was Rawcliffe, maybe Ratcliff, maybe Rawcliff and we ignore what he did before relocating in Italy.. 93.33.11.47 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rawcliffe is correct. Brief info here, played for Tranmere Rovers, Wolves, Colchester, Notts County, Newport County, Swansea, Aldershot, Allessandria, South Liverpool and Allessandria again.--ClubOranje 09:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His playing career details can be found on the various Neil Brown pages: Newport County, Swansea Town and Aldershot, from where he moved to Alessandria. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub created. GiantSnowman 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

do you know if he played 5 or more matches in a major league or 100 or more matches in a second league? Then if there is italophone here, I can show some enlarged voices on italian wikipedia.. thanks for everything!! 93.33.9.38 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What on earth?

Hi there teammates,

for the second time in this year, it has happened: anon user inserts stuff about the footballer Nuno Miguel Prata Coelho, claiming he has East Timor and Maori roots - which he has not, 100% guaranteed, i am Portuguese i know that - then proceeding to make stuff up about his international career.

The user then proceeds to back his "additions" with "refs". Why the quotation marks? Because the refs belong to FIFA.com, but that's it! Once you click on them, they don't lead you to the matter at hand, AT ALL! I am almost 100% sure that this is sheer vandalism, but i would like to know from other users, especially Portuguese or connected to Portuguese football, so we can straigthen this out. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP did not claim he has Māori roots; the IP claimed his mother was of New Zealand descent. It is plausible enough that one should not be too hasty to hang big vandalism signs on it. That aside, I have not found reliable sources to back that up, so your removal of the statement is valid.--ClubOranje 10:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hendrie, Jnr.

Lee's little brother (who looks ridiculously like his sibling) - but how do we spell his name? I've seen it spelt both "Stuart" and "Stewart"...GiantSnowman 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stewart seems to be the most common spelling. The club's site there shows it and so does the BBC report of the match where he got his first league app. You would think the BBC would use official sources for that. —Half Price 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not a definitive source, but findmypast appears to show Stuart Hendrie. Brad78 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And the BBC isn't always accurate; for example it spells McLaughin as "McLaughlan"...GiantSnowman 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PLUS the Beeb has also spelt it "Stuart" in the past...GiantSnowman 18:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC and PFA use both spellings. SkySports goes with Stuart. Total G-hits for "Stuart Hendrie" Morecambe is 3,440. For "Stewart Hendrie" Morecambe it's 1,310. Even the Morecambe FC website uses both - Stewart 76 times and Stuart 13. Brad78 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick check given some recent discussions: the two names definitely refer to only one player, right? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, only one player. GiantSnowman 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but apparently there's also a Stewart Hendry in the squad. Could some of the "Stewart" reports have been confusing Hendrie with him? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That Hendry is clearly the same player, but spelt incorrectly. Look at the squad numbers. BigDom talk 19:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it's spelt right! :D —Half Price 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His old club, Atherstone Town, on their website, use Stuart every time, never Stewart. At the moment, I think Stuart is the better option to use. The sources are too split to be conclusive, his old club uses "Stuart" exclusively, findmypast has him down as "Stuart", and the local paper in Morecambe uses Stuart, but his new club is split, with his profile as "Stewart". To be honest, I think you can ignore every other source which will only use affiliated copy anyway. Brad78 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Club xyz qualifies for competition abc if...

