Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 15 June 2014

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

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive
v t e

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

FC or F.C.?

So, that's probably been debated ad infinitum. Question is, was there any consensus on either, such that an article like Home United FC has been and should be redirected? LRD NO (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Declunk it in the modern way, please: FC. And redirect from F.C., I suppose. Tony (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is case by case basis. English clubs (for example Hull City A.F.C., Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C.) always uses the dots themselves in team names, but the spanish teams (Sevilla FC, FC Barcelona and so on) does not do that. Without looking at the team provided, I cant say the case for that team, but it depends on the team. QED237 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• It makes for a huge mess. I don't mind nor care which way it goes, and I only today moved a few (perhaps erroneously) based on the convention adopted by the editors of the English and French clubs. We really ought to harmonise these once and for all - meaning if we are to do this, we should do it also for Arsenal F.C. and Paris Saint-Germain F.C... -- Ohc  09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do away with the dots altogether. Most media outlets these days give acronyms and initialisms without any punctuation separating the letters, and some don't even capitalise every letter if the abbreviation can be said as a word rather than pronouncing every individual letter (e.g. Uefa, Fifa, Ukip). Obviously that last example doesn't apply here, but if we can write titles without dots (e.g. Mr, Mrs, Dr, Prof, etc.), I'm sure we can do away with the dots in "FC", regardless of what the clubs themselves do. Plus it makes for less headaches when ending a sentence with "Tommy Template signed for Fooland F.C..". – PeeJay 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Australian clubs are just "FC", with no dots, because in general the letters don't actually stand for "Football Club". They don't stand for anything. The "football club" suffix was already claimed in too many parts of the country by Australian football clubs, or rugby league clubs. The FC is therefore merely an affectation to make them sound a bit like the English clubs they dream of emulating. A bit like adding the word "United" when there is no history of separation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not really true, FC can only mean Football Club in this context. It is an abbreviation and technically abbreviations in English should have dots. However, some clubs use them and some clubs don't. Some users use them and some don't. This has been discussed regularly and at length and I am unaware of any consensus one way or the other. Certainly it seems that it would be impossible to gain a global consensus. I would suggest that if someone creates an article for Foo FC then it should stay as Foo FC, if they create Foo F.C. then it should stay as that. If someone moves an article from one to another then it should stay where it was moved unless an edit war occurs. No move like this would affect any understanding of the article and all editors should be looking first and foremost to expand content rather than debate such minutiae. There are thousands of club stubs and hundreds of club articles written like fan pages. Why not try to get an article to an acceptable standard and then decide whether there should be dots in the title? Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well said! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There's not much point in claiming that FC means and is an abbreviation for "football club" in a place where "football" means "Australian Rules football", and just about everyone in town calls the round ball game "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Would just like to clear this one up. FC does very much does stand for Football Club in Australia. Many clubs used to be "SC" before the name officially changed to football in Australia. It makes sense for the official names of teams to reflect the official name of the sport they play. In fact, a quick search reveals countless examples of the FC being referred to as "Football Club", often by the clubs themselves. Macosal (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You won't get consensus one way or another. Take it on an individiual basis, reflecting what the club or the most reputable source in each case does. What about non-FC prefixes and suffixes? Take the two biggest Spanish clubs: with no country consistency you are surely fighting a losing battle – official Real Madrid sources use "C.F." whereas official Barcelona sources don't inititalise FC.. I think this must be WP:PERENNIAL and time to let it lie and get on with the articles themselves. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As I say, this is why we should make a decision one way or the other ourselves. In my opinion, the inconsistency brought about by the clubs themselves not being able to agree on a format makes our articles look a bit silly. This should be part of our manual of style, and I think we should agree not to use the dots as it simply cuts down on a lot of the problems that including the dots brings. – PeeJay 13:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the dots, as although there are mixed sources, consistency between articles is important, and writing "Foo F.C.." at the end of a sentence seems wrong, as mentioned above. - 97rob (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just on that point, you don't add an additional full stop/period at the end of a sentence; that's just rules of punctuation. Or see MOS:CONSECUTIVE: Where a proper noun that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a second terminal punctuation mark. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can reasonably apply rules such as ENGVAR or RETAIN to the articles' naming. What Struway2 and Tony say tends to sway me toward the arguments in favour of "FC" universally. -- Ohc  14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with PeeJay, we should solve this incosistency ourselfs and drop the dots. Its really not a big deal and it wan´t make any harm, and we could allways do it wit the fact that in vast majority of cases media and other souces don´t use them. For instance, all Serbian clubs are named FK despite F.K. being the official and formal form, and no one ever even questioned that here on wp simply because the FK formula is almost always preferred by the media and sources. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, there are much bigger problems to fix. However, I would be concerned about the creep. Do we then remove all apostrophes from shop retailers too to be consistent, like Waterstones did. Why not make it McDonalds and Sainsburys? It isn't just about ambiguity and ease but what is gramatically correct. I'd be inclined to not make up our own rules but follow the names of official entities where possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

All well and good suggesting just getting rid of them, but still don't see any consensus as usual on this extremely minor point. FkpCascias's point exposes the much wider issue, even if it were possible to gain consensus over "FC/F.C." I am not sure that resolves other abbreviations such as FK, AS, AFC and the multitude of additional abbreviations here. People will note that the algerian, as just one example clubs do not have dots, but the UK teams here do. Either decision will create a massive amount of work for a minor presentational change and the fact that clear consensus has never been achieved suggests to me we are just inviting pointless edit wars. Is it really not possible for people to let sleeping dogs lie here? Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure it's a lot of work, but is a task that is easily automated. Once it has been decided to adopt a uniform naming system, the work could be done by bot. It was done systematically when "Fußball" was dropped for all German football articles this time last year. -- Ohc  08:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not thtat important. For this reason we have redirects. -Koppapa (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally always thought it should be just FC, however the change would have to be placed in our manual of style clearly, as a much bigger mix of FC and F.C. would be dreadfully inconsistent.Blethering Scot 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the dots. As well as being the more common way of how clubs seem to write their names (on their badges or stadiums for instance), it also allows us to identify the subtle differences in names – in AFC Wimbledon, the AFC doesn't stand for anything, so it's not got the full stops. A.F.C. Sudbury does stand for something. If we removed the dots from English clubs, that subtlety would be lost. Number 57 21:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything would be lost. Whether or not the FC/AFC stands for anything can be indicated by the opening sentence of the respective articles, it doesn't necessarily have to be indicated by the article title. – PeeJay 22:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm a fan of consistency in general, and consistency in titles is one of our core naming WP:CRITERIA, the fact that clubs refer to themselves differently, combined with WP:COMMONNAME, means there can never be complete consistency in this area anyway. And while club prefixes and suffixes often make good WP:NATURAL disambiguation, we should also keep WP:CONCISE in mind and omit them entirely if not commonly used or needed for disambiguation, e.g., Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Referencing honours

Recently the "Honours" section of Mathew Ryan was deleted entirely on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Is this the appropriate action? Very few players have any references in their honours sections, let alone every honour being referenced - it would seem excessive to delete these all? Macosal (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would tag the section with {{BLP unsourced section}}. The links support the information but not that the player was on the clubs that earned the honours, although that's supported above and it's easily shown but not WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I haven't seen referenced honours sections, even on GA articles.

