Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:04, 28 July 2009 editEchetusXe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers133,395 editsm →Kristof Van Hout← Previous edit Revision as of 00:10, 29 July 2009 edit undoThe Transhumanist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers302,803 edits questionNext edit →
Line 579: Line 579:


This article is facing the possibility of failing its Featured Article nomination due to a perceived "slightly pompous texture". It has been suggested that the article requires a thorough copyedit, which I don't seem to have been able to procure at the Peer Review stage. Since I'm the principle contributor to the article, it would be inappropriate for me to give it the fine-tooth combing it needs, so I would appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject would do it for me. As far as I can tell, only a few kinks need ironing out, so any changes would only need to affect the style and not the content. Thanks. – ]] 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) This article is facing the possibility of failing its Featured Article nomination due to a perceived "slightly pompous texture". It has been suggested that the article requires a thorough copyedit, which I don't seem to have been able to procure at the Peer Review stage. Since I'm the principle contributor to the article, it would be inappropriate for me to give it the fine-tooth combing it needs, so I would appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject would do it for me. As far as I can tell, only a few kinks need ironing out, so any changes would only need to affect the style and not the content. Thanks. – ]] 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

== Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an ]? ==

].

''''']''''' 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: See Misplaced Pages's collection of outlines at ].

Revision as of 00:10, 29 July 2009

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
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: 10 days 
WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:WPF navigation

Formal petition to change the naming conventions

I would hereby like to make a formal petition to change the naming conventions of seasons and yearly competitions to have the year placed in the front of the name of the competition/league as per typical rules of English grammar, ex: 2009 Copa Libertadores, 2008-09 Premier League, etc. The addition of "season", as found in other sporting examples such as 2008–09 NBA season, could be considered, but if decided to be used, should be added to league seasons, i.e. 2008-09 Premier League season, but not 2009 Copa Libertadores season.

I know this would affect A LOT of article, but it makes more sense this way, and it far more practical when placing the articles' title in the prose of other articles. Digirami (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Too inconsistant - Either both are ok or none. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well one is a league, the other is tournament. The idea, if accepted, would be to have "season" added just to league seasons, and not annual tournaments. Digirami (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I dont see the reason for having to add season to article titles, it will also be "harder" to find uncategorised articles, such as searching for prefixes. chandler 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Redirects would still be in place for the articles, so searching for the old prefixes shouldn't be a problem. Regardless, the proposed changes would bring us in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which is more important. Do people actually search for "Premier League 2008-09" instead of "2008-09 Premier League"? – PeeJay 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think most search "Premier League 2008-09", which is the most usage format I see on the net for example (just google search "Premier League 2008-09 " vs "2008-09 Premier League"). chandler 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well the most common usage would go along the lines of "2008-09 Premier League", not "Premier League 2008-09" because heck that's how people talk and it goes with the rules of grammar (adjective, being the year, in front of the noun, being the league/competition name). Adding season to the end is a purely optional idea for now, but I primarily strongly petitioning on having the year in the front. Digirami (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Other examples in WP, and some of them not sports related are as follows: 2008–09 Australian region cyclone season, 2009 Atlantic hurricane season, 2009 Kentucky Derby. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support According to the naming convention we should use the most easily recognizable name. I'm not a native speaker, but you tell me "200x league season" is the format everybody expects. If that's so we should obviously use that name, too. On the other hand creators of articles have some degree of freedom in naming them and as everybody would recognize "League season 200x", I find this somewhat academic. OdinFK (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You could argue back at me and tell me that this is what piping links is for, but changing the article titles to "200x league season" would make it easier to link to these pages from other articles, without needing to pipe; so it's not as academic as you might think. – PeeJay 11:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better to NOT have the years in parenthesis. This leave the option of further disambiguation open should it be needed. Could you imagine if we have Primera Division (Spain, 2009–10) and Primera Division (Argentina, 2009–10)?! (This is a hypothetical situation). Now that would look awful! The prevailing format should be because it is the one that by far makes the most sense to English readers. Digirami (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not believe we need another policy that is a special case of established Misplaced Pages policy, such as we already have with the notability and national team naming conventions. (See Soccerholic's comment above for explanation) Madcynic (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we may have gotten a bit lost along the way, but this petition is not about changing/adding policy. This is about getting existing articles (such as UEFA Champions League 2009–10) moved to more appropriate titles (such as 2009–10 UEFA Champions League) and then applying the new conventions to future articles. Sorry if you were confused. Consider this a massive requested move. – PeeJay 16:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, but does the heading say "request to change the naming conventions" or not? Maybe a convention is not a policy, but what you suggest looks like a change in policy and hence I uphold my comment. Madcynic (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well that's just heading to open a discussion. The reality is that we needed to have a formal request to change this practice/policy/convention (whatever you call it) because had a user, like myself, decided to do this change single handedly, it would have caused an uproar in this project and amongst users and we would have been back here discussing that instead. Digirami (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • For the Champions League article, I disagree moving them. UEFA official refers the season after the competition. Such as we cannot move UEFA Euro 2008 to 2008 UEFA Euro. Raymond Giggs 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(summary...?) It seems that the majority of input is in favor of putting the year in front. How should we go about this effectively due to the large number of articles this will affect? Digirami (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any more opinions on this? I don't think nine opinions are quite enough to form a proper consensus. Do User:Struway2, User:ChrisTheDude or User:Richard Rundle have anything to say on this issue? – PeeJay 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the change, I think it flows better. A magazine article would say, for example, "Man Utd won the 2008-09 Premier League", not, "Man Utd won the Premier League 2008-09" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support year or year range going first, by English language common usage, so long as there are redirects from the other way about. Don't see the need to add the word "season", wouldn't object to it though. There will be exceptions in naming style, like Euro 2008, but that's still consistent with WP:COMMONNAME (except we seem to call it UEFA Euro 2008, which no-one else does who isn't being paid to, but that's by the by :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've made the first changes by moving all of the Premier League season articles to the new format. There's a lot of redirects to fix, but I suppose we can get a bot to do the rest for us. – PeeJay 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you get a bot to do that? Digirami (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Make a request at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. I suggest doing this one competition at a time, btw, just to try to avoid any mistakes. – PeeJay 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Late wade in with a comment While I support this initiative as a concept as I am all for consistancy, I think it is another one of those things which you wonder how much it is worth the effort because there is always someone wanders by who thinks it should be different again and throws up a COMMONNAME or ENGVAR argument or some such, much as has happened for the very nice convention of having "Xion national football team" which is not nearly as nice these days with 10% of them being "Xion national soccer team". Too many people take guidelines too literal and argue back and forth, without actually reading the rational provided to show why the policy / guideline is there in the first place. Take the national teams example above - most of the world call it football, and would easily adapt to a convention, but even if not, a redirect from the soccer option would help all find it happily, which is the intent of the policy, but no, we have to have some different (Australia I see is now Australia national association football team just to be even more different). The commonname and engvar arguments shouldn't even apply here, simple COMMONSENSE should. All national teams, leagues, competitions, squad templates etc should simply follow consistent naming systems.<end rant> --ClubOranje 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The initiative is based on English language usage and practicality. It is much more common, and grammatically correct, to say "2009-10 Premier League" than "Premier League 2009-10", therefore making it easier to put article titles in prose. That's the point of this in a nutshell. Digirami (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K.