Please take a look at 2010 Russian Premier League#League table, more exactly at the amount of text below the table. Any opinions? --Soccer-holic 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Screams out RECENTIST to me. —Half Price 19:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable here, are we going to try to remove it when the equivalent (albeit more concise) appears in the group stages of World Cups and regional/continental championships? We should be consistent on the principle of whether permutation of results as a league reaches its conclusion is acceptable, not make such a choice contingent on a subjective sudgement as to how confusing it seems. I suppose it is recentist, in as much as it is likely to be deleted in a week, but by the same token, any table for an ongoing league is largely overhauled once or twice a week, so is that not equally RECENTIST? Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed. GiantSnowman 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? Are we to apply the same to all tables as a league reaches resolution? Kevin McE (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should delete these, and we should also cut these from any higher-interest season articles such as Euro or World Cup qualifying articles as well. These what-if scenarios are merely pub trivia, usually only important until after the next matchday, and of no importance otherwise. If this is not recentism, than what else is? --Soccer-holic 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, so long as there is going to be consistency about it, but I think you'll find enormous resistence on higher profile articles: do you want to apply this at 2010–11 UEFA Champions League group stage now? And it is equally true that league tables are only relevant until the next matchday: fancy testing out the reaction if you remove this? Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the 2010 Russian Premier League as the similar sections were always included in the higher-profile competitions like the FIFA World Cup or Champions League etc. etc. If everybody else agrees it should be deleted everywhere else, including Champions League, I'll delete it from the Russian League as well, but I don't really see the huge harm in having it. Considering the current league tables or current top scorers list themselves are only relevant for a few days, I don't see the reason to go all legalistic in this particular case. Geregen2 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps the current Russian Premier League example is rather large, I don't see any particular problem with these if-then summaries - they're no more "recentist" than simply having an up-to-date table. It is simply presenting the up-to-date information in a way more useful for the reader. ~ mazca 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, to answer your first question in a single word: Yes. Regarding your second question, I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Especially in league competitions, the table is the most important statistic one is usually looking for and as such always citable from a multiple number of sources. In contrast, the scenarios are usually not published in any reliable sources at all, except for the odd occurance at the last matchday in close title or relegation races. Because these are usually not published, almost all scenarios added to any articles are solely consisting of original research. If the scenarios would be retrievable, the whole case might probably look different, but they are not; even if they should miraculously avoid to get deleted on grounds of WP:RECENT, they got to go on terms of WP:V and WP:NOR. --Soccer-holic 00:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your argument was on the grounds of recentism, not WP:V or WP:OR, and while I admit that my comment on league tables was not a serious proposal for their deletion, it demonstrates that we do publish info of temporary relevance. While the entire list of possibilities might not be often published, I could virtually guarantee that pretty much every match preview for (eg) Tottenham ve Werder Bremen will feature the information that "Tottenham Hotspur will qualify for the knockout phase if they defeat Werder Bremen", and verification can be acheived by a simple mathematical calculation. Kevin McE (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but WP:V clearly states:

All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

As it has now been challenged - by both GiantSnowman and Soccer-holic - please provide a source as required by policy before re-instating these scenarios.--ClubOranje 09:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "challenge" in the quote above would refer to a "I don't believe this is true" challenge, and I don't think anybody disputes that the scenarios are factually correct. Otherwise, we could add four references to every one of those scenarios sections: rules of the competition (which are already included and referenced anyway), current standings (ditto), schedule (ditto) and basic math. That seems counter-productive and legalistic to me, following rules to the detriment of common sense. Geregen2 (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably misunderstanding something. No one disputes that the things you have mentioned are already reliably sourced. However, you combine these three items with a little math and thus reach a conclusion which is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (see WP:SYN for the full text). In other words: If you can find a reliable source which exactly states that, for example, Spartak Moscow qualify for the UEL with a win in any case or a draw if any of Lokomotiv Moscow or Spartak Nalchik do not win their matches, the WP:V thing would not be a problem at all. --Soccer-holic 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Still seems to me that finding outside sources for this is overkill. If every bit of simple math has to be sourced, then, by this logic, Template:Birth date and age should be removed ("of course, your source says that Leonardo Di Caprio is born November 11, 1974, but do you have a source saying his current age is 36? No? Well, you can't use math"). The math involved in calculating these scenarios is not any more complicated than the math involved in the "current age" calculation. (I know this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just wanted to illustrate my point). Also, if we only included referenced scenarios, then some of them will be included just because they happened to be mentioned in some reliable sources, and some will not be included because they weren't mentioned, and that is pretty arbitrary. In any case, if most people here agree the scenarios should not be there for these reasons, that's alright with me. Geregen2 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to fulfil the function of an encyclopaedia (that is, provide useful summarised information), not to obey the rules of an encyclopaedia. No-one disputes the veracity of the comments, and it is not unreasonable for editors to do what sports journalists will be doing in writing their articles: puting two and two together to get four. Are football journalists really worth citing as a RS for basic sums? Elements of the scenarios are retrieveable, but the media tend to take a piecemeal approach: why should an encyclopaedia, that quite properly tries to see the bigger picture rather than only a particular perspective, not provide that to its readers? Kevin McE (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is something so temporary and at times trivial worth this kind of dispute? Brad78 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been no new arguments here for the last day and there was no consensus reached either. So what do we do? Restore those sections or just forget about them? Geregen2 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In strict terms of policies, we should forget about them. However, as a compromise... if there is a suitable amount of outcome possibilites for the very last matchday only, it might be borderline okay, especially since the chance of finding a source for these special occasions might be more successful due to increased media coverage. --Soccer-holic 12:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there was no policy established as a result of this here discussion. Some people, including me, think they should be kept. Some people, including you, think they should be deleted. Some people say "who cares, why are you wasting your time discussing it". I don't think the fact they contradict any general Wiki policies in a meaningful way has been definitely established here. Geregen2 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a great fan of such temporary information, but there is the argument it is done for World Cups tournaments and the like, so why not leagues. In my opinion it should not be added unless sourced, and per Soccer-holic above I don't think it should be included until the permutations are manageable without confusing the reader --ClubOranje 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: we keep them for the World Cup/Champions League/Euro and other major international competitions (the groups in most of these only have 4 teams, so scenarios are rarely unwieldy and unmanageable, it's all rather straightforward and very very simple mathematically). For league competition we only keep: "this team wins the league if/this team qualifies for European Competition if/this team is relegated if". A lot of the original scenarios in the Russian League article that brought this discussion about were "this team is safe from relegation if" or "this team loses the chance to qualify for European competition if". If we get rid of these, that would simplify it and make it less verbose and confusing. Geregen2 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It could also be a solution to keep this kind of information on a 4-team-league basis only. That way it would be possible to keep the information there for the high-profile turnaments, without having to deal with all other leagues. These lists gives valuable information that cannot easily be found anywhere else, which is very nice thing about Misplaced Pages. It is true that there is no direct source to cite, but as it has already been stated, these scenarios can be calculated directly from other information available on the page. So instead of every single user having to do his own math, why not just keep it? It is temporary, yes, but it is still usefull and correct information. Having it only on the last matchday seems like a strange solution to me, it is not less correct on the second last matchday, and in my eyes the "news" that we are gonna cite could just as well have gotten there information from Wiki in the first place. Citation is important, yes, but lets try not to go beyond reason--Lars Ransborg (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed

What a strange way to name an article about a football club, Tadamon, Kuwait, with commas an all, is there a possibility the page's name be changed? I think it would be better. Inputs please. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has been changed to Tadamon (Kuwait). GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Association Sportive du Faso-Yennenga

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now added several references so this issue is now resolved. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, most of the other articles on members of the Burkinabé Premier League are also unreferenced, so there is still plenty of work required. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#The_small_barnstar.2C_for_gnomish_work GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FC Timişoara

The article FC Timişoara has just been the subject of a c&P move to FC Politehnica Timişoara. This is a slightly complex situation that I don't fully understand, because clubs have been moved, renamed, merged, that kind of thing. This is similar to the kerfuffle regarding FC Bohemians Praha. This move has been made with no discussion, which I don't think is appropriate for a potentially controversial step. Does anyone have better knowledge of the situation? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike Smith

Does anyone know the date of birth for Mike Smith (football manager) ? Finding a date of birth for a John Smith isn't easy! TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