@GiantSnowman:, would you like to apply that same logic to other player articles such as Cristiano Ronaldo#Honours (which at least has some references), Lionel Messi#Honours and Franck Ribéry#Honours? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Individual honours should always be followed by a reference. It is that much necessary for club honours. But I think that untill a player has played in a cup final, the cup honour should not be added. RRD13 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of Ryan's honours were actually for player/team/keeper of the year-type things. I'd expect those to be referenced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The honours section should be fully and explicitly referenced as per WP:V and WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My question is not whether honours sections should be referenced but whether deletion is/was appropriate response to unreferenced honours sections. Macosal (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, you should be able to answer your own question. GiantSnowman 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So is it time to delete Cristiano Ronaldo#Honours, Lionel Messi#Honours, Franck Ribéry#Honours, Ryan Giggs#Honours, Bastian Schweinsteiger#Honours, Steven Gerrard#Honours etc etc? Macosal (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further, a policy of immediate deletion of all unreferenced material seems unproductive. The existence of {{BLP unsourced section}} suggests that this template should at least be used for some time before deletion and gives users a chance to reference material rather than having to remove it. Also {{BLP unsourced section}} states that contentious material will be immediately removed; which honours very rarely are, I would suggest. Macosal (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My view exactly, if inj doubt delete, if probably true just tag the section. In the meantime all awards are sourced. -Koppapa (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has again removed the club honours section from Mathew Ryan. How are we supposed to reference club honours? Additionally, I have found no other article where the club honours section is referenced, even on feature articles.--2nyte (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you reference? A reliable source which explicitly states that Ryan won X, Y or Z. If you cannot verify the information about a living person, then it should not be included - that is basic, basic stuff. GiantSnowman 08:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added the references to the two honours that were deleted. There are some valid points raised though. If we are to go strictly by the rules and delete any unreferenced honours, a huge numbers of players, including big names listed by User:Macosal should be deleted as well. It would perhaps be wiser to tag the section with a {{BLP unsourced section}} template as suggested by User:Walter Görlitz, which would bring to attention the need to reference or risk deletion. Not all players will have an article stating 'so-and-so has won this title' so it won't be as easy as finding an article with the proper name-referencing. In the case of Ryan, going by his career stats he had played enough matches in the respective seasons to undoubtedly have his honours listed. LRD NO (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the references. As for your wider point, I would like to draw everyone's attention, again, to WP:BLP - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A player being a squad member of a team that wins a trophy does not necessarily mean that that specific player got a winner's medal. GiantSnowman 11:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While there are grey areas regarding players with a couple of appearances and some player honours are debatable, Ryan in this case had played in ~90% of league games in both trophy-winning seasons and is clearly a first-team player. It would be more appropriate to add an 'unsourced' template here than to remove the honours. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the eligibility rules for every single country/competition. Adding an 'unsourced' tag does little more than state "here is a problem, let's do nothing about it." GiantSnowman 11:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further, as I stated above, the linked articles do reference the fact that the team honours were earned and the article should reference that the player was on the team when the honour was earned so I believe that should suffice. Again, you need to apply this evenly to all footy player articles, not simply a few you don't know enough about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree strongly that 'unsourced' or 'citation needed' tags simply state "here is a problem, let's do nothing about it". I've come across a few in football related articles, and DID do something about it (found and added references). Simply deleting material that is unsourced but uncontentious (and not obvious nonsense), without giving editors the opportunity the find references, is tantamount to vandalism.ShugSty (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that it's disruptive editing, but not not vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems this same issue has again cropped up, this time re Fernandão and again re GiantSnowman. Unfortunately I'm unaware of how the system works but the general opinion here appears to be that the "unsourced" tag should be used? If anything, it seems like the user has a personal problem with the "unsourced" tag, which 1. should be brought up on the relevant talk page and 2. does not give a user the right to bypass what remains a valid part of the editing system. Can we aim for a consensus here to avoid the removal of potentially thousands of honours sections without giving editors a chance to source what are uncontroversial sections? Macosal (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Macosal: - You cannot re-add the challenged material with a tag - it needs tagging before. You really need to read/learn WP:BLP before editing any more articles as this stuff is really fucking important:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

as well as Jimbo:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re these points - the honours you are removing are NOT contentious at all. I would not characterise them as "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". It's valid information, and it certainly isn't "negative information". In fact, most of the honours you are removing can be sourced from other references on their pages. The only reason most honours are unsourced, I would suggest, is that by convention they have not ever been sourced on even the most notable footballers' pages, which may have led to misconception in the Misplaced Pages community. Macosal (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Has somebody (me) challenged and removed them? Yes. Then they are contentious. If you actually read the quotes I have provided above, the fact they are not negative is irrelevant. Yes, negative information is targeted more often/in a harsher manner, but that does not mean we should allow unsourced positive information to remain. Would you like to see "John Smith has a massive willy" on an article? GiantSnowman 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you challenging these sections qualifies them as "contentious", then we are in a ridiculous "Catch 22" situation. If any material you specifically question is contentious, then any material that any one person questions is similarly contentious, and the concept of "contentious" material becomes meaningless entirely. This concept is touched on at Misplaced Pages:Contentious, actually, and is not the suggested interpretation. And yes obviously positive material is not exempt, but it is to be treated less harshly - whereas your reaction would seem to be the harshest possible response.Macosal (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Contentious is an essay drafted by one editor 3 years ago and not touched since. If you are that concerned feel free to take the matter to WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 12:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's play the ball not the man here. If one person deciding something is contentious is sufficient to determine that something is contentious, the whole concept of removing contentious material becomes irrelevant - and clearly not what the concept of contentious information is attempting to define. Macosal (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To try and clarify things and open the discussion back up in the hope of achieving consensus: I have two main issues with the direct deletion of unreferenced honours sections, both of which can be found at WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations:

1. "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." - this is being given little or no consideration if honours are deleted without hesitation on every occaision.

2. "If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." - many of the honours which are being deleted are easily verifiable, and as such deletion is out of line with WP:Preserve