Can somebody please have a look at Fenerbahçe S.K., a large serie of IP changes the squadlist just based on roumers. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WAFU

I have created new pages:

I could do with some help finding and adding information!! :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Graham Nationality

We got a bit of a problem here. Taylor Graham who was born in the United States made 3 apps. for Puerto Rico before FIFA declared him ineligible to play for Puerto Rico. So does that mean is his nationality is the United States or is it still Puerto Rico? – Michael (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If FIFA says he was ineligible to play for Puerto Rico, then his sporting nationality, which presumably is what you're asking about, can't possibly be Puerto Rico, and would be that of his country of birth. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, to me it doesn't really make any sense because nationality is dependent on where he or she played their international ball at. Unless he earns a call up by the United States, I'm not sure it should be the US at this point. – Michael (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I would typically agree that the caps for PR dictates the flag going in. However, he is now ineligible to play for PR. If FIFA says he cannot claim PR I don't see how we can. Maybe less important for our needs, he was also born in CA. Both combined make it seem like common sense to use the US flag now.Cptnono (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever his most recent status is for sporting nationality is what makes most sense to me, which seems to be US nationality. Yukata Ninja (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. If users are interested in historical information about his international career, they'll find it in the article about him, but everywhere else that shows an indicator of his nationality should reflect his current status, not his historical status. --SkotyWA|Contribs 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
When you look at the last section on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons), here's what you'll run into on the first 2 parts of it.
Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality.
Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent sporting nationality, not nationality, if any confusion might arise.
So I think we should leave Taylor Graham as it is, if you don't think so please explain why? – Michael (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand sporting nationality as the team the player could play for today if he were to play for a national team. FIFA has ruled him ineligible for Puerto Rico, so his sporting nationality would be USA. Is there a definition of sporting nationality somewhere? Yukata Ninja (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Graham is not eligible to play for Puerto Rico. Unless FIFA changes it's mind, he will never have another cap for Puerto Rico. Placing a Puerto Rican flag next to his name would only be correct if there was any possibility that he would have another cap for Puerto Rico. He won't. He is only eligible for caps with the US team going forward. Therefore the US flag is what belongs next to his name right now. --SkotyWA|Contribs 05:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In the MOS section on flags for sportspeople it states: "If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth." There is no evidence that Graham has ever been ineligible to play for the US (his place of birth), so we can assume that at one time he was eligible to represent two nations (US and Puerto Rico). However, that is no longer true as FIFA has ruled him ineligible to represent Puerto Rico. Therefore, based on the MOS, it must now be the case the "most apt" eligibility rule should apply which indeed would be his place of birth in this case. --SkotyWA|Contribs 06:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this also apply with Kupono Low because FIFA also botted him. – Michael (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting either flag down doesn't tell the whole story, so put neither. Better say nothing, than mislead. Leave the whole story for the article, rather than try and make a oversimiplified binary "decision" on his nationality for the sake of some colourful decoration. Knepflerle (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was rethinking this since "flags represent sporting nationality" lends some credit to the use of PR. It could still be argued that US is appropriate for several reasons but keeping the flag out all together might be the simplest fix. It would certainly prevent any confusion for the reader which should be a high priority.Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, Mikemor92, where are you intending to place the flag in Graham's article? I hope it's not in the infobox, as that would be inappropriate use of a flagicon. – PeeJay 09:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A-men. For the five millionth time, If there is any doubt whatsoever, then explain the situation in the article text and stop squabbling over labels. End of story. We have this discussion literally every month. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Mikemor92 doesn't mention anything about a flag - that was brought in midway through the conversation. User:Thumperward is right though. Explain in simple terms as part of the text. - fchd (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Mikemor92 began this conversation to hopefully help us make a final decision on which flag was appropriate for Taylor Graham when he's listed as part of the squad on the Seattle Sounders FC page. Right now he has the Puerto Rican flag. I believed the US flag made more sense (based on my reasons above) and reverted User:Mikemor92's edit... twice. I whole heartedly agree that this isn't worth squabbling over. I think User:Mikemor92 was looking for more "official" guidance from the WikiProject when he started this conversation. --SkotyWA|Contribs 04:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't see anyway to use either and that looks to have some support. Would it look too silly to have no flag next to his name? We could also put in a comment using <!-- ... ---> (the thingamajig that only shows up in the edit summary) as a heads up to editors unfamiliar with the situation. Here's to hoping he will get a US cap and then we don't have to worry about it anymore. I think having a handful of pixels without a flag might keep the article more stable.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghost goal: an original research?

Hi, I would suggest you to pay more attention on this article, because it looks like an original research. I think that the term "ghost goal" didn't come out in 2005 (as stated in the current version), for two reasons: 1) none of the present references confirm this fact (they talk about a dubious goal in the 2005 UEFA Champions League semifinal match between Chelsea and Liverpool, but they didn't state that the term "ghost goal" was coined for the first time after that event); 2) one of the most famous ghost goal (not reported in the article) was scored by Geoff Hurst in the 1966 World Cup final, so I suppose that the term was already used 43 years ago (if not more previously). --Mess (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems "phantom goal" is a more popular term in the earlier references Spiderone (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this even worthy of an article? Dancarney (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a merge to goal (sport) if only that weren't such a mish-mash of an article. Really, it's amazing how many articles on basic footy terminology are so little maintained. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not much worth merging, and the term is not in general use. I'd say send it to AfD. Incidentally, in Germany they use the word "Wembley-tor", which as entered the wider vocabulary for perceived injustice. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shock! Horror!

Having received my One United (Man Utd supporters club) membership pack today, I slotted the enclosed DVD into my computer just now to watch the documentary on the club's Carrington training facility. However, not one minute into the film, I noticed something rather odd; a portion of the narration had been lifted verbatim from the final paragraph of our own article on the centre! Granted, they changed one figure mentioned in the text, but I assume that was fact-checking on their part. Nevertheless, as I continued to watch, I compared the rest of the narration to our article and noticed some marked similarities, such as items being listed in the same order in both, and the use of identical terminology. So anyway, this is clearly a violation of the GFDL rights of the contributors to that article, and I will be following it up further. – PeeJay 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time. A few days ago I found at the AFA website a copy paste of the List of foreign Ligue 1 players, which took me months to build, with the help of other editors. Here]. Only some diacritics were added...--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
My first draft article on Andy Hessenthaler, an article much changed since, was posted almost without alteration on Dover Athletic's website when he became their manager. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
But of course, WP is not reliable for many people.^^--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen my words pop up in a couple of places too, it's quite entertaining. Perhaps I should have gone into journalism? BEVE (talk)  13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this has been the main reason wy did I insisted in the past in correcting some situations: Like the one putting Ratomir Dujković as "Croatian" in the Foreign Serie A players list(when he is an ethnic Serb, born in Yugoslavia, in a town that is today in Croatia). I was not exagerating when I´ve said that many journalists may use Misplaced Pages as a source for info. If they see it in some wiki list as Croat, they wan´t doubt about saying he´s Croat, even if he really isn´t. The other day I´ve seen a really unbelivable news on the B92 (the main Serbian independent news agency): it said: "Rigobert Song is about to sign for Vojvodina, says the Misplaced Pages". I couldn´t beleve it ! Specially becouse I´ve noteced that some anonime guy put that info in the club page a day earlier. I thout that was some fanatic, but never expected to go that far, as being anounced as a news. It was unthrue at the end... I think that even players managers discouvered the power of wikipedia, so they use it to create speculations. FkpCascais (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I´m saying this becouse I´ve noteced that much of what is being written here is used out there as information, statistics or research. Even plagiate, or almost, in the cases you´ve mentioned. For instance, my lists of foreign players in Serbia, have been used in many forums becouse this days it´s a hot topic there. There was a great debate about this issue becouse the Serbian Football federation issued, 2 days ago, a low restricting the number of foreign players in clubs. Some guys were giving the link to the lists, others just mention it, and others use it to number the foreign players that each club had. But I have a question for you guys. If, for instance, I write a sequence of words from my list in the google search, I will find like at least five exact copies of it under other titles. Isn´t all the material that we write here of "free" use for others? FkpCascais (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many mirror sites of wikipedia.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
If a researcher use Misplaced Pages as a source, he's simply not a researcher. It's not our problem. --necronudist (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right Christian.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed

If a league is notable this doesn't automatically make all players notable does it? Surely if there is no proof that a league is professional then we must take it as being semi-pro. This is the argument. Spiderone (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We have articles for every league (but not every division) in the English pyramid, down to the Bristol Downs Football League: we do not hold that the players at this level are notable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lierse S.K.