International appearances in infoboxes

Is there general consensus to add their national stats when they actually make their debut? For example Lee Hodson shows Northern Ireland with 0 (0) despite having not actually played for them. --Jimbo 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed a few weeks back - see here. The consensus was that an entry should only be made in the infobox and category when an international appearance had actually been made; and that doesn't include just sitting on the bench. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, even Andrés Palop, who was crowned UEFA Euro 2008 champion, and has that competition inserted in honours, also having his due squad template, has his "International career" bit in infobox empty. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar situation existed for several French players: Benoît Cheyrou, Benoît Trémoulinas, Younes Kaboul and Cédric Carrasso and for Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) for the Irish Republic. I have deleted their fledgling international "career" from the infobox, but no doubt some will be reverted. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise for Matthew Gilks and Paul Caddis for Scotland and Rhoys Wiggins for Wales. Some editors seem to have a desperate desire to "big up" their subjects. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Way to come to that personal conclusion without actually consulting these editors with "desperate desires". I'll admit I added the national team in the infobox for Benoît Cheyrou and Benoît Trémoulinas, but, at the time, this did not exist. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dolf Kessler(s)?

There was a Dutch footballer called Geldolph Adriaan Kessler and a Dutch industrialist called Geldolph Adriaan Kessler who lived at the same time. Were they the same person or not? - there is a lot of confusion here! GiantSnowman 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If my Google translation is right, this article (which has been added to the article for the footballer) says that they are the same person; as do the Dutch and German Wikipedias. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they look the same person to me, thanks very much. GiantSnowman 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Enakarhire

Does anyone have any info on this footballer? It seems strange that he has not found a club in two years, given that performed very well in Belgium and Portugal, also being an established Nigerian international. Could he have "pulled a Shane Supple"? Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems he trialled with OB Odense and Energie Cottbus last month but didn't get a deal at either. This article mentions that he "proved that he was back to his best and back to full fitness." - maybe a bad injury has kept him out? Camw (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

National football squad start template suggestion

Please see here: Template talk:National football squad start#Suggestion. I'd like to see the header introduce sorting for columns. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody fancy passing an opinion at my edit war...

? Not really mine, it's been going on slowly for ages, I just turned up by accident and got involved. Please see Talk:Vinny Faherty#Galway stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City name change

Yet another MLS franchise has rebranded itself, this time as Sporting Kansas City; can an admin please rename Category:Kansas City Wizards and subcategories accordingly. Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

{{FC Barcelona seasons}}

In this template there should be a reference about 3 season which Barça did not play because of the Spanish Civil War. Catalaalatac: My name in the Catalan Misplaced Pages --Catalaalatac (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes are just there to get people to articles. They aren't meant to be timelines. The article already explains why Barcelona did not compete in those years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Football did not stop completely in Spain because of civil war, see Mediterranean League article. Barça continued to play during these seasons DjlnDjln (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Runners-up in honours section?

I removed the listing of second-place from the Heart of Midlothian FC article. What do others think about listing "runners-up" in the "honours" section? I know some tournaments (the World Cup for example) award a silver medal to the losing finalist, but as far as I know none of the league competitions (in the UK at least) do this, for whatever difference that makes. If we agree to include second place in the league as an honour, would we want to stop at that or mention every time the club has qualified for Europe (for example)? --John (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I delete them in sight (with the exception of teams being the losing finalist in a cup final). Finishing second in the league, by its vey definition, isn't an honor, because you didn't win! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - for successful clubs, finishing as runners-up may not be considered a great achievement, but for a smaller club, this may be the pinnacle of their success. Some articles, like York City are a bit O.T.T. however, listing such achievements as "play-off semi-finalists" and "League Cup quarter-finalists" but, without them, their "Honours" section would list only the 1983–84 Football League Fourth Division championship. Perhaps the section should be titled "Achievements" rather than "Honours". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. if you really want to improve the Hearts article, perhaps you could improve and tidy up the referencing. It's all a bit of a mess.