Further to these, WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations states "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". It would seem that this is being given little weight when many of the honours deleted can doubtlessly be supported by easily accessible reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macosal (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If the honours are so easy to reference, then do it. GiantSnowman 14:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Walter is right though. Snowman, Franck Ribéry#Honours needs deleting until there are sources. -Koppapa (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is meant to be collaborative - we invite contributions from anyone who has something to offer, and editors with more knowledge/experience/inclination can build on articles and bring them in line with Misplaced Pages's rules. This applies to references too, and this why the citation needed tags exist: by all means remove genuinely contentious stuff, but whatever that article says, rules about biographies are meant to prevent against libel and slander, which saying someone got a Football League Cup runners-up medal in 2007 will never be. To remove this sort of content damages articles on a needlessly precise point of principle. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Don't remove material just because you don't know it. Tag it instead. The only conditions under which material should be removed are if it's libellous or otherwise detrimental to the subject, to someone associated with the subject ((see WP:BLP) or if it's clearly not possible. In other words, if you have a player whose article clearly shows that they have played in Greece their entire life, and the honours section shows that they won the FA Cup and Copa America, then it's clearly wrong. But if it shows that they won the some trophy in the Greek league and there's nothing in the prose of the article to support this, then it should be tagged, but not removed. This is my understanding based on editing guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, I would consider removing such material because you don't know about it as disruptive to the highest degree and the epitome of non-cooperative editing. GiantSnowman might want to read pillars three and four of Misplaced Pages:Five pillars again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur with the above two users. As it stands, there are very valid points that have failed to be addressed and articles are being affected detrimentally when more sense could and should have been used. LRD NO (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: if you feel my editing is " disruptive to the highest degree and the epitome of non-cooperative editing" then I would invite you to report me, although I would say that your argument of "editor removed unreferenced content about a living person" will not get very far. I am abiding by WP:BLP, nothing more and nothing less. I also don't have a clue how this is "non-cooperative editing"...? I've already suggested you raise the matter at BLPN, that has not yet been done as far as I'm aware. GiantSnowman 09:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The key is in the word 'contentious', and the onus is on you to explain why this sort of content is contentious. The essay linked to above may say that it's the decision of the (any) editor, but it's a decision that must be backed up with reasoning. You can't cite the essay on its own, that's not reason enough, it's circular logic. So why is this material contentious? You, presumably, understand why the tighter rules around BLPs exist, so where do you think a list of players' honours fits into this? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't cite that essay - Macosal did. I have cited WP:BLP numerous times, that is my reasoning for removing the material. It doesn't really matterwhat the content actually is, if it's unreferenced material about a BLP then editors are able to challenge it and remove it on sight. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but WP:BLP says 'Contentious' material should be removed. So, what do you think is contentious about this sort of material? You may be able to delete this sort of material, but do you think it's helpful? Do you understand why the rules about referencing biographies exist? Rules are important, but they shouldn't be blindly followed - if you don't understand why they exist you'll end up misusing them. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious" is any material which could be challenged / the subject of dispute in an article - can we agree on that? For me that extends to all unreferenced material. GiantSnowman 11:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:BLP backs you up here - the section on removing contentious material has a hatnote link to WP:Libel, and uses the word "defamatory", neither of which come even close to the sort of content we're talking about. That's the kind of "challenge" the BLP rules are meant to protect against - for lesser challenges, like this, the tags are much more appropriate. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating msyelf here (maybe because I am?!) but BLP is about all material, not just that which is negative. GiantSnowman 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly against the principles of WP:Preserve to delete all this information. Further, WP:BLP clearly makes a distinction, stating that it is specifically contentious material which should be deleted immediately without waiting for discussion. To remove this concept of contentious information and to apply it to all information is to ignore a core concept of WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And this material is contentious because it has been questioned and challenged, has it not? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In order for it to be contentiius enough to be deleted, it needs to be potentially libellous or defamatory (to someone). The BLP article states this, and it's - quite clearly - the reason why the stricter rules exist. For lesser disputes this one, there are tags. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP may be about all material, but the guidance to remove material is clearly about that which is contentious, which - in its own words - relates to that which is potentially defamatory or libellous. That is why these rules apply to BLP, and removing non-contentious material does not serve this purpose at all, and hurts the article and the colloborative nature of Misplaced Pages. If you're going to enforce this rule you need to understand what they're for, and if you understand what it's for, then you'll know that it doesn't apply to uncontroversial statements like a player's honours. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, BLP and 'contentious' content applies to all material, not just that which is negative or defamatory. Quoting from BLP (yet again!) - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)

But, again, the section on removing content clearly takes "contentious" to mean potentially libellous or defamatory (for which something doeasn't have to be negative to be). This is clearly the reason we have this particular rule; clearly the reason that BLPs are special. If you don't think it's about libel and defamation - why do you think BLPs have particular rules? Why do you think removing this content is helpful? It needs to be more than you're allowed to (although I'm not sure WP:BLP even says that), it has to be justifible in terms of protecting Misplaced Pages (which it's not), protecting the subject (again, it's not), or improving the article (when a tag would be much more appropriate), otherwise it's just blindly following a rule without considering what it's for. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE, which you have quoted from, opens with "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Nowhere does it specifically specify that "contentious" only means "defamatory" - unless I am missing something? GiantSnowman 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the prominent hatnote linking to libel for one, and the reference to defamatory material for another. The wider article makes it clear why the rules for BLPs are tighter - it's about protecting the subject, and about protecting Misplaced Pages for legal action. Those are the reasons why those guidelines exist at all, and why BLPs are singled out - why else do you think there would be? Therefore, anything that doesn't threaten either of these things can be considered uncontentious; or, at least, no more contentious than material on a non-BLP, and treated as such. Then the question is: would removing this material help the article?, and I think the answer is no. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that reason has helped so far, but it's clear that a number of editors disagree with your interpretation of BLP and so, consensus is that you stop removing the material. I don't know if consensus is that you tag it, but that would be my advice. Please don't forget that several of the editors are very experienced and view the removal of this information as unproductive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I've said this - raise the matter at WP:BLPN. Please don't forget that I am also a very experienced editor... GiantSnowman 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go. -Koppapa (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So you would rather argue than accept that you may be wrong? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this needs discussion from more than a few editors who clearly have ants in their pants about this. GiantSnowman 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a cheap, personal shot, never the sign of the strongest argument. Look, it all comes down to one question, really, which you haven't answered: why do you think Misplaced Pages has stricter rules for BLPs, compared with other articles? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a cheap shot at all - nobody has yet advanced any solid argument other than "it's not libel so it can't be harmful" and "other articles have unreferenced honours." I haven't answered the question because I have not been asked it. But to answer - because it has so many more real-life implications. GiantSnowman 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So what would those implications be, in the case of players' honours? What's the potential harm, there? It has to be distinct and more significant than the kind of harm that can be caused by general articles, and would have to be greater than the harm caused by removing information because it's not complete, and by potentially dissuading editors to this collaborative website. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of the large numbers of lazy journalists that roam these streets, and because of past instances of so-called 'non-contentious' content which has resulted in embarrassing episodes like this. GiantSnowman 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

An innoccuous error like that could equally be made on any non-BLP: in that example, no harm is done to Brand, nor is it to Misplaced Pages; the fault, morally, and legally is with the journalists for their own sloppy research. In that case - assuming it wasn't vandalism - an unrefrerenced tag would be sufficient, and if the researcher ignores that, then it's even more their fault. The BLP rules aren't meant to protect lazy journalists (there will always be unreferenced material on Misplaced Pages), but the subjects, and beyond that, Misplaced Pages itself. It's meant to restrict rumours and gossip that can spread. It doesn't have to be accusations of affairs or match-fixing - statements about wages or a player's playing style could cover it - but whether or not someone won the Belgian Cup doesn't cut it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're not reading the arguments if you think the only arguments are "it's not libel so it can't be harmful" and "other articles have unreferenced honours". In fact, I stated that they are referenced. The subject is known to have been a member of club x during season y and that's referenced. There's a link to that season's results, which are referenced. So you do have references, but they don't use ref tags. I suppose you missed that one. Also my argument that you incorrectly simplified to "other articles have unreferenced honours" is not to support you saying having "unreferenced honours in other articles is OK", but to encourage you to get to work removing the others and to stop the duplicity of singling out some players over others.