Is the club sing song really needed in the article? I thought that was silly! Govvy (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dinamo vs. Dynamo

As I've noticed the naming of articles about the clubs named Dynamo/Dinamo is not consistent while imho it should be because the word means the same everywhere. Wherever the article is named "Dinamo", it is named that way in the club's own country as well (e.g. Dinamo Tirana, Dinamo Zagreb). On the other hand, many clubs with Misplaced Pages articles named "Dynamo" are actually in their countries written as "Dinamo", most oftenly in Cyrillic (e.g. Dynamo Moscow-->Russian Misplaced Pages article, Dynamo Kyiv-->Ukrainian Misplaced Pages article), where the letter "и" represents Latin "i". There is even one Dünamo (Estonian club JK Dünamo Tallinn). Of course, there are also clubs actually named "Dynamo", mostly in English-spoken countries (e.g. Carolina Dynamo), or even in some other countries that explicitly name the club "Dynamo", although they come from non-English countries (e.g. Dynamo Dresden, Dynamo České Budějovice).

What I wanted to point out is that there is no "pattern" in naming the clubs. Now, will there be any naming consensus (for example naming all clubs "Dynamo", because this is, after all, an English Misplaced Pages and we should use English wherever we can, as per WP:ENGLISH), or should we name all clubs according to their name in their own language? SonjiCeli (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the usage of i or y should be according to the convention of the particular clubs, not on a wiki-wide basis. It's an interesting point though as to why there are the different English-versions for different countries, and maybe for some clubs this could change over time. If there is a pretty even split between versions for a particular club then I suggest their 'home-language' version should apply (this would of course not apply to those with Cyrilic alphabet names unless they also had an official Latin/Roman spelling as well). Eldumpo (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:Eldumpo. There is no need to make a Wiki-wide change for consistency's sake. If a club is referred to as "Dynamo" in the English-language media, then we should use that, and likewise for those known as "Dinamo" or even "Dünamo". – PeeJay 22:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, sometimes it's hard to tell. For example, Dynamo Moscow is reffered to as "Dinamo" here in uefa.com article, which is pretty much one of THE English-language media relevant for that question. However, their official website is named fcdynamo.ru but says Dinamo Moskva on the home page. All this is saying that Dynamo should be moved to Dinamo (only the name of the website is being written Dynamo). But I know what would happen if I try to move it now. Some users even tried to redirect Dynamo to Dinamo, but got reverted immediately. Therefore, if the changes should be made according to...let's say...everything, they most likely won't because they were named that way in the first place and, thereby, aren't supposed to be changed. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think throuout history, all clubs have beeb named "Dinamo", exepting East-Germans (Dynamo Berlin and Dynamo Dresden). In the Ukranian Dynamo Kiyv case, I think the change happend in 1992 becouse they wanted to differ from the Russian Dinamo Moskva. I didn´t knew that Dinamo Moskva also followed that tendency, but I think it´s for "fashionable" reasons only. There are the Houston Dynamos as well. I agree treating each club separatelly. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not the case. The reason Dynamo Kyiv is used because it is the English transliteration of the team from Ukrainian. Динамо = Dynamo. The letter "и" gets tranliterated as "y". Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What is all the fuss about? If the club comes from a country which uses a derivative from the Latin alphabet, use the native spelling. If the club comes from a country which uses a derivative from the Cyrillic alphabet, use one of the romanization tables. It's as simple as that. This ruling applied would lead to "Dinamo Minsk", "Dinamo Moskva" and "Dynamo Kiev", for example. --Soccer-holic 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The team is known as Dynamo Kyiv in transliterated English and UEFA also agrees. Thank you very much.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The BBC (which, let's face it, is the primary influence on en-WP's footy naming conventions) is now using Dinamo, so I would expect a gradual migration as time passes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting massive change of birth country by anon.

I have to report to the administrators that some anonim user Special:Contributions/92.37.24.4 is massively changing the country of birth in the players infoboxes from SFR Yugoslavia to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since Bosnia exists as country only since 1993, all players born before should have written SFR Yugoslavia as country of birth. At least that´s the case for all ex-Yugoslavia players. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a little of this war-like change and reversions. But I wasn't sure of the correct policy to go by. Govvy (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Revert all. Standard for wikipedia is country at the time of birth, not now. Think about it, Caesar was not born in Italy, for instance.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I Reverted all. I don't care much if it is written on passports etc..., this is just historically incorrect.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this by the way Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Country of birth.Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A different IP did all the Croatian ones this morning too. Filip, best option is to assume good faith, revert the edits and advise the user on their talk page, as User:Latouffedisco has done. Sometimes they simply don't realise, so until they have been told, they are not actually doing anything wrong.--ClubOranje 09:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting massive change of birth country by Latouffedisco.

This user is changing birth countries by his opinion. There are no rules about this and there is even a discussion about this. I think this user should be warned.