As I mention every time this comes up :-) the club article MoS does actually suggest the section be called Achievements rather than Honours, and notes that it should contain "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Achievements just sounds bizarre though; most club websites have their trophies under an Honours section. And to reply to the original question, I do not include runners-up in the honours section, although I do mention it in the text when writing the club's history. Number 57 10:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that we should expand it to include achievements raises all sorts of problems, as the entire concept is pretty nebulous: it may be that some team takes great pride in having finished second in the top tier in 1911 (or 2006, as may be the case: there's no "finishing above Rangers" medal), but if we included that as an achievement we'd have to do it for everyone. Far better that we stick to events which resulted in a physical award for the participants. If that means that some clubs don't have honours sections then so be it: we are not here to inflate the prestige of random sporting organisations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely - separate Honours and Records (for e.g. highest-ever league finish) sections covers just about all that is needed. Number 57 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that putting "highest ever finish" in the records section is appropriate. It's the sort of trivia you see in match reports, but that's what it is: trivia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Chris's suggestion sounds good and I will go with this. --John (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is yet a consensus to change what has been in the club article MoS for at least four years. Change the Hearts article if you like, but don't start rolling this out universally without a lot more discussion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

At Vale I called the section 'Honours and achievements'. That way runners-up and promotion successes are included.--EchetusXe 17:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Runners-up is not really an achievement though, it sounds more like trivia to me. If we include runners up, should we include Euro qualification? Finishing in the top 6 (in the Scottish context)? Where would we draw the line exactly? I think there is a consensus here to change the club article MoS and enact this project-wide. Only awards (ie achievements for which a medal, cup etc is given) should be included under awards. I am happy to give it 24 h or so in case there is any rationale not to make this change. --John (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is inconsistent to list cup second places but not league second places. I think it also depends on what the clubs themselves would define as an "honour". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that runners-up "sounding like trivia" is a rationale for change, and we'd have to differ on whether a runner-up position is an achievement or not. Further, a few hours discussion on a Friday afternoon or even into a weekend is clearly not enough time to establish consensus to make such a change. As to reliable sources, on a sample of two: the club I follow lists runners-up places (and a playoff win) among its honours, where Arsenal doesn't. That's pretty similar to what the current club MoS would expect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not second place is an "achievement" or not, it is not an "honour" in that you don't get a medal for it. So it doesn't belong in the honours section. if it's an achievement, then you have to ensure that every single second-place finish is recorded in this manner, not just the ones for clubs whose editors think they need to pad out their virtual trophy cabinets. The simplest and most logical way is to use the honours section to count medals, and the club history section to mark achievements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thought this was "solved" a longtime ago...Runner-up do not count only in leagues - i think it was Erik Meijer who once said "There is nothing crappier than second place" - everywhere else, and i think that third-places in Confederations Cup/World Cup/Copa América/CAN/etc should count as well - medals are handed here right? Also i don't think it matters - as some have suggested earlier - that if a player has many many honours, no runner-up should be inserted in his list. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I also think we should have one overall standard for Misplaced Pages articles; I disagree with Jmorrison230582 as it might be misleading if we follow each individual club's estimation of notability. --John (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make sense. 1. Most cup competitions don't have a third place match. 2. Some leagues do award medals and trophies for finishing below first, eg play-off winners in the English lower divisions. This medal "principle" is a load of nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • We don't need a third place match to know who finished second; it's the losing finalist. Play-off winners could be recognized without a blanket acceptance of every "runners-up" mention. --John (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think I must have misunderstood something... You're surely not suggesting that finishing 6th in a league and then winning a couple of one-off games in the playoffs is more of an achievement/honour than finishing 2nd in that league, just because the playoff winners get a trophy for it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It actually is more of an achievement, because it gets the club promoted. And it's more of an honour because it's actually an honour: you get a nice medal for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
          • It isn't more of an achievement, in the English lower divisions the second place team (and in League Two the third place team) is also promoted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
            • There's certainly lively discussion of that in the real world, where people have pointed out that it seems a little unfair that the team finishing sixth can potentially end up with a lucrative day out at Wembley and a load of nice medals while the team finishing second doesn't. But that's for the authorities to discuss. As far as we're concerned, the playoffs are essentially a mini-tournament resulting in honours for the winner, while second place is just promotion. This may stick in the craw of supporters of teams who finish in second place, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that second place is an honour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall some discussion on this recently. My view is that a blanket decision on what constitutes an 'honour' is not appropriate as it depends on the relative historical success of the particular club. I also don't think the actual award of a medal is the determinant of whether it is to be viewed as an 'honour' or not, although clearly this can be a guide. The sources should be one of the main decisions as to what constitutes honours, though I realise we need to be careful about listing all honours that a club lists on its website. Eldumpo (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Honour, noun. An objectification of praiseworthiness or respect; something that represents praiseworthiness or respect, such as an award given by the state to a citizen. That "objectification" is what we lay people refer to as a "medal". One can argue over what counts as an achievement, but not what counts as an honour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With cup runner-ups, the team isn't given an award, but the players are. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And sporting tradition typically suggests that this is treated as an honour, just like third place is in those few tournaments where there's a third place playoff. It's not entirely consistent, but we're here to document the real world rather than set it right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh look, yet another Footy editor found a non-problem to solve. Which JonBroxton has already been solving "on sight" even though it is against the current MoS :-) But hey, he must have been solving the said non-problem in articles nobody really cares about (e.g. in articles about clubs the British press doesn't follow) so we'll just ignore his comment and pretend it's alright. For what it's worth I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo, Struway and Jmorrison230582 on this one. I fail to see the "all sorts of problems" Chris Cunningham is predicting, as the issue here is only with second places in league competitions. And no, why would we have to include this for all? And if we did, what's the problem with that? I'd rather see content added to already overblown articles about successful clubs than denying the right to smaller clubs to list second places among their honours. No, I do not think it is misleading if we follow each individual club's estimation of notability - btw isn't that exactly the description of one of the criteria for the "Notable Players" section? Aren't the Hall of Fame and Player of the Year achievements based solely on individual clubs' (and/or their supporters') subjective estimation? Misplaced Pages is here to report whatever the club thinks is their successful achievement and/or player and leave it to the reader to decide whether that's an overkill or not. The fact that some bigger clubs don't give a toss about their second place finishes is simply because they have better things to brag about, a luxury that the majority of football clubs don't have and therefore "Honours" is a vague term which clubs invariably define themselves in the real world (you know, the world that every encyclopedia claims to be describing) and is not always an easily measurable thing, nor is it our job to measure it for them (another similar situation is with foundation dates, as we simply go with whatever the club officially claims, without really inspecting whether this is based in reality or not). Btw, if medals are a criteria is any medal an "Honour"? Because if so, I'd like to include the Sportske Novosti award into Lampard's and Raul's and Shevcheko's articles. And what about competitions back in the day in which no medals were given even for first place? Is that an honour or not? Timbouctou 11:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too many people treat Misplaced Pages articles as shrines. We're not here to big-up the records of less successful teams; indeed, NPOV demands it. That is also precisely why we don't include things like friendly tournaments and informal awards in the honours section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too many people treat their own views as "encylopedic" and interpret NPOV on a case-by-case bases so that it would suit their own preferences, as evidenced by your comment on the WP:FPL talk page in which you dismissed a perfectly reasonable argument against SPL's fully pro status by saying that the idea to remove it from the list is "ignoring the spirit of the guideline". No such spirit exists my dear friend, and if you're in doubt consult the top of that particular page which described its purpose in very encyclopedic terms. Back to the subject - judging what is informal or not and whether an honour is really an honour on account of tangible object received for it IS very much contrary to NPOV. Do all top goalscorers get a medal for their feat? If that is not always the case, should we remove it from their individual honours sections and perhaps from league articles too? If the league doesn't give an official award for top scoring, does that mean it is in fact an "informal" piece of information (and not even an "honour" as no medal is involved). Point is, the placements at the end of season is a statistic which some clubs may take to mean honours (just like leagues do with scorers) and I don't see no reason why our criteria should differ from the generally accepted convention in real life (just like it doesn't each time we put historic top scoring tables in an article).Timbouctou 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Newcastle United's official website "Club Honours... FA Premier League Runners-up, FA Cup Runners-up, Football League Cup Runners-Up..." Either we use the generally accepted definition of club honours, or we use a new revised definition of club honours as proposed by a few editors on here. Or we could just use "Honours" for the elite clubs and "Honours and achievements" for all other clubs and prevent any disambiguation.--EchetusXe 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dictates that we use the same definition for all clubs; it's kind of patronizing to the smaller clubs otherwise. I support restricting honours to cases where a club or its players actually get an "honour" which as Chris says is a physical object like a medal or a cup. --John (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So a club's players receiving a small piece of bronze or silver each is an honour, whereas the club finishing second in the Championship, getting promotion to the Premier League and the £60 million that comes with it isn't worth including? How is promotion not an honour? Why should Crewe Alexandra F.C. have under its 'honours' a Senior cup win, where a reserve team was fielded for the final and not even the local press bothered to report it, a 'Junior section' win in the Milk Cup, two Welsh Cup wins, and literally nothing else. I suppose all the promotions the club have ever achieved pale into insignificance compared to these towering achievements?--EchetusXe 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus' post above. The reporting of honours needs to be based on what is regarded as notable (but not solely what the club itself regards as an honour), and not an arbitrary one-size-fits-all rule as to what is deemed notable. I don't see why this is against what NPOV is saying. Eldumpo (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed here is original research - some types of honours count, but others don't. Or even this ludicrous idea that one type of promotion is an honour (winning the playoffs) but another type of promotion - the same achievement(!) - is not. The only fair way is to accept each club's word for what they define as an honour in their publications. It is then up to the reader to decide whether that honour is significant or not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League RM