However, the fact that it's not liable should be enough, and the consensus opinion that you stop this behaviour should also be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You're making the silly mistake of assuming that Player X won Award Y just because he was a member of the team that won it. There are numerous, strict eligibility criteria; in the Premier League, for example, it's a minimum of 10 appearances. Other leagues/countries have different rules, and some even have limits on the number of medals that can be given out. Unless there is an explicit source stating Player X has a winner's medal, nothing else will do I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's five, not ten. And by your rationale, can you remove the 2012–13 honours from all Man Utd players until you can find a list of the recipients of the 40 medals? LRD NO (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's 10, as my source from the league itself says! And yes, the honours should be removed unless there is an explicit source confirming they won the league medal. GiantSnowman 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is 5 as stated in the official handbook (page 97). Certainly before deletion, contentious or not, a short attempt to find the relevant sources is more appropriate, as this is often simpler, does not remove information and stated at WP:Preserve. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So in a completely hypothetical situation - over 38 games, 14 players a game (11 starters and 3 subs), that is a possible 83 players who can make 5 appearances. Do 83 players (plus however many staff) get a medal in that situation? LRD NO said only 40 medals are given out each year...? GiantSnowman 13:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear why that is a question that needs to be answered (being both highly absurd and off-topic) and given that it has never happened, its hard for me to say what would happen. Either way it isn't a practical issue - Manchester City, for example had only 21 players who played 5 or more games this season. I'm sure if it did occur, there would be a lot of publicity about what would happen to the medals and the players etc etc. Macosal (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not off-topic - it was a deliberately ludicrous example to demonstrate to you that you cannot simply assume that a player has won a winner's medal (and the subsequent honour), either because a) he was a squad member and/or b) he played X amount of games that season. Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources to verify claims, not guesswork and assumptions. GiantSnowman 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd bet most reliable sources go by squad gets the title. They don't worry about medals. -Koppapa (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are off topic here in the sense that this does not represent the many of cases of deletion. At least this scenario presents a claim (if, in my opinion, tenuous) to being debatable. How is it controversial that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was in the PFA Team of the Year for the Football League One in 2010–11 or that Jordi Alba scored against  Italy in the UEFA Euro 2012 Final (both being examples of deletions you have performed)? It does not seem that you are applying any consideration to the material itself, rather than going by a process of "this section has no references and therefore must be deleted".Macosal (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not, because the fundamental debate here is about removing unreferenced material from BLPs. I do it, in line with policy and good practice; you don't like it for some reason. GiantSnowman 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good practice would be to attempt referencing before deletion as per WP:Burden Macosal (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now truly 'Jumped the Shark'! ShugSty (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "some reason(s)" why deleting this content is a bad idea have been stated repeatedly, and by several people, and you (for the avoidance of doubt: GiantSnowman) have completely failed to address these. You've completely failed to demonstrate that this is good practice - all you've said are variations of "because it says so" (it doesn't) and "because I can". You've shown a lack of understanding of the policy, of the subject (criteria for winners' medals are extremely rare outside the UK), and of Misplaced Pages itself. It seems like you have no interest in making Misplaced Pages an informative and collaborative place, merely in blindly enforcing rules, and it's this attitude that leads you to misuse these rules so much, to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny how the regulars at BLPN seem to have a different opinion to you and are supporting my edits... GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be two editors outside of this discussion on there, one who agrees with you, one who doesn't. Even the agreement is a suggestion of commenting out the material, a compromise that - I don't think is ideal - but is far more constructive than straight removal. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

One editor has said "I fully support this edit" and one has said "That is an incorrect conclusion for BLPs. Unreferenced material can and should be deleted." Both seem to support my viewpoint...? GiantSnowman 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, 2–1, my mistake. Not an overwhelming consensus, particularly when the contributors from this thread are factored in. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to score points/goals, I'm simply trying to say that BLP expert/regulars are agreeing with me. Perhaps that should be telling you something? GiantSnowman 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no, I prefer to take the arguments on their merits rather than be swayed by an appeal to authority. Misplaced Pages is meant to be governed by consensus - which we don't have here - and new perspectives are important in finding that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. If we don't have consensus, then let's all get on with editing. You edit your way and I'll edit my way and we can both be happy. GiantSnowman 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is crazy long so I won't read it all, but just speaking on personal experience and seeing similar discussions in the past. Removing contentious material has usually been said to be material that is potentially libelous, defamatory, otherwise detrimental to the BLP. I know that WP:BLP in particular calls out that that is what is meant by contentious. Something like whether or not they won an award is not likely to be any of those things. I would also suggest for something as minor as statistics or awards, the person wanting to delete the material has a small burden to atleast try to source it before just removing it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"the person wanting to delete the material has a small burden to at least try to source it before just removing it" - I couldn't agree more. The editor in question has made a huge positive contribution to football articles in Misplaced Pages, but appears to have a narrow-minded, borderline obsessive, approach to this matter. FFS - we have seveal paragraphs here arguing over what contentious means (without any hint of irony either!)ShugSty (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that I feel the need to defend my editing, but I do reference honours e.g. here and here. GiantSnowman 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you do or do not do. I was talking in generalities. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand why any editor would not want to see honours referenced. We would require refs for appearances and goals, why not honours. Is finding good refs such a chore? Personally I find it one of the more rewarding aspects of editing to know what I write can be backed up.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is against referencing here, if you had followed the discussion. LRD NO (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it is not a matter of being against referencing, its against removing non-contentious information without trying to reference it. Ideally yes, they would all have references. The debate seems to be whether or not they should be removed wholesale if they lack a reference immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much as I expected my point was missed. If people made it a personal rule to reference, there would be no need for petulant and laborious discussions such as this. If you doubt something by definition it is contentious, so try to reference it. If you can't find a reference then remove it. How hard is that?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Unfortunately there seems to be an opinion that "all unreferenced material is contentious" (not considering doubt) and that there is no need or reason to find a reference rather than deleting... Macosal (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice how you are conveniently ignoring the diffs (two here, one at BLPN) of me referencing honours... GiantSnowman 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, good work - are saying you are no longer going to remove material which is uncontroversial and easy to cite? Macosal (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I do not remove all unreferenced material as you have falsely claimed and claimed again. GiantSnowman 12:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's what it seemed like I was saying. I was just quoting your comment "all unreferenced material is contentious". Macosal (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

...and how does me referencing it change that fact? GiantSnowman 12:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say you "delete all unreferenced material"? Quote me. Macosal (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opening statement of "it would seem excessive to delete these all"? GiantSnowman 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

i.e. before the three edits you would like to draw my attention to? And that was a general policy question, I did not accuse anyone of doing it. Macosal (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well no, it clearly was about me, seeing as your original post was also about me removing honours from the Mathew Ryan article. GiantSnowman 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant more, "if we delete one, would there be any reason why someone shouldn't/couldn't delete these all/would this be appropriate?" But again, this was before the edits you wish to draw my attention to in any case. Macosal (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record the outcome of the other thread has been the establishment of User:Macosal/BLP, where sections for deletion will be tagged and listed for one month before deletion. People should feel more than welcome to help out. Macosal (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BFC Viktoria 1889

This Berlin based club doesn't exist anymore in this kind. The article itself also gives a hint "The merger will go ahead on 01/07/2013 and the new club will be called FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin Lichterfelde-Templehof e.V.". The new club qualified for the German Cup. I'm not exactly skilled in merging club articles... Thanks! -Lemmy- (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to merge the articles. It can be a standalone article on the old club, with a new article on the new club (unless the merger is with a completely non-notable entity, in which case I would just do a move do the new name). Number 57 08:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@-Lemmy-: - so BFC Viktoria 1889 and Lichterfelder FC have merged to form a new club called FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin? If the new club notable? If so create a new article on it; if not, there is no need to rename either article, just update them to confirm they are now defunct and have merged into a new, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 12:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The new club is called "FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin" as can also be seen on the German Misplaced Pages. Jared Preston (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be notable, given the league it will play in - I'll create a stub later, unless someone beats me to it... GiantSnowman 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 18:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowman -Lemmy- (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Live scores, the next step?