He even wrote he don't care about passports - so why is he solving this problem here - go to European Parliament and convince them to change passports... Amir delic (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been reported by fellow editor User:FkpCascais just above, and the general consensus about country of birth is to use the country at the time of birth. As you reverted my edits, I will not again revert yours, but probably someone else will. The best way is AGAIN discussing about this issue. Ah, of course, you can warn me for my misconduct, but I don't think people at WP:FOOTY agree with you. And no, Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia don't automatically follows passports. We should not re-write history.--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
And you even reported me to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism without warning me. Very funny, "This user is changing birth countries by his opinion". This is exactly what you have done, isn't it ?--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote as it in passport AND as players tell themself (I've seen a lot of interviews where they all state they were born in Bosnia and Hercegovina (but you keep changing this fact)--Amir delic (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear "Mr.Amir Delić", some time ago I also used to intervene as I liked in every pages I feeled like, becouse I consider myself a very well aware person about all the problematics in ex-Yugoslavia, and also quite objective. But things don´t work this way around here. For instance: I made a page about a player (Jan Podhradski) that was born in Vojvodina in 1917. I put that he was born in Serbia, but a fellow wikipedian correct it to Austro-Hungary. I asumed (wrongly) that since in a few months that territory was going to be declared as joining Kingdom of Serbia, in 1918, I could put it that way, but no! I fully agree in putting the country of birth in the day that place(village,town,city) belonged, even if next day changed hands by some treaty.
So, dear Mr.Amir, for much that you may hate SFR Yugoslavia,(I hate it too beleve me), if those players, just like you, were born in the territory of the SR Bosnia and Herzegovina before its independence, those players, as you, were born in a country called SFR Yugoslavia, like it or not.
The only possibility that I see, so we could come to a consensus, is that we can put in the "city of birth" the city, followed by the SR (republic), and in the country we must stay with SFR Yugoslavia. It would look like this: (exemple:town of Gacko): City of birth: Gacko, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina; Country of birth: SFR Yugoslavia. Anyway, if it is before 1992 it will be SR Bosnia and Herzegovina and not the current state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will also ask you to ,please, put this issues here for debate before making massive changes, since this wikipedia is not yours or mine, OK? FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a sensible way of proceeding for the former Soviet territories. Hopefully all involved parties can agree that this is a suitable solution to an emotive issue. King of the North East 09:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanx for your comment King..., but for your info, Yugoslavia was NOT former Soviet territory, not even Warsaw pact... And there is already a consensus here. FkpCascais (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Conveniently not remebering the name of the country where you were born is not an encyclopedic fact. If you and those players you´re saying, have doubts about the name of the country you´ve born, I can help you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Latouffedisco is doing the right thing... we reached an agreement time ago to keep the nations of birth at the time of birth. Do you think Hannibal was born in Tunisia? --necronudist (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will second that - the country of birth, pre-1992, was Yugoslavia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanx you all guys, but everything is the same, this guy changes all and reverts as well. I can´t do anything. Can´t you block him? FkpCascais (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Like you said (in offensive way on my talk page) that you don't give a f*ck what a I think why should I give a f*ck what you think? I wrote what ACTUAL SOCCER PLAYERS talk about themselves (they all say they where born in Bosnia and Hercegovina) AND what is ACTUALLY in their passports. You just revert my edits whitout even checking what I edited (and reverted some other things - not just place of birth). I edit only Miralem Pjanic page (and even wrote he was born in former SFR Yugoslavia) and after that you want me to be banned - you are funny guy...Amir delic (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Calm down this is not the place for a second Yugoslav war. Amir, do you really think players opinions should be followed ? Did they studied history, went to universities, wrote phD etc... so their opinion and their work would be reliable ? I don't think so, for most of them. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanx dear Mr.Amir, I try to be as funny as I can, in this grey world... Please don´t change my words. What I´ve said is that I dont give ***** to what some paper says. The thing here is not what some footballers say or not. The thing here is to put the correct "Country of birth". I wanted to bane you becouse, obviously, on purpose or not, you seem to NOT know what the word Country in that context means. Do you know what it means? P.S.:(Little help) It´s not Country , from peasant countryside... FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I´m being funny again (or not...). Do you agree, and all other "soccerwikiholicpedians", to do it like I sugested before: To put:(Exemple:City of birth:Split,SR Croatia ; Country of birth:SFR Yugoslavia ; I´m talking, obviously, about the people born in the territory of SFR Yugoslavia during its existence, between 1945-1992. For people being born before (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) or after (all new countries), we do it differently, depending on the case. OK(again!)? FkpCascais (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cascais and I think that adding the specific republic (which was at the time Yugoslavia's internal administrative category) is redundant. The fact that someone was born in Zagreb or Belgrade and that these are in today's Croatia or Serbia can be mentioned somewhere in the article, without cluttering up one's infobox. This is also a big problem with Croatian players, the number of anonymous editors who keep changing the "SFR Yugoslavia" to "Croatia" in the infobox is astonishing. It seems a lot of people have a problem with this, even more so when Bosnians are in question (some editors ara amazingly adamant in claiming that Miroslav Blažević is Bosnian because he was born in Bosnia, even though he holds a Croatian passport, spent his whole playing career in Croatia, listed everywhere as being Croatian and even ran in Croatian presidential and local elections and is currently member of the Zagreb municipal government. How people can be so stubborn beats me. Timbouctou (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...I founded a practical difficulty. When I tryed to put in the infobox Mostar,SR Bosnia and Herzegovina , it mekes the infobox larger, so it´s not practical. Forget it... Timbouctou is right. Its redundant. If someone wants to know where that place is, he can go by the city. But please, more independent (non ex-Yu people,he seems to think we like SFRY) explain to this Almir wy are we right. Or don´t bother... FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gilberto

The article could do with a few more people watching it as Gilberto move hasn't been confirmed by any official source in England. Govvy (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Euro 2008

I've just noticed today that UEFA has decided to change their site structure so that none of the match reports that are linked in the Euro 2008 articles are available. I've spent some time trying to dig them up on the site, but no such luck. Ideas and suggestions, anyone? Madcynic (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Avoid linking to them and discourage others from doing so. UEFA are so bad about changing their URLs (which are supposed to work permanently) that I'd barely consider the website a reliable source. That said, thankfully we can {{wayback}} them in most cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Läng

Can an admin please recreate the article on Peter Läng; according to a (poor) Google translation of this site, I think he made his international debut for Thailand in June. Cheers, GiantSnowman 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thailand didn't play in June. . Perhaps he played in the July 18 game v Pakistan?--ClubOranje 05:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, apparently so (to answer my own question) , although this wouldn't count as WP:RS.--ClubOranje 05:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Professionality of the V-League

Just going through the PDF that recently came up in an AfD to get some leagues set one way or another on the professionality lists for us to consult. Currently, the V-League is listed as fully professional, with this as the source. However, the PDF indicates that the V-League does not meet requirements for fully professional rosters. The question is which source do we go with? It seems that the PDF source is much more credible; however, do we want to err on the side of inclusivity? matt91486 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly go with the PDF, it's more in-depth and I'd say the source is more reliable. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium FAR

I have nominated City of Manchester Stadium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Happy Editing, Aaroncrick (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Weymouth fixtures

Just found this article and I think it should be PRODded but just checking on here. --BigDom (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 09:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Either that, or expand – pending that a semi-pro team is considered noteworthy enough to have a season article. I'm fine with either solution. Besides that, Weymouth F.C. could probably need some clean up as well... --Soccer-holic 10:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The precedent set by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gateshead F.C. season 2006–07 would suggest otherwise. If it was renamed to something like Weymouth F.C. season 2009–10 (in keeping with other such articles) and as long as it is well referenced (together with the fact they're also playing in a 'national' league), the consensus would probably be to keep it. To be honest, I'm not particularly fussed either way. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, looking back at the Gateshead AfD, there could be a case for keeping the article, and renaming it as Bettia suggested. However, it needs VAST improvement and some reliable sources to portray its notability. GiantSnowman 11:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't know about non-league, but publishing Premier League and Football League fixtures without a license is a breach of copyright, so best to avoid adding domestic league fixtures altogether. A season article would be OK though I guess. --Jameboy (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-league fixtures are able to be reproduced without seeking permission, the late Tony Kempster mentioned something about it on his old site when questioned why his non league pages had fixtures and not the premiership. Uksam88 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Assuming this (or any other fixture list) is copyrighted, I suppose starting with a blank table and just filling in the results as they are played would be okay, right? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Clark and Ashford Town

Does anyone have any knowledge/source as to which Ashford Town (Kent or Middlesex), Anthony Clark played for? Cheers, --Jimbo 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this report he signed from "Ryman Division One side Ashford Town". As far as I can tell, the Kent team were in this division at the time, whilst the Middlesex team transferred striaght from the Southern League to the Premier Division. In conclusion, it looks like Kent. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah thanks, must have missed that source. I tend to use Non-League Daily a lot for references with non-League players. --Jimbo 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Champions League and Europa League play-off rounds