I have put in an 'uncontroversial' move request for Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League → Category:Welsh Premier League players; should anyone disagree, please say so here before an admin goes ahead and makes the move. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 15:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from WP:RM, which was the wrong place as cat renames should be listed at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. However, you may be unaware that it was named like that because of the possibly ambiguity, as "Welsh Premier League players" could easily be (mis)interpreted as "Premier League players of Welsh nationality". See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 20#Welsh Premier League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks very much for pointing me in the right direction. The possible ambiguity never really crossed my mind before...GiantSnowman 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't seem to be a problem for Category:Russian Premier League players or Category:Scottish Premier League players. --ClubOranje 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the RPL and SPL are both high-profile fully professional leagues, which means that there is little or no ambiguity. Whereas the WPL is semi-professional and almost all of the professional Welsh players play in the English structure (some for Welsh clubs in that structure). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juventude (Sal)

The article Juventude (Sal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced in 3 languages, a search for references did not find support for the article as written, Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Karamoko Kéïta name order

I've seen this player called both 'Karamoko Kéïta' and 'Kéïta Karamoko' - anyone know called the correct name order? GiantSnowman 19:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Karamoko Kéïta. Some French sources display names as Surname Firstname so it can be confusing. TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Some cultures, such as Hungary, list names as "Family Name, Personal Name" rather then the other way around. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps FC

There is yet another proposal to merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) to Vancouver Whitecaps FC. The main argument opposed to the merge in the past (see Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) into this article was that the MLS didn't allow franchises to keep their history. Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#It is time to merge the articles states that the MLS Whitecaps site has retained their history continuing to 1974. Please discuss there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention WP:LENGTH.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

Some issues have been raised at regarding the appropriateness of the current wording of FPL and its application, particularly with respect to AfD's. Please comment at that thread if you have views on this matter. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 15th, with 13911 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Project-Class football pages
• NA-importance football pages
• WikiProject Football articles