{{Livescores editnotice}} Would anyone like to comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is it to be used? At the top of pages or at the match template? I think it's overkill, and it won't stop live editing anyway. Also in my view it looks rude to article viewers. -Koppapa (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus at the discussion here to take further steps or to develop or use such aggressive notices. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It was requested at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup to inform editors to not live update. That is why I put a lot of effort to it to make it short but informative. However, the wording and overall look of the editnotice can be changed. QED237 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify it is an edit notice that will only be shown after pressing "edit" above the edit window so it would not be seen when viewing the article. QED237 (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks for the explanation. -Koppapa (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that no consensus was reached that live score updates should be actively reverted, nor that warnings or blocks should be dished out to anyone making such edits, in fact the underlying consensus was that while live editing is not to be encouraged, such aggressive responses should be discouraged.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that the WP:FOOTY consensus stands but there was no consensus to add it to "What wikipedia is not". There were many votes for "support" and a few against it and the people against it were arguing against a few of "supporters", so no consensus was found there. QED237 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding of the discussions which took place about live scores, there was a clear consensus that wikipedia doesn't want editors to add scores during the match. If this is the case, surely steps should be taken to ensure editors are aware of the current consensus. If they then ignore this, and are given warnings on their talk page, then by continuing they're deliberately going against an agreed policy without first bringing it up for discussion. If this happens, why wouldn't further warnings/blocks be used, in the same was as going against any other agreed policy. Also, if they continue to add live scores, there's a good chance they could also be seen as edit warring. - 97rob (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

But live scores were not added to "What wikipedia is not" because consensus to do so was not reached. The template above disingenuously implies that it is included there and then links to something in the WP:SNOOKER MOS. I have no issue with some sort of note asking people not to update live scores but there is no reason to couch it in such threatening language with immediate talks of bans.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Then please go to the template talk and suggest changes, as I said it is not set in stone we can change the visual part of the notice a bit. QED237 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We definitly need this.Blethering Scot 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any more comments or is it time to put it to use at 2014 FIFA World Cup (as a start) and then perhaps more articles? Feel free to comment both here and at the template talk. All constructive suggestions on the template and how it visually should look is appreciated both here and at the template talk. General comments as well. QED237 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The template is based on an incorrect claim and should be amended before it goes anywhere near any articles as I've already pointed out and you have failed to address. WP MOS does not state that live updates should not be entered as the template claims, and the link provided is for a mention in WP:Snooker MOS, so to make such a broad claim in inaccurate and all of that text should be removed. The template would be better as a friendly notice, politely asking users not to make such updates as per WP:Football consensus without immediately resorting to threats - as per the concerns raised when this was discussed at the MOS in the first place. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889: Yes I have failed to see any constructive suggestions to change the template. As I said several times you are more than welcome to discuss the wording here or at the template talkpage and come with suggestions instead of just saying it is bad. QED237 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And also this has not been discussed at MOS before, as you said it has. Also with 6-7 editors commenting the template you are the only one opposing. QED237 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed at 'What Misplaced Pages is not' as well you know becuase you contributed. I don't see how much clearer I need to be but here goes: ::::"Do NOT add livescores or live updates, Misplaced Pages is not for livescoring and live updates per Misplaced Pages guideline WP:LIVESCORES." This is not true. The request to add "wikipidia is not a scoreboard" to the MOS did not happen as no consensus was achived. Therefore to claim "Misplaced Pages is not for livescoring and live updates per Misplaced Pages guideline WP:LIVESCORES." is a misrepresentation of consensus. And I'll repeat for the third time - the link included in the template is to an item in the Snooker MOS but the implication is that it is a Misplaced Pages wide consensus which it is not, therefore it is misleading. On that basis that whole first sentence should be removed. As for the rest of the text, it could be worded better to assume good faith and nurture editors rather than being phrased like a formal warning with threats of bans. Also there is no reason to make it red, or have the large warning symbol (usually used with final warning notices), livescores isn't a word and the title shouldn't be all in capitals as that implies shouting and is again overly agressive.

So a preferable text would be:

"The current consensus at at WikiProject Football is not to update statistics or scores while a match is in progress (with the relevant links to the discussion). Please wait until the match(es) has (have) finished before making any updates to help avoid duplicate information or errors from being published. If you are interested in helping develop football articles then you can find more information at WP:Football." With a background of orange/yellow and a less dramatic icon. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all "What wikipedia is not" is not MOS it is policy page so I still stand for what I said, "this has not been discussed at MOS before". Secondly, thank you for finally giving a contructive suggestion how it may look, reason for changing picture and so on. I believe we have to be firm and short to get people to listen, but I hear what you are saying. I have made changes to sandbox and will ping everyone interested so we can come to agreement. QED237 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889:, @Walter Görlitz:, @Koppapa:, @Blethering Scot:, @97rob:: I have now updated {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, with difference to current version is to be seen at {{Livescores editnotice/testcases}}. Please voice your opinions. The changes is made on request from Bladeboy1889 above. I changed

1. the icon beacuse it was to "threatning", there are many icons on wiki so suggest others if you have better idea.
2. the color beacuse red is for blocking and final warnings, however I dont totally agree. It was pink (not red) and easy to read black text on that pink background. It gets a bit worse to read black on orange but it fullfills contrasts at WP:COLOR.
3. The text to make it less threatning, now it should be a lot better. I did not add last row saying they are welcome to footy if they like to contribute to football because I think three rows is enough, too long and people dont read.
4. The header is not caps since it could be shouting (just wanted to draw attention to note).

As I said please comment, I would like to have it finished to the matches on thursday. QED237 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing it was that the background seemed too bright, so a slightly duller one might be better, although a bright background would draw attention to the notice. I would also suggest removing the plural part of the notice, so it reads ...while the match is in progress, wait until the match has finished... because I think it reads slightly better that way, and once a match has finished then there's not really a problem with editors adding information - 97rob (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my points on board - in terms of the colour I was thinking more of one of the usual pastel colours (eg #FFFFCC) which will work better for accessibility purposes.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having an article-specific, one-off edit notice about 'live updates' for the duration of the tournament if that is the consensus on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with live scoring, at least not in football. It we were speaking of basketball, it would be another thing, but in football, there aren't that many events that are reflected in the {{football box}}. In the 2012 London Olympics, the scores were kept pretty much live, and I don't think that was a big problem – or was it? The difference though is that the football boxes were kept in "game templates" (see Category:2012 Summer Olympics football game reference templates), which were included in the "Football at the 2012 ..." and the "Foo at the 2012 ..." articles, so updates were only needed in one place. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I did previously push for the matches to be included in templates such as this (e.g. {{Template:2014 FIFA World Cup Match A1}}, but my suggestions were turned down. It does make it a lot more work to add scores when they're located on a different page, so I'm not entirely in support of those templates any more. Also, it's not just {{football box}} which is used. There's also the section which will be added below that (see 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A for an example), which includes many more details such as substitutions and yellow/red cards. - 97rob (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point with the more details below stuff. But I'm not sure about the "a lot more work" stuff. Did you mean that it is more work with templates? I actually think it's less work, but that depends partly on how many articles transclude them. In the case of the 2012 Olympics, each "game reference template" is transcluded from four articles. Editing those four articles instead of one template is obviously more work. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