User:KyleRGiggs has responded to the wording of the UEFA Champions League regulations by insisting that the qualifying phase and play-off round of that competition are completely separate. He is therefore intent on creating separate articles for both phases, despite the consequence that we will end up with a separate article for a single round of the competition. While I do not refute the fact that the two phases are entirely separate, as defined in the competition regulations, my suggestion is that the articles be merged and that the article title reflect this; hence, instead of having 2009–10 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and 2009–10 UEFA Champions League play-off round, we would merely have 2009–10 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round. This solution would be vindicated by the fact that this page at UEFA.com states that "as from the 2009/10 season onwards, there will be four qualifying rounds (including a play-off round)". A similar situation is also in existence for this season's UEFA Europa League. I bring this issue here as a form of dispute resolution, so as many opinions as possible would be extremely welcome here. – PeeJay 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, the play-off round and the early qualifying rounds are all part of the same qualifying process for the group stages (ie the competition proper). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thirded. No need to separate the qualifying rounds unless the size of those articles becomes too big to load smoothly. --Soccer-holic 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well. Subarticle is not a problem. But I need to clarify that the result would affect the main article section arrangement. Someone keeps making that section into the qualifying phase. I can accept the subarticle with both parts, but the fact is - those two parts are not the same. Raymond Giggs 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the Play-off round should not be a subsection to the qualifying phase. Under the old UEFA Cup format, there was never any question that the first round (i.e. the one before the group phase) was part of the competition proper. It seems to me that the play-off round is simply a renamed version of the same thing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Log and AfD list pages

I notice that the list of AfD's at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves are not the same e.g. no 15 July entries are listed at the former. I guess this is down to individual editors and others not hanging the appropriate tags to them, but is there some way of setting things up so that the same AfD's are listed at both locations automatically? Eldumpo (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Copa Sudamericana

As is typical for continental tournaments, us users create sud-pages for various round (like for a group stage). I would like to do the same for the 2009 Copa Sudamericana, but I'm not sure how exactly to approach it for this tournament since it is essentially one big single-elimination tournament. My best idea would be to do one for the First Stage, one of the remaining stages, and one for the Finals. Any suggestions? Digirami (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are intent on creating sub-pages, I would suggest creating one article for the First Stage and the Round of 16 and another article for the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final. – PeeJay 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely it's more logical for the knockout stages to be grouped together Eldumpo (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the whole thing is a knockout tournament, so a split is needed. – PeeJay 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, getting my competitions's confused. Thought this had a group stage first - did it used to? Eldumpo (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Copa Sudamericana has never really had a group stage. Digirami (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Leagues infobox

I've been working on translating a few of the lower league articles over of late, and I've noticed a weird thing with the leagues infobox. If you were to look at Denmark Series you'd notice that it reads "levels" on the pyramid instead of "level." This makes sense for articles on league systems, but no sense at all for individual leagues. I've never had any experience editing infobox forms, so I'm not sure if I were to make the change in the parent if it would disrupt everything else or not, but would it be possible to correct to have parameters for level or levels? Or would that be too confusing in the end and not worth the grammatical fix? matt91486 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of footballers playing for a foreign country

We have this category that includes mainly the lists of foreign players playing in different countries or leagues, and lists of players of other nationalities playing for different NT´s. For the leagues lists, shouldn´t we name it "Category:Lists of footballers playing IN a foreign country", and leave the NT lists in this category? FkpCascais (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds sensible. However Category:Lists of footballers playing for a foreign country should be renamed Category:Lists of footballers playing for a foreign national football team. It would be a clearer title.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it sensible? I agree with your proposal for a name for the NT lists, I only think that would be more correct to put the foreign players lists in a category "...playing IN a foreign countyr" unstead "...playing FOR a foreign country". The foreign players don´t play FOR the country where they play, they play IN that country. That "error" I noteced an already long time ago. What you think? Can we do it? FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, I used "sensible" in the sense of "fair". Quite ambiguous, I aknowledge. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this one of those uncomfortable "arbitrary definition of what constitutes 'other countries'" situations again? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don´t think so. Its pure grammar issue. My English is far from perfect, but for the foreign players lists, it would be more precise to say IN. Simple. FkpCascais (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Books on football grounds

Do any of you guys have books on football grounds? I'm working with The Rambling Man on trying to get Carrow Road to FA, but we're short on good source material. If someone has such a book, I'd be really glad for some scans of pages, either placed online or emailed to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good time to point out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Booklist (see also User:Oldelpaso/Sources). Between us, myself, PeeJay and Jameboy have various editions of Simon Inglis' The Football Grounds of Great Britain. Despite its age, it is still the definitive tome for the history of League grounds. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, magnificent. Could one of you with a relatively recent edition oblige? --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You have mail. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, that list of books is fantastic. However, as it's listed alphabetically by author, it's quite hard to search by topic. Perhaps it should be organised by club or period or whatever, like the links page is. GiantSnowman 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

EPL Fantasy League

A reminder that a fantasy league for wikipedians has been set up for next year. You can sign up at this website.

Sign up, pick your team, and join the league. To join the league, you'll need to type/paste in the code.

The code for joining is as follows.

  • 40867-13018

Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Erton Fejzullahu

Three goals in two games for FC Copenhagen at age 17? Really? This guy definitely exists, but have his stats been exaggerated? GiantSnowman 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem implausible on a Roy of the Rovers level, after all Alan Shearer scored a hat-trick on his pro debut at age 17 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but it still seems odd, especially as he then left FC Copenhagen (having shown such skills) to join a second-division Swedish side! At least Shearer stayed at Southampton after his dream debut. GiantSnowman 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just looked on playerhistory.com and it makes no mention of him making any appearances for FC Copenhagen. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That must have happend in a pre-seasonal friendly match. (FkpCascais)
There is no entry for this person at resol.dr.dk, which means he never played in the Danish league. Jogurney (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is Fejzullahu's Copenhagen stats: He never played an official match for the club and played only a single friendly match. kalaha 17:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks everyone, I have updated tha article accordingly. GiantSnowman 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Satellite views of football grounds in articles

I presume that the Google Earth images are copyright and cannot be used in articles, but can we link to them? I found this brilliant one of the former site of The Nest. --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The official Google view on this matter. GiantSnowman 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It would then appear that, since Google does not allow the images to be used for commercial purposes, that they may not be used on Misplaced Pages. IIRC, for an image to be uploaded to Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Commons, it has to be released under a licence that allows commercial usage. – PeeJay 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Championnat National

Is the French Championnat National fully-pro? It's not mentioned here...GiantSnowman 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

French wiki: "C'est le niveau le plus élevé auquel peuvent participer les équipes amateurs." (It is the highest level at which amateur teams may compete.) So, no, it is not. Madcynic (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Merci! GiantSnowman 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Many of the teams in the Championnat National are professional though, so their players still pass WP:FOOTYN. If the team has played in Ligue 2 in the last two seasons, they are still professional. BigDom 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no - yes that players who have played in Ligue 2 in the past are notable, and no that players playing for professional teams in the Championnat National are notable. As it isn't a fully-pro league, any player who has ONLY played in the Championnat National or at a lower level fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, since I posted this I've found out from User:ChrisTheDude that WP:FOOTYN isn't policy so I realise that the bit I said about the players in a pro team being notable is wrong. Bigdom 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BigDom is right. To be precise, National is controled by the FFF (=French FA, which also controls the national teams) whereas Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 are controlled by the LFP (=the league). Sometimes, some people talks about the fully-professionalization of the championnat national. Pro teams are currently Amiens, Gueugnon, Libourne, Reims and Troyes. This year, the amazing team of Luzenac has been promoted. The village has 700 inhabitants!--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Latouffedisco, I heard about Luzenac being promoted. According to foot-national.com this was thanks to the efforts of a number of local farmers which is fantastic. BigDom (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting. This is clearly a nice story.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I like how their stadium has a capacity of 1,000, while the village itself is only 700! GiantSnowman 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Hunter