By more work, I meant having to go to click through to each template can be annoying, but having said that, the templates could be used on the main world cup article, the group article plus the articles for the national team's results (e.g. England national football team results – 2000s#2014), so I'm divided on this one. - 97rob (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@97rob:, @HandsomeFella:. I like templates and edit them a lot myself (working especially with league table template), but at the time I found no use for having the foitball boxes (matches) as templates since the info would be very different on the involving pages (only score on one and matchinfo on the other). However I did not consider all of the national teams article so perhaps it is not a bad idea anyway? The group tables however is a different thing the tables are used on all of the articles and are easilt made as templates. QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hi, sorry for my bad english but what do you mean by "one-off" above? I made template (instead of having same code everywhere and I saw other edit-notice templates) of the notice because there was interest to have it on the main article as well as the subarticles (group articles) which also holds the score and the same template can be used on all those pages. Also there were many semi-protection requests and protection of this year UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League (8 articles in total) so I see use for it there as well if we find consensus on those article talkpages (when the problem occurs). QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Does everyone think the template, seen at {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, is okay and ready for use on FIFA World Cup (as requested at the talk) or is there more to be fixed? QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm split between wanting to move the matches to templates and not, so if no-one really comes in with a strong opinion on it, we may as well leave it as it is now. In terms of the template, I can't see any reason not to add it to the World Cup article (and related group articles), so go for it. - 97rob (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for this. As for the template, fine except for the middle sentence. The English is a bit clunky. I would change "not to live update" to not to update while a match is in progress or similar.--Egghead06 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Egghead06: I wanted to keep the consensus at one row not making information to long. I changed ...live scores and moreover there is also consensus not to live update any other statistics to ...live scores and also a consensus to not update any statistics while a match is in progress., does that sound okay/better? QED237 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

MY english is not as it used to, should it be to not or not to? In both consensus on second row? QED237 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to. --Egghead06 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"One-off" means it should not be put into widespread useage - yet. GiantSnowman 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the World Cup articles can serve as a sort of trial then, where we can see what sort of response they get on the talk page, and if it actually help stop the live scores at all! - 97rob (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say we can use on all of the World Cup articles (and not just main articles), after the discussion on main talk. The group articles and table templates can all be subject of live updates. QED237 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tonight I will request it to be put up at the article so any final thoughts? It can now been seen at {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}. If being used on many articles in the future I would believe it being template-protected. QED237 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade

Could we get a few eyes on Red Star Belgrade for MoS, layout and other issues please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC

Please refer to this discussion about whether the fullname parameter of the {{Infobox football club}} template should be Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC where this is confusion about how this parameter should be used (e.g., whether to use a full legal name and, if so, what this means, e.g., a business name, company/association name, trade mark, etc.). Please feel free to join the discussion there. —sroc 💬 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Club name after name change in player infoboxes

Hi folks. I noticed all the Melbourne City players who were at the club last season when it was still Melbourne Heart had their infoboxes altered so it said they were two separate clubs (e.g., see infobox of Patrick Kisnorbo - separate entry for Melbourne Heart & Melbourne City). I went and changed this so it just had one entry under the name "Melbourne City", as I thought this was protocol for when a club changes names (e.g. Roger Espinoza and Kei Kamara - both at Sporting KC before and after the name change from Kansas City Wizards, their infoboxes just have one entry under "Sporting Kansas City"). However all my edits were reverted by User:Simione001 for the reason "Melbourne City FC only came into existence this year. You shouldn't be changing the infobox of their players to indicate that they have been playing for City before the club even existed." Are they correct on this, or is what I did right? — Limabeans (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This shows why I hate Infoboxes. People insist on trying to squeeze complex info into a simplistic format. Maybe we could write Melbourne Heart/Melbourne City as one entry in the list. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be my approach too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to remove Heart from the infobox. You can't say that Mate Dugandzic has been playing for Melbourne City since 2011. For me it's like trying to wipe away Melb Heart from history like they never existed, of course I don't think that's right. For me i can't see any problem with leaving it the way it is. It's more clearer this way for the reader.Simione001 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion, which doesn't remove Heart, but shows both names, old and new, as one entry? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's OK but the only problem i have with that is aesthetic. It looks terrible and makes the infobox very wide. Also it doesn't conform with any other pages that i've ever seen. Frankly i'd prefer to just have City listed in the infobox than to do that.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Or you could have them as separate entries, and add a footnote indicating the name change undergone by Heart to City and the month/year or season it happened. LRD NO (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This could work.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How about as the same entity using the more recent name, but with a footnote. Here's a few examples of that being used at Mike Magee and Jeff Parke, for the club MetroStars / New York Red Bulls. — Limabeans (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be my pick. I think it works well.Simione001 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's a simple name change, then I don't see the problem with current players having only "City" in the infobox. However, if it's a new club, then there should be a split. Number 57 08:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your right, it is basically the same club with a different name but the previous name is also important.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important to the club article, but for a player infobox, I don't see the point in having the club listed under two separate names. For players at other clubs that have changed names during their time there, we have used the more recent name in the infobox. See, for example, Chris Day, who was at Stevenage Borough when they became Stevenage. Number 57 08:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Simione001 on one point. The previous name is also important. Since the name change was announced on Friday there's been an excited, frantic rash of changes, many seemingly using a form of Newspeak, as if the old name never existed. The new name is obviously important to the marketers, and some excited fans, but we should be presenting a truthful history, not just what things are now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it should be clear in the club article, and perhaps even mentioned in the prose in the player article that the club had a different name at the time of the signing, but the infobox is not for recording history in this way. Number 57 08:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Have I mentioned before that I hate Infoboxes? They seem doomed to hold nothing more than simple, misleading subsets of reality. Not very encyclopaedic at all. The club has played zero games under its new name. No player has yet played a game under the new name. It really is nonsensical to omit the name every player with the club has played every game under so far. That's just doing too much for the marketers, and isn't just ignoring history; it's ignoring reality. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not ignoring reality though. It's still the same entity, just under a different name. I used to work for a firm that changed name whilst I was working there. I don't have two sections in my CV (or even mention the former name). I also disagree that this is unencylopedic. Number 57 08:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll bet you didn't change your CV to include only the new name two days after the name change, and expect potential employers to know what you meant. And you ignored my point about no games played under the new name. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have to update my CV at the time, so I can't really comment on that. But anyway, I didn't ignore your point specifically, I just thought I was being clear that the new club name should be used whatever the circumstances. However recent the change, or whether any games have been played under the new name is irrelevant, because it's not a new/different entity. Number 57 11:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

John Glover (footballer) has "Small Heath/Birmingham" in his infobox and I don't think it looks awful.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris Day's article (mentioned above) uses Stevenage (no Borough) for the whole of his time there, which to me is misleading....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox/article should reflect the name of the club that the person was playing for at the time; if the same club simply changes name then we should use the current name. Former players should have 'Melbourne Heart', current and future players should have 'Melbourne City'. GiantSnowman 11:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with GS thats exactly how it should be done, simply done with a wikilink.Blethering Scot 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I've misread it, that suggests that if a club changes its name, players with the club at the time should have their articles amended to only use the new name, is that what you're endorsing? So if Chelsea changed their name tomorrow to Fulham Rovers, John Terry's article should be changed to say that he made his professional debut in 1998 for Fulham Rovers, won the Premier League in 2005 with Fulham Rovers, etc. Sorry, but that would be ridiculous. The name used in the prose should absolutely be the name in use at the time. Remember the to-do a while back over an editor who wanted to amend List of FA Cup finals to show only the clubs' current names? Everyone shouted him down at the time, and I don't see this as a different argument......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What GiantSnowman suggests appears to be the exact same solution we had to this problem at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rugby league a few years ago and it's been a total non-issue ever since. As far as the infobox goes the name of the club at the time the player plays his last game is the name that should appear there. Simple. As for article text though, obviously the contemporaneous name should be used.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you've mis-read what I said - "The infobox/article should reflect the name of the club that the person was playing for at the time" - so he made his professional debut for 'Chelsea' (the club name at that time) but won the 2017 Champions League with 'Fulham Rovers' (the club name at that time). The infobox would show 'Fulham Rovers' in that particular example. GiantSnowman 09:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally am a fan of listing both. Because you want to make it clear that they played for the team while it was called X and played for them while it was called Y. That is how I have seen it dealt with in other sports. If people are concerned that that gives the impression of two franchises then I would do something like "Melbourne Heart/City" If I read an infobox that only read one I would get the impression that he only played for the team while it was called that. Names are a big deal in sport. Even if they are the same club a name change is a major thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those who say only the new name should be used. The same has been done in many cases, for example those who played at Queensland Roar/Brisbane Roar. To list the two as separate entities to me would imply that they were separate clubs, which they are definitely not. The current system of footnoting the former name is a bit awkward. Moreover, the "two" clubs will share the same single statistics in all reports on Misplaced Pages and in the wider world - this would make it confusing if players did not do the same. Statistically, Melbourne Heart FC is Melbourne City FC and as such a statistical listing should reflect that. Macosal (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Players who have played in the FA Cup