Looking at some managers template, I often found a guy named Billy Hunter who coached Turkey national football team, Galatasaray, FC Lausanne-Sport, Netherlands national football team. Is this Bill Hunter (footballer) or William Hunter (footballer born 1888) or another guy? Any clues?--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Turkey article it was from 1924 to 1926. So it couldn't have been been Bill.--EchetusXe (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So it could be the second one. The article is quite pathetic at the moment. Does anyone know more about him? It looks like we're facing a new football pioneer on the continent.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, is the Tom Bradshaw who managed the Dutch national team in 1913 Thomas Bradshaw? - the dates look promising. GiantSnowman 10:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ignore me, Thomas Bradshaw died in 1899! GiantSnowman 10:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look at allfootballers.com (I don't have an account), I found a Tom (TD) Bradshaw whose career started in 1986 and ended in 1907.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First French player in England

The articles on Georges Crozier and Eugène Langenove (coincidentally both created by me!) both claim that the respective player was the first player to play in England. The former played for Fulham between 1904 and 1905, while the latter played for Walsall in 1922. While Crozier played a good 18 years earlier, Langenove's claim is backed by by The Independent. Can anyone clarify? Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the issue? Crozier has the FFF as a source, so there is a source for that too - and a Guardian thing to back that up, including a reference to a book. HTH. Madcynic (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Guardian link - I've sorted it out. I think Crozier was the first French player to play in England at any level (he played in the Southern Football League according to the Guardian), while Langenove looks like to have been the first French player to play in the Football League. GiantSnowman 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There it is Snowman.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Stoke City managers

This user has created all the missing Stoke City managers. They look OK, but one thing I want to check is William Rowley (footballer). He writes that he played for Vale, yet I find no mention of him. Apparently also won two England caps. Can someone please check up on that?--EchetusXe (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he has made a mistake and got him mixed up with Bill Rowley? Who happens to have played for Port Vale and England. Infact alot of the data seems to be the same and probably suggest they are the same person.Uksam88 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent observation. Thanks.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationality at Aiden McGeady and James McCarthy

Just a heads-up that some eyes on the aforementioned articles would be nice due to continual nationalist POV-warring. The discussed consensus is at Talk:James McCarthy#Nationality; the antagonist should not be unknown to many active in this community (nor those involved in articles on recent Irish history). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, how did I guess who it was...GiantSnowman 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
All this fuss over two Scottish-born Ireland international footballers.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
They're not "Scottish-born", they're "Scottish", at least insofar as this matters to anyone except a selector for a national football association. Avoiding potentially misleading adjectives and labels entirely in this situation is so obviously the right solution here that it defies belief that consensus to do so still has to be fought on a case-by-case basis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Are they feck! To play for Ireland you need to hold an Irish passport. Despite what the bigots in Scotland say - they are Irish! - infact they choose Ireland over Scotland - thats makes them uber-Irish!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Both are still British subjects to my knowledge, so at best they are both. Anyway, it looks like this is going to have to go to an RfC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"British subjects" - "to my knowledge" - forgive me whilst I attempt to catch my breath! They both purposefully choose not to play for a British "country" and the traitor choose to play for those stinking potato picking Paddies - is that what annoys you so much?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comment raised

As there's been insufficient participation in the above discussion to be able to show concrete consensus, I've raised two RfCs, located here and here.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD input

Can I please urge WP:FOOTY members to get more involved in deletion discussions; AfDs on the following articles have received only one or two votes (including my own!) over a number of days:

And that's only the tip of the iceberg! Other discussions such as that on Niall Walsh are going to result in an article on a non-notable player being kept, due to a lack of input from established Project members. Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in others' interpretations of the Niall Walsh (Irish footballer) one. He fails ATHLETE, so we're left with WP:N. Plenty of RS references to him, but I personally don't believe any of them pass the "trivial". Appreciate someone telling me where I'm wrong on this... --Dweller (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well like you, I think he still fails WP:N; the references are majorly trivial. GiantSnowman 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hhhhhmmmmmm!! the sweet scent of canvassing!.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS states "it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Have I notified other editors about ongoing debates? Yes. Have I told them how to vote? No. GiantSnowman 10:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to make yourself aware of the section on Campaigning within canvassing.
  • "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message with wording and tone loaded with bias. While this may be appropriate to a personal discussion, to canvass with such messages is completely unacceptable." - do you seriously think that stating
  • "Other discussions such as that on Niall Walsh are going to result in an article on a non-notable player being kept, due to a lack of input from established Project members." is a unbiased referal to a discussion or basically telling "established Project members" - how to !vote? Think carefully because my next step is ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Once again, I didn't tell them how to vote. I simply said that an article I felt wasn't notable was going to be (wrongly) kept, and that established members of this project don't seem to be voting on ANY relevant discussions. However, if that was misconstrued, then I apologise. You can still report me if you want. GiantSnowman 10:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Misconstrued? Dont make me laugh. It was blatant canvassing with a non neutral messege. And since you havent owned up to it then, yes, I will be reporting it.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Owned up to what? - I wasn't canvassing, I was encouraging editors to join in a discussion. And as for your petty tattle-tailing, I'm more than happy to defend myself against any ridiculous accusations you want to make. GiantSnowman 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If you encouraged them to engage in the discussion that would be fine but like it states in the capmaigning section it is not appropriate to "attempt to sway the person reading the message with wording and tone loaded with bias".--Vintagekits (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What biased wording have I used? If you point it out to me, and I see my error, I'll happily delete it and apologise. GiantSnowman 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of multi-sport athletes

I have just created a List of multi-sport athletes; if anyone wants to populate it with footballers who played other sports, or other athletes who tried their hand at football (i.e. Beefy!), then please go ahead! Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Danny Ainge, Tony Meola... but if you consider also college experience, it's a neverending list... Almost every US athlete played at least a couple of sports before becoming a pro. --necronudist (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

HONOURS

Hello teammates,

after having asked an individual user, and getting ZERO response (don't think it's very polite, but that's another story), i bring the subject to the project:

I have seen, last week, in several Valencia CF players, the addition of unofficial honours to players: friendly tournaments, etc. Is that "legal"? I think only official honours should be conveyed, nothing else.

Another two related questions: in Esteban Granero, i saw a junior honour was inserted, i think that's wrong two, am i right? The second issue is the "runner-up" question. I think at least in domestic and UEFA cups it should be mentioned, as medals are indeed handed to defeated team. In what other situations (if any) should it be mentioned?

Ty very much in advance, attentively,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vasco. As I´m doing some players pages, I left the honours issue to the end, but you have bring this up in a perfect time for me. I have seen many things regarding honours issue, and I noteced that it varies from region to region. What I think on doing, in the players I edited, is to include in the honours only the official titles.
Teams: national Championship winners (here I think it should include only Champions, not runners-up), and Regional (in Europe case UEFA) club competitions Champions and runners-up (loosing finalists). And National Cup and League Cup too (only winners).
For players honours I touth including: League top-scorer, if a player is part of the best 11 of the Championship, best Cup scorer, and I think that´s it. Oh! Of course, and if he is part of some World Cup or Confederations National team winner.
I don´t agree in putting tounaments records or youth years records. If that seems important it should be mentioned in the text.
I hope more people give their touths. Abraço. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"European competitions" sections

Several UEFA domestic league articles host such a section in past and present, for example Croatia and Belgium for this year or Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia for last year.

Question #1: Are those sections "allowed" in league season articles or are they a repetition of already available info on the respective UEFA competition articles?

Question #2: If those sections are legit, how should the information be presented? More precisely: Should the match-ups be listed competitions in the order of the draw, should the domestic team always be listed second or should the dom team even be listed first? --Soccer-holic 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If I´m allowed to say, I didn´t do that section, but I like it becouse that way you can see beside the National Championship, what teams that season played in the euro cups (it allways makes it a little bit harder for those tams due to surplus of matches) and how well did they get that season. I hope those sections be allowed becose of this. For the second question, I would be in favour of putting the order of the matches as they were played. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say it's OK. This is a kind of "zoom" on the results of teams from X country.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As for Question 1, I don't see why sections like these shouldn't be allowed. I suppose it could be argued that the same info could be found on Euro competition articles, but presenting it this way may save a lot of browsing to a person interested to see how teams from a country X did in a certain European season. It serves as a nice indicator how strong the league is, and I know I needed that kind of info a lot in the past. As for the formatting question, I tried a lot of formats practicing on Prva HNL articles and what I came up with in the end is the domestic team always listed second" format because IMO it's the most practical way of presenting that kind of info (for example, see Prva HNL 1998–99 and all subsequent Prva HNL seasons). I know some people will insist on listing matches in the order they were played, but I consider it irrelevent as the purpose of the Euro competitions subsection is simply to offer an overview of teams in Europe. In case somebody wants to see the results in the order they were played, one can always click on the competition/round link which is already listed before each fixture. Formatting it like this makes it look messy with the flags and everything, so I guess If you want to insist on listing matches chronologically we should lose the flags, but I'd rather keep the flags because they are a valuable piece of information themselves :-) Timbouctou (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Seconding Timbouctou. I agree they are useful as per arguments mentioned above. I also think the other countries' clubs should come first, together with the flags. However, I wouldn't apply it for the group stages. When we talk about UEFA Cup, there were only four matches so imho it is pretty relevant to know which games you played home, and which away. As for Europa League and Champions League groups, we have two matches between the same opponents listed separately, so I think we also need to distinguish home from away legs.
Now there will be users who will think why would we list the groups' matches on home-and-away basis, when you can just click the link above for the competition and see if you are interested, but: a) it would not look nice to see two flags in a row from the same country and it would confuse the occasional readers, b) order of matches and where you played which leg is less relevant in qualifying rounds than in group stages, imho. SonjiCeli (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Using Belgium as an example, I wouldn't expect to find European results in Belgian First Division 2009–10 as it would seem to be outside the scope of the article, but if the article was something like 2009–10 in Belgian football I think it would be OK. --Jameboy (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: League Two has become semi-pro...

...at least for another week or two - according to the City website Bradford's new striker James Hanson, who is turning professional after signing from semi-pro Guiseley, has to work his notice at the Co-op! GiantSnowman 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

League Two wasn't fully-professional two seasons ago when Dave Rainford still worked as a PE teacher at a sixth form college! --Jimbo 08:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, lets start sending these blighters to AfD!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can find anyone who has had an article created on the basis of claims of playing in this league this season, more than 2 weeks before it starts, please do! Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And two seasons ago also when Davey Rainford was putting kids through their paces! I'll have a look.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Or here is a radical thought, how about we stop deleting articles that aren't factually inaccurate and concentrate on building a better encyclopedia Paul  Bradbury 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If we could adequately protect living people from damage caused by unsourced crap inserted into our unmaintainable, barely-watched articles, that would be an excellent idea! – Toon 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume there is a basis for this argument on an Afd somewhere?--EchetusXe (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Lita

please add this to your watch lists lots of ip vandalism. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 11:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Has now been semi-protected for one week. --Jimbo 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see "He enjoys peanut surfing and has been spotted jumping puddles on numerous occasions" locked in.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Viacheslav Aliabiev

A user has moved the page on Viacheslav Aliabiev, even though that spelling looks to be the common name, and is used by his old club Shatkhar Donetsk. Can an admin please move it back to Viacheslav Aliabiev? Thanks, GiantSnowman 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that, I've managed to somehow move it over the redirect...although I'm sure only admins could do that. Oh well, all's well that end's well! GiantSnowman 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You are able to move pages back as a non-admin if the redirect page has not been edited (i.e. has an edit history beyond the move listing)--ClubOranje 00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre Season Squad Numbers

Old chestnut! Do we have an existing 'rule of thumb' or even a 2009-10 view on whether there is any validity in all these revised squad numbers which have been reassigned during all these pre-season friendlies. I thought the convention was that the status quo applied in theory at least until the club (websites) published their squad lists and numbers, but some (most) I know are a bit tardy on this and the club shops appear to become the oracles as they sell their new kits. Meanwhile there seems to be a rash of IP's changing all the numbers on the multiple club and player sites. Tmol42 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait until the club website officially announces the league registered club numbers. GiantSnowman 09:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got sick of IPs entering any old numbers for Hibs, so I have just blanked the whole squad list (which is consistent with what the official website is saying). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

destroying 2009 Peace Cup

This guy is still trying to merge and delete the article about ongoing competition 2009 Peace Cup giving various absurd reasons. As an editor I have always seen/edited results of a lot of football competitions from World Cup to King's Cup and now I am being persuded that the match 'results' should not be in Misplaced Pages. It's so hard to be here in Misplaced Pages editing articles. Whatever I add is said to be a problem. Updating scores is bad? As a football fan it was fun to see and update the competition results for the last few years and now it's so difficult. rokengalan (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There are four types of critic: contrarians, sadists, nuts and bastards. Use reverse psychology on the first type, try to find other victims for the second type and hope he loses interest in you, for the fourth type you must accommodate their opinions and change your writings. As for the third type, your only hope is hope they get arrested in real life before they make you lose the will to live. Good luck diagnosing your problem. Of course I won't be getting personally involved in this issue in case it is type number 2 and you convince him that I am a suitable target for unwarranted abuse.
However, looking at the thing I see that you are being buffeted for putting in 'Routine news coverage'. My advice would be to write about a talking rabbit who makes a serious of monologues on the topic of peace. Try to confuse your opponent, act even more irrationally than him, that tends to scare people away.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Introducing EchetusXe - Type 3 critic, talking the talk, walking the walk, living the dream... Shall I send you some men in white coats? and in case you need it.. ;-)--ClubOranje 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your mean.--EchetusXe (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Halásztelek FC

Take a gander at this club in Hungary. It looks so unorganized and sloppy. The magyar version of this article is far better than the English version. Should we list this article (I mean the English version of the article) up for deletion? it's not a notable club. Rakuten06 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make far more sense to try to get the Magyar version of the article translated into English? matt91486 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but it's not a notable club since it played in Hungarian County League, which by Misplaced Pages rules of notability, it's not a notable football league around the world. Rakuten06 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It does say that it won the league though, which implies that it was promoted. With the article as it is, it's hard to tell if it qualifies for notability or not, but the translation would presumably make that clear. matt91486 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Whrere in "Misplaced Pages rules of notability" does it say that because a team plays in the Hungarian County League they're not a notable team? Only the general notability guidelines can dictate that, and if there is sufficient coverage in the reliable sources, they can be notable if they play at that level, or if there isn't the coverage they can be non-notable if they play much higher. - fchd (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think it would be the best way to find out the notability is to translate the article from Magyar into English then we can determine whether it was considered notable and a stub at the same time or non-notable and listed for deletion? Rakuten06 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Navbox width

There is an editrequest on {{Football_box_start}} to change the width from 60em to 100%, just like most other navboxes. I figured you guys should talk it over a bit first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bradford City pre-war players help

I've finally managed to get rid of all the redlinked players at Bradford City A.F.C.#Former players. The last few players were all pre-1945 players - soo Neil Brown was no help - and as I don't own any pr-war players books, previously I've relied on Peanut4's extensive City library. However, with his apparent disappearance from Misplaced Pages, I was wondering if anyone else could help improve the articles on the following players, and make them less Bantam-centric:

Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 10:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got Joyce's pre-war league player records book, I should be able to get you some stuff out of that when time allows..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Cheers Chris, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 11:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Contacting a Flickr user

I'd love to use some of these images on Misplaced Pages, but would need the creator to amend the copyright license.