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but can anyone confirm, if a player has played for a league club in the FA Cup, does that make them eligible for an article?? Stew jones (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think yes, but there is no consensus on the matter as several people disagree. Articles that meet this criteria have been both kept and deleted at AfD. Number 57 21:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both clubs would need to be playing in the FL (or any fully pro league) for the player to be considered notable. But there's also WP:GNG to consider. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What about somebody like Sam Ashton, he played one FA Cup game for Bolton Wanderers, but has an article. Just for the record I am in the camp of these articles existing, as I believe playing a professional game for a professional team should warrant an article Stew jones (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you play in a cup game for a team from a WP:FPL against another team also from FPL then I would say you are notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to apply some common sense here because often times fully-pro clubs will use reserve players in a cup tournament to rest their regular squad, and one of these reserves that makes one or two cup appearances, even against another club that plays in a FPL, might never play again for the club (Sam Ashton is an example, although that article appears to satisfy the GNG regardless). In the past, games in the early rounds of the US Open Cup between fully-pro clubs barely registered any coverage (this has changed in recent years) and I've tried finding coverage for matches between fully-pro sides in similar cup competitions (e.g., KNVB Cup) with little success. Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As with all other articles, GNG trumps NFOOTBALL. Some kid who got 15 minutes in the first round of the FA Cup but then disappears into obscurity would not be notable if they failed GNG. GiantSnowman 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it makes sense to assume notability in NFOOTBALL for cup matches between clubs in FPLs (except perhaps the final few rounds - maybe beginning at the quarter-finals). I can think of dozens of examples of early round cup matches that have not been taken seriously by a club in a FPL. Jogurney (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Table

Hi, in the 1997–98 season at User:Matty.007/sandbox/List of Kingstonian F.C. seasons, I can't get Leworthy's goals to format such as at my guide, List of Margate F.C. seasons. Please can someone fix this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, and no different to the Margate one. Number 57 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The number of goals he scored is in the refs column rather than top scorer and I don't know how to fix it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

On my browser it's in the correct column. Number 57 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on latest IE. GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking on IE it works, must just be Firefox for some reason. Thank you! Number 57: the reason I put the Ryman League is that is what the source says, when they get promoted, they got moved up a league: I think they merged at a later date. Thanks, Matty.007 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryman is the sponsored name for Isthmian. It's the same league! Number 57 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine in Chrome. EddieV2003 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

John Neeskens

Is John Neeskens the son of Johan Neeskens or not? I've seen claims and counter-claims.

For

• http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/05/14/colorado-rapids-sign-20-year-old-defender-john-neeskens-son-dutch-great-joha
• http://www.coloradorapids.com/news/2014/05/rapids-sign-defender-john-neeskens

Against

• http://www.sportamerika.nl/mls/zoon-neeskens-tekent-bij-colorado-rapids
• http://www.vi.nl/nieuws/Neeskens-verschaft-duidelijkheid-over-nageslacht.htm

TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a weird one! On the one hand a) Johan had no obvious connection to the US when Jon was born, and b) has no clear connection to the matronymic name Ramirez. On the other, his club and his league say so, although there's not quite a direct quote John linking him to Johan, and mistakes can happen. NL Wikipdia says no, FWIW. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Independent wrote in October 1993, a month before John was born, that Johan had three children with his Swiss wife. It doesn't mention that they were expecting a fourth, but seeing as they (the couple) were based in Europe, it also seems unlikely that they would give birth to a child in the United States all of a sudden. So it doesn't seem like they're in any way related. Jared Preston (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd trust the Dutch sources over the American ones tbh, VI is especially highly regarded. GiantSnowman 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Referring to WP:LIVESCORES

I've noticed that there are comments in articles like 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A that refer to WP:LIVESCORES. WP:LIVESCORES is a section of a snooker-specific page, and refers to a discussion that apparently only had 3 participants. I don't think it is appropriate for a page related to soccer to refer to that section. It also seems wrong for a generic-sounding redirect like "WP:LIVESCORES" to link to a page just about snooker, but maybe that is a discussion for another place. Anyway, if this wikiproject also has a consensus that live scoring isn't appropriate (which seems to be the case), then I think there should be a page or section written specifically about live scores on soccer pages (e.g., WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES). Also, while I'm writing this, I thought I would mention that I personally think live scoring on Misplaced Pages is fine, and also think that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have any relevance to the discussion. WP:NOTNEWS says that if news sources just report routine information like scores, that isn't enough to make a subject notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't suggest that articles shouldn't be kept up to date with the latest information, instead only saying that the latest information should be treated similarly to other information. If a soccer-specific page like WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES is written, I would encourage it not to refer to WP:NOTNEWS as justification, as that seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Calathan (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See #Live scores, the next step? - a discussion above. Number 57 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had only read part of that discussion since it seemed to just be about the wording and usage of that template, but I see now that the issue of referring to a snooker page is also brought up there. It looks like the template refers to the relevant discussion, but I still think it might be better to have a page like WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES that refers to the past discussion, rather than just referring to the past discussion directly (though just referring to the past discussion on WT:FOOTY is definitely better than referring to a snooker page). Calathan (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, linking to WP:LIVESCORES is not the best thing, it is a bad habbit of mine as I was told way back that it also applies here. To have a MOS or something linking to consensus here at FOOTY as described in comments above would be much better (just as snooker have). Especially wjen undoing live edits it is good to have a short link to write in edit summary. In longer text on talkpages it is easier to link to correct discussion/consensus on footy, but not in edit summaries. QED237 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion on no Livescores as Policy was not passed. Threats by reversion from admins is considered worse. For more on this discussion see Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 47. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it did not pass on general wikipedia but there is still clear consensus on FOOTY just as there is on snooker as WP:LIVESCORES refer to and football related articles should not have livescoring. QED237 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY does not dictate terms for the whole of WP. The word is *should* and it is clearly not for you to solely decide. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it does not dictate whole wikipedia but applies on football related articles. QED237 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. As shown in the discussion Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 47 - WP:FOOTY is a subset and policy decisions are inclusive to all areas of WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop being angry because I reverted you now and move on, no need to keep atttacking my talkpage and here. Live with it and stop live updating. Nothing good will come out of keeping this discussion alive at the moment as you seem to angry. Have a nice day. QED237 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As you said I'll update how I wish and you don't dictate policy, Mr Wikipoliceman. Cheers. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not passed as policy for all of Misplaced Pages at NOT, but it is consensus in several projects, particularly for football articles. The notice in no way imply that it is policy. The notice does not threaten editors. The notice simply requests cooperation. My attempt at NOT was to make it policy, and there were a few who objected there, but that does not mean we have to change our consensus opinion that it is not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So true, there is consensus and it should be followed. All I did was revert according to consensus, no need to get angry and attack talkpage. QED237 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is implemented by admins on WP to harass editors and not in line with those who set policy in WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sub groups or projects cannot impose selective restrictions on policy. For consistency across WP editors must not face different restrictions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You don't understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. Editors do not face restrictions, simply a request to follow consensus. If they ignore that request, they may find themselves in an edit war and blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Alberto Manuel Domínguez Rivas

Can someone delete this page? Again, this user created a player who isn't a fully-pro footballer. According to Soccerway, he played a match for Deportivo de La Coruña's first team, but this never happened. According to BDFutbol (a much more reliable source, he only played for the reserve team). See here to confirm. Cheers, MYS77 22:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on criteria of transfer done deal

Which criteria for the transfer deal is done? I once warned by someone for 3RR due to "edit war" on some players that completed the medical but not sign anything (or vice versa could happen, such as Aly Cissokho) Would transfer windows alleged not yet open is a criteria to say the transfer is not completely done, such as in Cesc Fàbregas. (it is difference from transfer done AFTER the deadline).

In Serie A i knew the date the contract filed to the league office (which the date on official transfer list on the web) usually had a time tag with the club announcement (usually earlier)

While in Premier League the transfer windows starts at the end of last season ( Season – the period commencing on the date of the first League Match on the fixture list of the League’s first team competition and ending on the date of the last)

To sum up, how to avoid unnecessary edit war on transfer? Matthew_hk tc 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player's contract with the club has actually ended, they can be removed. If a player's contract with the club has actually begun, they can be added. In England contracts do not usually end/run until 30 June. GiantSnowman 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the point for the contract begun and the contract usually end on 30 June or 31 December. But how about player that not offered any contract extension, or announced he will leave the club as free agent? (difference from negotiating) or he already sign a new contract which effective on 1 July, the day he officially release as free agent? Matthew_hk tc 09:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The window, in England at least, appears to have changed and agree that it depends when the player's previous contract ends. I suppose it also depends on whether the player officially appears on the new club's roster after signing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player is contracted with Club X until 30 June, and his new contract with Club Y starts on 1 July, then the relevant articles should not be updated until those dates have passed. When we last had this debate a few weeks ago @Struway2: was able to find a source confirming the 30 June date in England, IIRC. GiantSnowman 14:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. When signing a player on free agent it must be 30 June. @GiantSnowman: and all others: Does that mean Bacary Sagna must be fixed? He is leaving Arsenal as free agent an sign for manchester city. QED237 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player signs for another club on a free transfer because his contract is due to expire at the end of June, then yes, that transfer is not complete until 30 June. However, if a player was already without a club, having been released by his last team, he is free to join any club at any time, unconstrained by transfer windows. Obviously, that last bit doesn't include players who are due to be released at the end of their current contracts. – PeeJay 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal has always tried to sign a longer contract with him so he was not released as far as I know. QED237 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal may have tried to sign him to a longer contract, but they failed. Therefore he is technically going to be "released" at the end of his current deal on 30 June, allowing him to join Man City for free. – PeeJay 23:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, but my point is that he is not City player now as article says. QED237 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. – PeeJay 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Iran Pro League

In Asian leagues, since there are qoutas for foreign players, we always make a foreign players table in the league article, like the one I created in 2013–14 Iran Pro League. But for the past few days, some editors and IPs are removing this table and claiming that this table should not be present as it was not there in the previous league articles, whether is it mandatory to put such tables and others. Please drop in your suggestions, I mean whether this table should be kept, removed etc. RRD13 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember articles of La Liga club once had that section but i don't remember or read any previous discussion. Matthew_hk tc 09:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 A-League has a foreign players table as well. I think the table should be kept, but with one condition: the table should be kept IF (a big if) the league restricts the number of foreign players. Cheers, MYS77 15:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep it with a reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

1. Aleksandr Chumakov: ru:Умершие в 2012 году
2. Antonio Flores (footballer): de:Gestorben 2001
3. Antonio Montico: it:Morti nel 2013
4. Antonio Valencia (Bolivian footballer): fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
5. Arnošt Kreuz: fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
6. Baba Laouissi: fr:Décès en 2012
7. Carlos Blanco (footballer): de:Gestorben 2011 / fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle) / it:Morti nel 2011
8. Enzo Cozzolini: it:Morti nel 1962
9. Franco Frasi: it:Morti nel 2009
10. Fritz Morf: pl:Zmarli w 2011
11. José Bustamante (footballer born 1921): fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
12. Karl Giesser: fr:Décès en 2010 / ru:Умершие в 2010 году
13. Narciso López (footballer): de:Gestorben 1988 / fr:Décès en 1988
14. Petar Manola: it:Morti nel 2004 / ru:Персоналии, чья дата смерти не установлена
15. Peter Kracke: de:Gestorben 1998
16. Raúl Arellano: de:Gestorben 1997 / fr:Décès en 1997
17. Ramiro Navarro: de:Gestorben 2008
18. Rolf Holmström: sv:Avlidna 2012
19. Samuel Cuburu: de:Gestorben im 20. oder 21. Jahrhundert
20. Sergio Bravo: fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
21. Takeo Takahashi (footballer): fa:درگذشتگان ۲۰۱۰ (میلادی)
22. Vladimiro Tarnawsky: ru:Персоналии, чья дата смерти не установлена
23. Vyacheslav Kuznetsov (footballer): ru:Умершие в 2011 году

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts 18:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Burge

I forget where the right place to report this is but there is an edit war developing at Ryan Burge. I believe the IP is Ryan Burge himself but since the "war" started his version of events have been reported so are now sourced.--EchetusXe 09:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 10 days. However, I think it would definitely be worth readding the Argus sentence/reference. Number 57 10:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the last sentence to "Despite these reports, Burge left the club May 2014." with both sources in there. It would make sense that he chose to leave seen as the club were reportedly in contract negotiations with him but hey.--EchetusXe 11:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Zijad Švrakić

Dear football experts: Here's an AfC submission that is up for review right now. Is this a notable football person? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Subject would notable simply through his international caps, but I very much doubt the images were taken by the author! Jared Preston (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a little more investigation than a glance at the infobox is required. How about sources! Definitely suspect. There was no Bosnia team in 1992 (even the unofficial All Stars team was in 93 and he wasn't in that). Nor is he present in an 80s Yugoslav matches. This fails WP:V. His name appears unlinked as a former manager of Al Jahra SC (although the years don't match up) and Al-Salmiya SC. The translation of one source seems to indicate he was a player (at Sarajevo). However, he did not seem to play at Galatasaray. A Metin Yildiz did, but they are not the same person. Given all this, and that it is a WP:BLP I'm going to reject it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. I feel this person is notable (if evidence can be found to say that Zijad Svrakic and Ziya Yildiz are the same person), for example have a look at TFF, however the article/career has been massively over-exaggerated and puffed-up. GiantSnowman 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the WP:RS lesson - I was just showing it isn't verifiable in any sources. "Zijad Švrakić ili Ziya Yildiz (zvijezda), kako ga zovu u Turskoj, spada u grupu igrača koji su prošli put od trnja do zvijezda." seems to link the players; however, why does this make him notable? There is no assertion of international representation and, whilst there is indication he has coached/played at some clubs, nothing verifiable is a not fully professional leagues. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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