Does anyone know how to contact Flickr users? --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Much like here, if you sign up to the site you can send email messages to other members. If you have a user ID for any of the legion of other sites owned by Yahoo you can sign in using that. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Useful, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE and football

Judging by the way some of these afd discussions are going, perhaps this needs to be revisited. I also found this interesting source when looking for proof that the Scottish leagues are fully pro. Judging by this report, any player who played exclusively in Scottish football during the early 80s would fail WP:ATHLETE, because there were at least a few semi-pro teams in the top division. Yet I doubt that anyone would seriously contend that a Scottish top division player wasn't notable, particularly in a time when Scottish clubs were regularly reaching the latter stages of European competitions (eg Aberdeen won the Cup Winners Cup and Super Cup two years later). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean the Irish debacle? If we as a project make a one-off exception - i.e. say that if a player has played a league game in the FAI Premier Division, they become notable - then I will support that. However, this could set a bad precedent for players in other top-flight semi-pro leagues...it's a tricky one. GiantSnowman 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It certainly would set a bad precedent - we can't have one rule for one league and another for the rest just because the supporters of that league just happen to be more vociferous here on Misplaced Pages. Until WP:ATHLETE is amended or removed with something more specific like WP:FOOTYN, we must apply it equally to ALL leagues or not at all. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In a related issue, was the Football League First Division fully pro for all of its duration?The Hack 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, the Southern League Premier Division was fully pro at the turn of the 20th century, so off the top of my head I would say it's pretty likely that Football League Div 1 was fully pro for all (if not most) of its history. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've never understood why we don't just use FOOTYN. It's a complete nonsense trying to use ATHLETE for football players. BigDom (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically, when FOOTYN was finalised, some editors took a bunch of AfDs on Conference players to DRV quoting it and were told in no uncertain terms that projects are not authorised to create their own notability guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
So how could we go about incorporating FOOTYN? I assume it would be a matter of going over to WT:BIO and raising the issue there? It does seem rather daft that PORNBIO is readily accepted but more sensible project guidelines like ours aren't. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think, to be honest, the opposition to it came about because non-footy editors took exception to people using its creation as a cue to overwhelm DRV with every single Conference player who'd ever had his article deleted. Maybe if we'd been a bit more softly softly catchy monkey they might not have viewed it the same way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe its time that the five or six same members of the FOOTY Project didnt take it upon themselves to make their mind up for the whole project with respect to what is notable and what is not.
As for "I doubt that anyone would seriously contend that a Scottish top division player wasn't notable" - talk about stinking of hypocrisy!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits, you can't talk. You go round PRODding articles such as Serge Makofo and Magnus Okuonghae who have played professionally, then on AfD you try and defend players who have never played a game. BigDom (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Since when is that no mark league the top level of football in that country?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The English lower leagues are of a higher quality than the Irish leagues, and they are certainly not a "no mark league". GiantSnowman 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Watch out for a lot of PRODs on League Two players coming from Vintagekits if we can judge by the last comment here. BigDom (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Damn right - lets see if these sticklers for adherence to their beloved WP:ATHLETE are true to their word or just persistantly pushing a British bias!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Even though you persistently push an Irish bias? GiantSnowman 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think that that is just your perception of any editor that doesnt have their head up the hole of any player that has played in the 27th level of English football. Thankfully the community agrees with me that "the FOOTY Project crew" are out of step with with regards this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, ANY player - regardless of nationality - that doesn't meet notability requirements should be deleted. So if an English player who has ONLY played in the Conference has an article, it should be deleted, as it is not a fully-pro league - just like the Irish Premiership! GiantSnowman 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
So if there was a part time player playing in the English or Scottish premiership then you would !vote delete on his team mates or not?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But there ARE part-time players in the English & Scottish Premierships - if one wants to be pedantic, then apparently 'full-time' players are also male models, company spokesmen etc. And no, in the extremely unlikely event that ONE semi-pro player joined the EPL, I wouldn't say it was a semi-pro league, and players would still meet WP:ATHLETE. However, there isn't one part-time player in the Irish Premiership - there are many, and it is DEFINIETELY a semi-pro league! GiantSnowman 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Its beginning to start to smell like bullshit to be honest. Being a model for an hour ever week or giving a talk is different then a player actually holding down a full time job and playing football on the weekend. So how many players would have to join the league before it tips the scale in your mind. It's really funny the level of inflexibility you show when imposing WP:ATHLETE during the AfD's on Irish players but you seem to gain flexibility for English players - strange that! biased? never! How very dare you!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have gone quiet! Not willing to actually commit yourself eh!?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, didn't see your reply! Um, to be honest, I don't KNOW how many part-time players there would have to be for a pro league to be considered semi-pro - but can anyone answer that? I agree that WP:ATHLETE is flawed, but until it is changed or WP:FOOTYN is accepted by the wider community, it's all we have for sports players. WP@N does trump it, but unfortunately not in the AfDs we have been debating. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, don't tell him that about the Conference or I'll be removing his PRODs forever! Players in the conference who have previously played professionally can still have articles. BigDom (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I've reworded it accordingly. Cheers, GiantSnowman 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, BigDom (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We have this discussion every week. The GNG overrides any other consideration when it comes to notability. Players who have played in the top two flights of the Scottish Football League (and now in the SPL and the top flight of the SFL) are notable because nobody is capable of doing so without receiving oodles of coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. There is no other consideration. Were the Conference to be shown to receive the same kind of coverage that the top flight of the SFL does (and frankly, these days the two operate on comparative budgets and with comparative crowds half the time) then there wouldn't be a question of Conference players being non-notable. The same applies to the Irish leagues, or the Macedonian leagues, or whatever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Conference receives plenty of coverage, especially in the Non-League Paper. Almost certainly more than League Two. TV status is the same, or it was until Setanta went belly-up, more coverage of the Conference National than Leagues One and Two. - fchd (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that we have at least one Good Article on a player who has never played at a fully-professional level.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
At least two. --Jimbo 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Any player who can be demonstrated to have received significant non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources is notable, end of story. If people simply made that comment in any silly WP:ATHLETE-driven AfDs we wouldn't need to have this debate. WP:ATHLETE should be a guideline to say that "this player has played at a level where it is undisputable that he has been covered to a great enough extent to warrant an article", with anything below that falling back to the GNG. The important thing is the coverage by reliable sources, not what someone's bleeding tax code is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic average gates

Anyone know of an RS so I can complete the 2 missing years in this section: Carrow_Road#Average_attendances_since_2000? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Or even better, ones going back further, so I could get something like this made? --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Soccerbase will have the individual match attendances going back to 2000, but I don't believe they're shown all on one page, so you'd have to go into each match individually and work out the average manually. And I've no idea how you'd reference that :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about the R, but here's an S. Finding someone with a full stack of Rothmans might be the best bet. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Kristof Van Hout

...puts Crouchy to shame. Google this guy to see just how tall he is...GiantSnowman 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, the goalpost is too small for him!--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No match for this guy.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

North Road (stadium) FAC

This article is facing the possibility of failing its Featured Article nomination due to a perceived "slightly pompous texture". It has been suggested that the article requires a thorough copyedit, which I don't seem to have been able to procure at the Peer Review stage. Since I'm the principle contributor to the article, it would be inappropriate for me to give it the fine-tooth combing it needs, so I would appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject would do it for me. As far as I can tell, only a few kinks need ironing out, so any changes would only need to affect the style and not the content. Thanks. – PeeJay 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of football?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: See Misplaced Pages's collection of outlines at WP:OOK.

Categories: