 | This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  NA | This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections with no replies in 10 days are automatically moved. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived. An archive index is available here. | [edit] Infobox Flags Let me preface this by stating that I've read and understand the ruling set forth by MOS:FLAG in regards to sportspeople on this topic. However, I would like further clarification of why this ruling exists in regards to the nation a player represents. It seems as though, through a technicality, all flags were banned from sportspeople infoboxes, regardless of nature, because it would be a POV issue. However, the flags which represent National Teams for which a player has represented are included in this bunch as well. In many of the non-sportspeople arguments, there are concerns that it would "imply" nationality and undermine the neutral POV standpoint of Wikipedia, such as placing a flag for place of birth, citizenship, etc. I can see how this could be tricky, such as with the example of Naomi Watts's case for Wales, England, and Australia. To me, this looks like a blanket-rule which should simply be disregarded or changed when referring to the country an athlete has represented. I'm not implying or undermining any nationalistic points of view — it's a very clear cut fact that the nations represented by the other athletes are what the flags represent. For further example: - Do not emphasize nationality without good reason - The nation would be emphasized as that is the nation the player has represented in international competition.
- Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death - This wouldn't be done as I'm only talking about the international representation.
- Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available - This wouldn't be done as I'm only talking about the international representation.
- Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance - Clearly an England flag would be used over a Great Britain flag as that would be the country represented in that case.
- Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance - The flag would be of the nation the player has represented in international competition.
- Accompany flags with country names - It would be.
etc., etc., etc. Even with the "Use of flags for sportspeople" section, it only says flags are DISCOURAGED. It does not say flags must not be used or any other type of non-negotiable statement. Can someone please enlighten me as to why we follow this rule in regards to a nation represented in football?—Preceding unsigned comment added by GauchoDude (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 November 2009 - A good point well made; after all, the {{fb}} template exists. However, I have a feeling that it is something to do with accessibility/readibility or however you spell them...GiantSnowman 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- @GauchoDude, I'm not sure what article or infobox you are referring to, but I don't think there is an aversion to using a flag in the context of a national team appearance. The problem is using a flag to represent "nationality". For example, Olympic medalists often have a flag via the {{MedalCountry}} template (e.g. inside the "Honours" section on the Ronaldinho article). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, that flag I'm also concerned about, but my biggest peeve right now and the brunt of this argument are edits such as these. Granted the flag is in the infobox, but it's representing a nation in which a player has represented. It makes no inference as to origin of birth, heritage by blood, etc., which seems to be a major talking point for non-sportspeople infobox flags. GauchoDude (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't have a problem with that (unless there is some contrary consensus that I missed). But I would have used {{fbw|CAN}} instead of the markup with {{flagicon}} etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I had been using the fb tag for ages as a nice and easy shorthand for national football team links (which gave us things like
 England), but was encouraged to use the nft tag instead, which gives us England. The whole issue around not using {fb was the appearance of a flag, which many on here felt was contravening WP:MOSFLAG; my only view was to ensure that we somehow ended up with a workable shorthand which saves us having to type things like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team in an infobox, when  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is much easier. I have to admit I like the flags from a purely visual point of view, and would agree to flags ONLY being used as an indicator for national teams and not place of birth, clubs, etc. I have been using nft, and have recently changed all US soccer players to reflect this, but wouldn't mind if we switched back to fb, as long as we have consistency. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Speaking of {{nft}} (and sorry for straying off-topic slightly)—I had made some changes to that template so that the correct link would always be rendered (e.g. "soccer" where appropriate), but that would mean it would no longer be subst'ed. I reverted that "fix" after a comment on this talk page. Should we re-apply the fix? Would anybody object if the template was no longer used by substitution only?
- I would be ecstatic if {{nft|United States}} redirected automatically to United States men's national soccer team.--JonBroxton (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would be equally ecstatic if we could also have a "wnft" tag, so that typing {{wnft|United States}} redirected automatically to United States women's national soccer team --JonBroxton (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It exists as {{nwft}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- But back to your original point, I also advocate consistency—either way. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
But why this great prediliction for including flags? I am certain that far more people can read and understand the word "Moldova" or "St Lucia" than can recognise the flags of those countries, and far fewer people will confuse the words "Netherlands" and "Luxembourg" than will confuse their respective flags. Why leave ourselves open to long debates about whether a French flag is appropriate for New Caledonia or Guadeloupe, when the simple act of writing those words avoids any likelihood of misunderstanding? And as MOS#FLAGS states that the name of the country must also be available in text, then infoboxes become crowded for no real purpose, and with no information added. Can we not assume that an encyclopaedia is a resource for literate people, who don't necessarily need little coloured boxes all over the page to retain their attention to information that they have come looking for? Kevin McE (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC) -
- This is my point. Why leave ourselves open to long debates about whether a French flag is appropriate for New Caledonia or Guadeloupe, when the simple act of writing those words avoids any likelihood of misunderstanding? If the player plays for Guadeloupe, they get a Guadeloupe flag. If they play for France, they get a France flag. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Still looking for a somewhat logical reason aside from "well other people do it". Not everything is cookie cutter, this is an exception. GauchoDude (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- And what is the "Guadeloupe flag"? According to CONCACAF, it's the French tricolour. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then there is your answer. Seriously though, I don't understand why this is so difficult. It would be the same as Ireland for rugby, they use a different flag than the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. GauchoDude (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS - The flag of Guadeloupe is the same as the flag of France. GauchoDude (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am well aware of this. But you wrote If the player plays for Guadeloupe, they get a Guadeloupe flag. If they play for France, they get a France flag, which seems to imply that you thought they are different. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
What is gained by using flags to repeat what already is said in the text? Rettetast (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - You guys are just waiting for someone to reignite the Guadeloupe flag debate, aren't you? Seriously though, I am not in favor of using flags in infoboxes in any instances. It especially bugs me when one is placed next to a "Coach", "Owner", or "Chairman" in the infobox of a club article. How is that relevant or germain to the club? If someone wanted to know about the person they should click the link to the article for that person. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly not my intention: it was one of several examples I gave as to why the addition of flags can cause confusion, but very rarely reduces it. No advantage at all to having them in infoboxes, lots of reasons against. Clarity of information is a priority in an encyclopaedia: prettiness is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To add to the very good points in Kevin McE's list, we then have the interminable time-wasting rows over whether player X should have flag A, B or C when they are eligible to represent all three countries, but have represented none of them as yet... The correct answer in this case is no flag at all - picking any one is misleading. By picking one, you are making a definitive statement that that person has a single clear nationality, when the reality is more subtle and complicated. It is far, far better to be silent than attempt to be "pretty" and mislead. Knepflerle (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - We're talking about flags in infoboxes accompanying the text line showing the country players have represented at international level already. Players who have not played internationally are irrelevant to this conversation. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The conversation above is far more general than that, such as the reference to flags for chairmen in club infoboxes. Knepflerle (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- As I previously stated, the flags wouldn't be to infer which countries a player would be able to represent be it through birth, citizenship, heritage, etc. It's a non-negotiable fact if a player has represented a country (hence putting "Canada" instead of listing all the countries he could possibly represent). The flag would be added for this part only. Consider this:
- Do not emphasize nationality without good reason - It would be emphasized to show that a player has represented a certain country at the highest level of play.
- Accompany flags with country names - The names of the countries would be accompanying the flags.
- The flags would be representing the players in an undeniable, indisputable fact which clearly demonstrates their sporting nationality at the highest level they are able to. The ONLY reason why see this is an issue, again, is would be a case such as whether Edgar Castillo is a Mexican or an American. However, the flags would not be to push one way or another, but to highlight the fact that he has played for the Mexican national team or the American national team (or in his case, both). GauchoDude (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- But even in that infobox, both flags could be used. I think the use of flags to identify national teams is fine from a NPOV, RS, etc. perspective. It only becomes a style issue whether or not we want them. But attaching a flag icon to a person is potentially problematic, and ought to be avoided where possible, in my opinion. That's why we ought to remove them from chairmen and coach names, for example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's fine the way it is. The only issue here, really, is whether to add a flag next to the country in the 'National Team' section of player infoboxes. I think the flags look good, but the bottom line is that I don't mind either way, as long as we're consistent. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, @Andrwsc, that's what I'm talking about. I think we should remove the flags from teams' infoboxes next to the names of people. Those clearly are implying a nationality one way or another. However, for players representing national teams, the bottom where it details which team(s) they have represented I believe should have a flag. It is not inferring the nationality of a player and the flag would be no where near the player's name, but only to represent the team he's represented. I think we're on the same page. How do we go about making this a change for the Football Project on wikipedia, somewhat akin to the notability requirements that we all uphold? I think it should be represented on the player template after some kind of vote so it's clear to all what we've done. GauchoDude (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The best way to do it would be to mandate that the {{fb}} tag be used when linking to whichever national football team they represent; that way {{fb|USA}} gives us
 United States, and the flag is shown automatically. Users would have to manually add flags to youth teams using the FLAGICON tag. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't think that we should use flags in infoboxes. They create more problems (discussions what flags are "correct" etc.) then improvements ("more pretty" - which is very much in the eye of the beholder). --Jaellee (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gaucho, for all your clear and valid reasoning about why some of the arguments against the inclusion of flags do not apply in the very limited circumstances that you propose, you have done nothing to explain why articles, and infoboxes in particular, will be enhanced by such an addition. Is there any encyclopaedic reason for having them? Is this purely a matter of aesthetic preference? Is it so that readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag? Or is it simply "we could, so we should"? Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- @Kevin McE, all of the above. It makes it very apparent and draws the attention (rightly so as it's a huge honour) to the fact that they have represented their country as opposed to just playing at various club teams (with the assumption flags are not included next to teams, which to my knowledge they aren't). It also makes very clear the difference between playing for USSR as opposed to Russia, since the flags are different. Flags on Wikipedia are used to emphasize nationality for good reason and I believe representing your country at the highest level more than qualifies. It also seems as though others agree with this notion as well. GauchoDude (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- What good reason? How does a flag in the infobox enhance the article? Rettetast (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- ← Lest it seem like I support the inclusion of infobox flags, I actually don't. I stated above that using flags to identify national teams is merely a style issue and not as problematic as using flags to identify people. But from a style perspective, my opinion has always been that flag icons are effective when browsing long lists or tables of items with strong national association (hence the flags). For example, it aids browsing of results pages where we use {{fb}} and {{fb-rt}} within long sequences of {{footballbox}}-formatted sections, as it helps the reader find individual teams of interest. In other contexts, international sports results tables benefit greatly from flag icons for similar reasons. But singular flag icons within an infobox draw undue attention to one particular infobox field, and certainly aren't needed for browsing/identification reasons. I would be ok with a consensus here to use {{fb}}, {{fbu}}, etc. for the "National team" section within {{Infobox football biography 2}}, but if we are !voting to determine consensus, I would prefer that the flags are not used. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Rettetast, By drawing attention to the fact that said player has appeared for a national team in their career in a quick and easy manner. It would rightly draw attention, especially for players with large playing CV's, to the fact that they've represented their country. Here are a few cases in point:
- Lisa De Vanna - Female Australian international footballer with 50+ caps.
- Danny Bailey - English footballer attempting to join every single club ever in England (sarcasm).
- Looking at such long career lists, it doesn't appear that one is more notable than the other. However, those players compared to:
- Carli Lloyd - Female American international soccer player with 50+ caps.
- The flag next to the national teams represented make it simple to notice that Player C holds much more weight than Player A or Player B, when really Player A should be on equal terms. On a somewhat related note, I don't like how in Infobox Football biography 2, a player's medals are hidden. You shouldn't have to click "Show" to find out oh, said person is a 2x or 3x or whatever Gold medalist. Stop making profiles difficult. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- This actually makes a lot of sense. I find myself agreeing with GauchoDude here. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we go about mandating fb and fbw, at least in terms to the flags and only for members of the WikiProject Football? I'm assuming there has to be some further discussion before inclusion into the Player Template. GauchoDude (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
It is disturbing to see you planning to "mandate" this, as you by no means seem to have gained a consensus to roll this out. Given that readers will generally look at one page at a time, the idea that a visual difference will lead a reader to make a judgement on the relative importance of players is, at best, counter-intuitive. There is a clearly separated section, with its own labelled header, to indicate national appearances: they are by no means "lost" among the club history. The assumption that a player is "important" if they have played internationally is a false one: there is no less important player on Gillingham's books than Rimmel Daniel, who has never even been named as a substitiute in a first team match, but he has three caps for Grenada. His one England B appearance might be one of the least significant times that Steve Bruce ever entered a playing field, so why should additional attention be drawn to it? Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - It's just as disturbing to see you on the other side of the fence with the same, if not less, evidence for the removal of flags to denote national team appearances. The fact that Rimmel Daniel has represented his country and Steve Bruce (relatively) hasn't is mute in that national team representation, with FIFA's sanction, automatically infers notability according to WP:FOOTYN. If Player A had represented their country and Player B hadn't, one could reasonably assume Player A is of a higher callibre and attention should be drawn to this fact full stop. The flags, while not inferring notability nor implying nationality, I feel rightly draw attention to, and make it easily distinguishable to see, which players have and have not represented their country at a national level. Yes, there are "clearly separated sections" like you mention, but these also exist for Youth Teams as well as Teams Managed. Big deal. GauchoDude (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- One cannot reasonably assume that a player who has represented his country is of a higher calibre than one who has not. Do you seriously believe that Rimmel Daniel is of a higher calibre than was Steve Bruce at the height of his career? The variation in standard between international sides is that many players in the Premier League who are from the major European nations have never got anyhere near their national squads, while players in the Conference South could easily gain selection for some smaller nations once eligibility is established. Readers of an encyclopaedia should be trusted to be able to read section headings, and recognise the names of countries. You have failed to address my comments on the redundancy of an argument based on comparing the appearance of infoboxes, when side-by-side viewing of them will not usually be the way they are read. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flags are completely unnecessary for the infobox. The fact that a player has made international appearances is adequately represented by such appearances being listed in a separate section of the infobox. No flags. – PeeJay 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gaucho, you seem to be confusing notablility with quality and/or importance. Playing at the international level gives an athlete a certain level of notability. It does not, however, infer a stamp of quality or a local importance to the sport wherever the individual may ply his/her trade for a living. FOOTYN is not WP policy; it simply exists to help explain notability within the realm of this project. Earlier in this discussion you responded in the affirmative regarding the inclusion of flags so that "readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag". That is certainly not a reason to include flags, and for that reason it should actually be avoided. See: WP:MOSFLAG. The very first point made in that section is "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". Additionally, the nation that an athlete represents does not necessarily indicate nationality at all because it actually indicates sporting nationality. Including the flag could draw attention to itself and increase the likelihood that an article misleads readers who don't thoroughly read the article or at the very least don't even read the entire introduction of the article. The inclusion of flags in infoboxes is in direct opposition to official WP policy. It emphasizes nationality unnecessarily and doesn't include the accompanying national name next to the flag. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- @JohnnyPolo24, Wow, incorrect on a number of levels. I'll go through them 1 by 1. #1. I understand that international appearances do not denote quality. However, it is a fair assumption that a player with a national cap is of greater quality than one without. There will be obvious exceptions, such as a Guadeloupe international v. a top level player in England, but it's not a bad starting point. #2. I understand FOOTYN is not law around here, it says that in a fairly large box on the top of the article. However, with people "in the know" as opposed to people focused on creating articles about plants, dinosaurs, or trains, it was created by and referenced repeatedly this community to infer notability, not quality. There is no objective way to flawlessly justify quality. One man's trash ... and all that. Yes, again, there will be exceptions (I don't think many would pick Kyle Reynish over Cesc Fàbregas). #3. I, in no way, affirmed "readers can delight in one more occurence of their national flag" and find it offensive that you believed I did in the first place. I invite you to go back and re-read my response to that paragraph. The flags in question denote the PLAYER'S SPORTING NATIONALITY. Very rarely does a player appear for more than one national team. And the addition of flags, or multiple flags, is certainly not because I believe readers would like seeing their flag. #4. This community strives for consistency and the law says, more or less, don't use flags to infer nationality or heritage, which is the main reasoning for the opposition to my proposal. However, for nearly every single club on Wikipedia, you are doing just that by placing flags next to the "important people". That, IMO, is a FAR more egregious breach of your Wikipedia law that a flag denoting a country for which a player has played, as opposed to inferring someone's nationality on numerous featured articles. And from what the "law" sounds like, it says "flags are discouraged" for sports infoboxes, not disallowed.
-
-
-
-
- In conclusion (because this topic is tiring and we're all probably going to go back to what we were doing previous to it), there doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or another. Granted, I haven't gone back to literally head count, but it seems like more are against using flags per previous habits. While the general law persuades people to not use flags in sports infoboxes, they clearly are being used. Every major football team that I checked had flags next to "important people", which is clearly in violation of the non-biased law. FB and FBW use flags directly relating to this topic and are heavily used on player articles. The "law", while discouraging the use of flags in biographies, states there may be occasional exceptions. Flags are already being used to demonstrate a player's nationality for Olympic medals in sports people's biographies and this is no different. Not sure where to go from here, but I'll most likely not keep checking in on this topic from here on out. GauchoDude (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm sorry to have offended you if that's the case. I said what I said because where after the question was posed you stated "all of the above" without making mention of sporting nationality, though you did make the point about USSR/Russia, so I apoligize for overlooking your intent. With your first point, I still disagree. From a guy who's seen a bunch of matches involving the bottom-feeders from CONCACAF, it's not a good starting point. Standards vary so greatly around the world, though those Guadeloupeans aren't half bad. Although it's true that players rarely represent more than one nation internationally, the new, relaxed FIFA regulations are going to allow many more players to make switches in the future, not to mention the guys who play for subnational teams, such as Guadeloupe. Edgard Castillo is still fairly young, but I'm extremely confident that guys like Jermaine Jones – guys who are old enough that they are in the last four-year cycle of the World Cup in which their talents are viable at that level – will be very common. I don't even want to get started on the WP:OR that is the "Important figures" sections; if they're important then there will be information about them in the "History" section. You also raise a good point about Olympians, and that's a difference that maybe we ought to reconcile if indeed the circumstances are the same. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with GauchoDude. This just seems like an excessive blanket-"rule" stemming from the reasonable neutral POV standpoint on people's birthplace. Transaction Go (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Hello WP:FOOTBALL, hopefully you guys can help out here. I stumbled upon 1. deild some time ago, and have been puzzled over whether any action needs to be taken in regards to the name of the article. 2. deild redirects to Faroe Islands 2. deild, so I figure that at the very least, the article ought to be moved to Faroe Islands 1. deild, correct? Further, each season of 1. deild football seems to have its own article, from 1. deild 1976 all the way though 1. deild 2004. Is there some kind of naming convention for seasonal articles that WP:FOOTBALL employs? I figure again at the least that these should be renamed to Faroe Islands 1. deild 1976, etc., but I wanted to clarify and get additional opinions. Additionally, while employing Special:PrefixIndex/1. deild just now to find all the season articles for 1. deild, I also discovered 1. deild karla, which appears to be something entirely different; still a football league, but located in Iceland. According to Special:Prefixindex/1. deild karla, there are also seasonal articles for this league that probably ought to be renamed, and just for good measure, 2. deild karla, 2. deild karla 2008, and 3. deild karla exist as well. So, my question is...what exactly should be done with these articles? First, are they notable enough to exist? Second, do they need to be renamed? Those are the issues to be figured out first. Thanks for any and all input, GlassCobra 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Never heard of WP:SOCCER, but thanks for popping by anyway ;). The league is notable enough, although I'm not sure about the seasons. As for the naming convention, we have Football League Championship, Serie A, Division 1 and Fußball-Bundesliga. On that basis I don't think 1. deild is a particularly bad name, but they should definitely be consistently named.
- I don't know the leagues, but assuming 1. deide karla is the correct name, my suggestion would be to name the Faroese articles 1. deild and 2. deild, keep the Icelandic articles as they are, and potentially put hatnotes on the Faroese and Icelandic articles leading to the other country's similarly named division. WFCforLife (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gah! Sorry about that. I made the same mistake on someone's talk page, too. My bad. GlassCobra 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
The Faroese 1. deild also has a second name (at least in here), as its season articles go under 2009 Faroe Islands Premier League Football, for example. The Faroese league system in general spans only over four levels. The Icelandic 1. deild karla ("karla" meaning "men", by the way), however, is the second level of the Icelandic league system, with the Úrvalsdeild being the top league there. -
-
- What should be done now? Well, given that we have two leagues named 1. deild, and assuming WP:NAME has been correctly applied, it would probably be the best to turn 1. deild into a disambiguation page and rename the articles 1. deild (Faroe Islands) and 1. deild (Iceland), respectively. If WP:NAME has not been used appropriately, determine the most common name for the Faroese top league and put it there. Once this has been done, move all season articles to the agreed new names (and don't forget to use the format "<season> <name>" as per this consensus). Finally, move the related categories and stuff. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I really should not state anything while still being asleep... *grmbl* The Faroese 1. deild is, of course, a second-level league and not a synonym for the FIPL. Sorry for any confusion. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We might wanna opt for naming these leagues in English translations. Bundesliga is called Bundesliga in English, rather than Federal League, and that is fair enough, but I seriously doubt these leagues have any common name in English. And incidentally, all national leagues are notable, even if some countries are very small. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WikiLinking ATHLETE failures consensus Do we have a consensus anywhere on wikilinking (red-link) WP:ATHLETE failures in club articles? There are plenty of clubs about that pass criteria themselves, but have squad lists where the largest proportion of them fail, and probably fail WP:GNG as well, but all players have redlinks which just seems to me to be an encouragement for editors to create a deletable article. --ClubOranjeT 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't quite follow. Are you talking about possibly deleting a club article based on the fact that a squad's list is mostly red-linked? Digirami (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think he means squad members at league clubs who have not played a match that would render the player notable, or regular members of a Conference team who have never been attached to a league club, although many of his treammates might have done (if the Anglo-centric example can be forgiven). I remembering asking the question a year or two ago, and the reply was that they should be "blacklinked": red-links suggest that an article should exist but as yet does not, which is not the case for such players. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Correct Kevin, no beef with the club article, but if it is an article on a low level non-professional club (ie, second tier NZ) then I don't think the players should be redlinked as they have no notability by virtue of playing for that club, and should only be linked if a legitimate article exists--ClubOranjeT 08:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would definitely delink them. More often than not, when an entire low-level squad is linked en masse, one or two players with relatively common names may appear blue but actually link to a completely irrelevant article. Bettia (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:WEB, any who are likely to get articles (i.e. anyone who probably passes notability, but who doesn't have an article) should be redlinked. The rest shouldn't, for the given reason. In practice this doesn't matter for English teams (because they've got enough eyes that articles are usually created for players the minute they hit the ATHLETE threshold) but it's worth remembering for other leagues. For instance, by a quirk of history and the nuances of the GNG anyone who plays for Ayr United should be notable even though the players in question might be part time (the Scottish First Division is treated as fully pro even if it isn't in practice), so the whole squad should be redlinked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree on principle, although I'm sure there is going to be an exceptions (none that I can think of off the top of my head, but it's possible). It's likely that there are players out there who at their present situation do not meet the notability of ATHLETE, but probably did sometime in their career. Digirami (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary: my example above about ex-league players at Conference clubs gives an example of players blue-linked although their current status would not merit it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fenerbahçe S.K. User:Cambazero has a habit of adding players to the squad list of Fenerbahçe S.K. regardless of whether they play for the club or not. They've been warned several times but to no avail. Could an admin keep an eye and perhaps block if they persist? Ta. Dancarney (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - They've just done it again. Dancarney (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well since he (I assume) has an account, protecting that article won't stop him from editing/vandalizing it. I guess you can try blocking him completely. If anyone out there knows how to do that, help the guy out. Digirami (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article is already semi-protected. I was suggesting a block on the user, which I've figured out how to request properly. Dancarney (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Squad navboxes I can't remember the consensus for these—is it just for World Cup only? Or also some lower tier tournaments? I came across Category:CONCACAF Gold Cup squad templates (and its subcategories) and thought they should be deleted. Anybody want to take on that task? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - I think the consensus was World Cup, Olympics, Confed Cup and the top confederation competitions (Gold Cup, Copa America, etc.) chandler 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, never mind then. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think Chandler is right - we really should start a subpage though that lists exactly what this Project deems notable or not, for use both inside & outside these four walls. GiantSnowman 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Chandler is right too. The CONCACAF Gold Cup is the North/Central American equivalent of the European Championship, so it's definitely a major competition. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What about youth tournaments then? Category:South Korea FIFA U-17 World Cup squad templates & Template:China Squad 2001 FIFA World Youth Championship. Just a few I found. Transaction Go (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Spanish Tercera División I just came across Tercera División Groups 1-9 and Tercera División Groups 10-18, which simply list the teams in each group. However, those aren't season articles, seeing as how 2009–10 Tercera División the season data. Should we delete the former two articles? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - As much of the same information is in the 2009–10 Tercera División article, I think the other two should be deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's absurd. Would you delete an article on the Premier League in favor of the 2009-10 season articles? The articles just need some work on them. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) has already made the right move - a merger proposal for the two articles in question into Tercera División. WP:SIZE won't be an issue since each of the two articles is roughly 25kB large. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my monners (this question is originally written in Talk:CAF Women's Championship). In the official website of CAF, this competition is called African women Championship. What would we do? Should the title of this article be changed? or can we leave it as it is? If you have some knowledge on African women's football or CAF football competitions, please help me. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Krisztián Németh Anyone know where I get the details for Krisztián Németh's U21 appearances. I can find three so far, against Luxembourg (06/06/09); Wales (12/08/09) and Italy (13/11/09). I am pretty sure he made his debut for the U21s as far back as 2008, maybe 2007. Anyone provide me with a source to check, so I can update the infobox Steve-Ho (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Disambiguation Is there a standard? i.e. (footballer born 1990) > (goalkeeper) If there preference is for the birth year to be the standard then I will change all the Port Vale players, also changing their namesakes, to reflect this preference. e.g. Chris Martin (footballer) and Chris Martin (goalkeeper). will become (footballer born 1988) and (footballer born 1990).--EchetusXe 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - Year of birth should always be used over position or nationality in my opinion. GiantSnowman 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Just to clarify though, (footballer) is preferable to (footballer born 1988), but (footballer born 1988) should be used if there are two or more footballers. WFCforLife (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- In this case, disambiguate using year of birth.
- But in response to GiantSnowman's comment, I think the order for approaching disambiguation should be first nationality then year of birth for the simple fact that footballers are more likely to be known by their nationality than the year they were born.
- And to future queries, what is mentioned here are broad guideline. If there is a better way to disambiguate, like between Rafael Márquez and Rafael Márquez Lugo, use it. Or, as what has been done with many Brazilian footballers because their prolific use of common nicknames (like Anderson), use the players' real names. Digirami (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- But what about nationalities that are controversial, such as footballers from Northern Ireland? Due to the many problems regarding "POV" (a load of bull in my opinion), some Irish editors insist on using "(Northern Ireland footballer)", while the corect denonym is "(Northern Irish footballer)" - so which one do we use consistently throughout Wikipedia? Using DOB is just so much more hassle-free! GiantSnowman 11:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hassle free, but it is an odd way to disambiguate footballers based on a relatively unknown, rarely mentioned fact. There are two articles Cristián Suárezs out right now. I guarantee you that they are more than likely to be known, and differentiated, by their nationality (Cristián Suárez the Chilean, and Cristián Suárez the Ecuadorian), than their year of birth. This would go across the board. Hypothetically, should another footballer named Leo Messi comes along and he was Mexican, I'd think he would more likely be know for that than the year he was born and we would/should disambiguate based on his nationality (the original, in this case, would not need disambiguation because of his fame). Digirami (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Where nationality is controversial it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. On the specific subject of the term "Northern Irish", the forced retirement of the primary antagonist in that domain should hopefully put an end to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot I asked this question! Thanks for the replies. I will make the changes this week maybe.--EchetusXe 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Thorpe made his debut for Blackpool on 29 March 1911 and appeared for the final time on 25 October 1913, at which point he was sold. In that time, he played in all of the club's 98 League and (FA) Cup games. It's not a record for the club — Georgie Mee holds that accolade with 195 — but it must be up there for a games available/games played ratio. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) - if you were desparate you could contact the clubs historian. Every club has one(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC))
-
- Indeed - the official Blackpool club historians are Gerry Wolstenholme and John Cross. Wolstenholme tends to write the club history books. The earliest book I have, "The Khaki Years" goes back to the 1915-16 season only. I have contact details for John Cross if needed?--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sean Morrison's career stats I'm getting very confused by the career stats table on Sean Morrison's page - basically I'm trying to include his loan to Southend in the 2009-10 season, but can't seem to work it out. Anybody care to help me out? Thanks, GiantSnowman 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) - Stats are grouped primarily by club, not by season, so I would suggest that if he returns to play further games for Swindon this season, that those games be added to the already existing row for Swindon in 2009-10; if the move to Southend becomes permanent that a bracketed note of loan status at Southend be removed at that stage. I would suggest that loans don't need a subtotal. I have set up a sub-page of my user page rather than have lots of tables on this talk-page, and am perfectly happy for others to post their suggestions there. I do this without checking precedent. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers Kevin, that's fantastic work! GiantSnowman 13:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Players infobox2 Hi. I have been having a major problem. Since I´m editing many players biographies, in many cases I´m completing players careers with many missing information in the infoboxes. In many cases (like 50%) it´s the missing clubs from the early careers, and the "new" infoboxes make me that job much more difficult, since it makes me have to change all the clubs in the sequence, while in the "old" infobox, it was just adding it. This way, many times, I end giving up adding clubs since it´s much work to do it. But, it´s sad, since having the complete as possible careers it would be nice... I find this a major minus in the new infoboxes ( club1, club2, club3,...). Opinions? Help? FkpCascais (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC) - It may take a little bit more time, but using the new infobox is not only (in my view) easier and nicer on the eye, it is actually neccessary for accessibility & readability reasons. GiantSnowman 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with GiantSnowman. There's nothing wrong with the infobox. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who has been using this exclusively lately as well to create women's soccer profiles, I agree that it's definitely a pain in the butt. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way around it and it's just something we have to live with. The end result for Infobox2 definitely looks much better than Infobox1, so it's worth it in the long run. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I found it a little bit of extra work, but after a bit I switched to a format that makes it easy to copy lines up or down, then it is simply a matter of copy-paste and whizz through changing the 1 to 2, 3, 4 etc.. eg:
| years1 = |caps1 = |goals1 = |clubs1 = | years2 = |caps2 = |goals2 = |clubs2 = -
-
-
- One or two users don't seem to like it and re-format to single line per parameter, but once I've filled it out I don't care that much if that's how people like to spend their time. I've seen a couple of other users use similar format but puts clubs second - I find that a bit harder to read because all club names are different lengths, and my way makes it easy to keep fields line up for easy reading. --ClubOranjeT 07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm...but still it is much of a problem when I find some source with clubs for the early career couse I have to change the numbers in all the sequence to include some club or clubs at the begining. That has been the main reason I was delaying the use of new infoboxes couse many times I´m completing the careers throuot some period of time, being the initial clubs the ones that are harder (but not impossible) to find. What happends if I do it in one line as the old one? FkpCascais (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- If you mean "do it in one line" as in "stick all the clubs in one field separated by line break tags", then you have the same problem that footybio2 was designed to eliminate: that the format of the box makes it impossible for screen readers to match clubs with years. I should point out that in the end we're going to get a bot to update all the existing articles to use the new format: if you feel more comfortable using the old format then go ahead and do so. An infobox which is temporarily inaccessible is better than no infobox at all, and it's best if our most productive editors are kept productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I personally have been using infobox2 and have no complaints. Each has their pros and cons. While I do agree the re-numbering is sometimes a pain, in the overall scheme of things I prefer 2 to 1, and that's why I use it. To each his own, however. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know and agree that it also looks nicer. Well, if somebody anytime remembers a way to make me easier my "early careers" inclusion, let me know. I thank you all very much for your opinions. Regards for all! :) FkpCascais (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you are getting at, every time you have to add missing clubs to a players early career you have to manually change lots of numbers instead of just adding a few <br>s. It's annoying, but it wouldn't be such a problem if people took the time to properly research a players career before creating an article and misleading career chronology.
- But theres little hope of making people do things properly when editors like Mario1987 and his sockpuppets were allowed to get away with creating misleading and inaccurate junk for years before he was recently indefblocked for his sockpuppet abuse and copyvios. King of the North East 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Jody Tolan Is this player - Jody tolan - notable or not? Plays for Coleraine F.C. in the IFA Premiership. The article (which of course if he is notable needs moving to Jody Tolan and a lot of work done on it) states he is semi-pro.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - Hmm, the Irish leagues are controversial. This player appears to have won a League title and played in a Cup final, so I'd say he was notable. I'll give the article a wee tidy up to make it look presentable. GiantSnowman 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you!--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Added an infobox and some very brief career info - it may not be much, but at least it looks like an article now! GiantSnowman 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, it does indeed. Impressively quick work! :) --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't the IFA Premiership get enough RS coverage that we can just declare it notable by default? I'd very much like for us to go by the spirit of the rule rather than constantly poring over contracts (which is quite literally wikilawyering). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I've suggested multiple times before that we allow the modern Irish leagues to become "fully-pro" with regards to WP:ATHLETE....GiantSnowman 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias might be a useful read. Do you also do the same for New Zealand National Soccer League as I see bucket loads of press on that... and the Victorian Premier League and the NSW Premier League, I see plenty of coverage of those. What about the Maltese Premier League, judging by previous arguments there is plenty of coverage of that in Malta. Then there is the Cypriot First Division, Veikkausliiga, Algerian Championnat National.... Do you just want to do the IFA Premiership or do you arbitrarily want to declare FAI Premier Division fully-pro too? I see bugger all coverage of either of those myself and all I see coming from this is another spate of 5-minute wonders who have not actually done anything notable. Lowering the notability bar just should not even be discussed until the notables are covered. And until then they should not rely on WP:ATHLETE, they should be proven to pass WP:GNG --ClubOranjeT 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't quite get this. You say at the start of that comment that you see "bucket loads of press" on some less notable leagues, and then at the end (after a list which may or may not be in decreasing order of notability) you say you see "bugger all coverage". Are both of those comments intended to refer to the same leagues? This certainly wasn't a request for a general lowering of our NGs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Do you just want to do the IFA Premiership or do you arbitrarily want to declare FAI Premier Division fully-pro too? I see bugger all coverage of either of those myself" - seems clear enough to me that the "bugger all" comment refers to the Irish leagues specifically...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- "The Irish leagues" could easily differ in notability though. For instance, the BBC gives only cursory coverage of the FIA, but does quite well with the IFA these days (presumably because it is, after all, a British league). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Who says those leagues are less notable? That sounds very much like someone's point of view dependant on where one lives. ABC doesn't seem to think so, they give considerable more coverage to the NSW Premier League and almost never mention FAI or IFA. TVNZ doesn't think so, they give considerably more coverage to the NZFC and almost never mention FAI or IFA. This is not the the free British encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That is why arbitrarily claiming players from those leagues notable by default and not players from all the other top level leagues in other countries is Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone making articles on these players, but someone needs to do the legwork and prove the notability, not just pump out articles on nobodies because they played a game in this league. As for Jody Tolan specifically - if that is all he has I don't see his claim to fame. No more notable than any player who has won both the Chatham Cup and the New Zealand Football Championship in my opinion. --ClubOranjeT 11:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, I fully agree: however, you can't exactly counter our systematic bias towards British subjects in the football domain by telling all the Brits that they have to edit articles on Kiwis. :) The Beeb happens to be far and away the most commonly-used RS in British football articles, so if it's devoting significant coverage to a given league then that does noticeably raise its profile. As I say, we can only cover what we know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't suggesting you do articles on Kiwis, - besides, they've been done. (-; Just highlighting the pitfalls of claiming presumption of notability outside the definition ATHLETE. --ClubOranjeT 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- As a slight sidenote, congrats on the Kiwi article, really well done! :D GiantSnowman 01:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The mantra is of course descriptive not prescriptive. ATHLETE does not in principle say "thou shalt not have articles outwith the criteria given within" - it says that it can safely be assumed that subjects which fit the given criteria are notable because consensus is that everything within said criteria is always covered sufficiently by multiple reliable sources. The trick is to think of ATHLETE as "everything within is notable" rather than "everyone outside isn't". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] From youth squad Currently working on List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10 and wonderd if players that raised from the youth squad and are given a contract with the senior team are counted as a signing of the club and should be added to the list? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - I would say no...GiantSnowman 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New style for the World Cup "Summaries of previous tournaments" I proposed this a few weeks ago at the World Cup talk page, but there was not that much discussion, perhaps there are more people here. The basic idea was to use the same format used by the Featured List List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners, it would look like this.
- Key
- Summaries of previous tournaments
- Notes
- ^ There was no official World Cup Third Place match in 1930; The United States and Yugoslavia lost in the semi-finals. FIFA now recognizes the United States as the third-placed team and Yugoslavia as the fourth-placed team, using the overall records of the teams in the tournament.[1]
- ^ There was no official World Cup final match in 1950.[2] The tournament winner was decided by a final round-robin group contested by four teams (Uruguay, Brazil, Sweden, and Spain). However, Uruguay's 2–1 victory over Brazil was the decisive match (and also coincidentally one of the last two matches of the tournament) which put them ahead on points and ensured that they finished top of the group as world champions. Therefore, this match is often considered the "final" of the 1950 World Cup.[3] Likewise, Sweden's 3–1 victory over Spain (played at the same time as Uruguay vs Brazil) ensured that they finished third.
- ^ Brazil won 3–2 in a penalty shootout
- ^ Italy won 5–3 in a penalty shootout
- ^ 1930 FIFA World Cup, FIFA.com. Retrieved on 5 March 2009.
- ^ 1950 FIFA World Cup, FIFA.com. Retrieved on 5 March 2009.
- ^ FIFA World Cup Finals since 1930 (PDF), FIFA.com. Retrieved on 5 March 2009.
So would this be a good replacement? probably following style guidelines a bit better than the current one. chandler 06:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - Rather than expecting us all to go and review the style guides, please clarify what elements of them are better met by this?
- Why is the readers' attention to be drawn to those matches that were settled on penalties or after extra time by having them in colour? They are no more important than other finals/play offs. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- As said, it's based on the Featured list, so I presume it follows the guidelines that exist for lists... different colour probably not because they're more important but because they're special cases. chandler 07:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with User:Kevin McE. The notation is enough, colour just emphasizes that which needn't be emphasized.--ClubOranjeT 09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW I think this is a huge improvement over the current table: clean and informative without statistical overload. That said, rather than using a key, could unusual conclusions just be explained inline? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer this to the existing table: neater and shorter, with no loss of info. An alternative was proposed in the referenced earlier discussion, in which the scores for the third place play off were omitted, and notes were integrated into the columns, rather than having a column of its own: such potential variants might be something that people want to bear in mind in comments here. Is it our intention that whatever table we agree on here become the project's preferred format for all such tables: there are similar ones on articles for continental championships etc. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do we have any regulars who use lower screen resolutions? That might help swing the argument on whether to include the third place score or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't make a difference for me. Neither "work" as they should in 800x600, both work in 1024x768. And I say removing the third place match and people won't get the overview to see how the third and forth places are decided, nor that at 2 World Cups decided in different ways from the other chandler 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was led to believe that this was presented as a summary, not as an almanac. It is arguable that any number of ways could be used to differentiate between third and fourth place over the various tournaments which this style is supposed to cover. It could also be argued that as this is just a proposed layout and not actually some template with a rigid format that it can be easily tweaked on a per-article basis if specific detail is required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a newly created article on the manager of Hednesford Town. He doesn't seem to have ever played professionally in this country but spells with clubs abroad are also listed on the article and on his profile on the club website - can anyone tell if he's ever played in a fully pro league......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - This news report seems to confirm he never actually made an appearance for the Tampa Bay Rowdies. Bettia (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- That infobox is a load of rubbish - his official profile only says he played for Arsenal (as youth), Crystal Palace, Brentford, and Tamba Bay Rowdies, before moving into non-league - nothing about the other League clubs he apparently played for, or his spellin Holland. The guy fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG! GiantSnowman 11:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, so I've gone ahead and PRODed it. Bettia (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
According to www.allfootballers.com, he made one substitute in the League Cup for Brentford in 1991–92. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - Do we have a free source to confirm that? It seems you have to pay a fiver to view that info :( All I can find on this subject is a forum discussion saying he played against Barnet, which may well be correct but wouldn't cut as far as verifiability goes. Bettia (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Someone with a copy of the appropriate Rothmans would be able to confirm it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Rothmans he was a used sub First round second leg against Barnet. Also born 1-11-1971 in York. (Same source) He never played for RKC--Cattivi (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC) -
- The career in the infobox from Hereford down to RKC is an exact duplicate of the career of Phil Starbuck who managed Hednesford in the past --Cattivi (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers for that Cattivi, could you give the page number in Rothmans so that it can be cited? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Page 626--Cattivi (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
or alternative spelling... Was just getting round to adding some references to it, and noticed the different spellings, both in the article and in the real world. Ages ago, the page was moved to McCaffery, and then back to the current McCaffrey, with the edit summary "spelling was right after all". However, although -rey is the more frequent spelling and the one used by Neil Brown (the only source currently in the article), there are several decent reliable sources, including Soccerbase, Carlisle United website list of managers, and the 1990-91 Rothmans yearbook, which have -ery. Anybody got any opinions as to whether the spelling was right after all? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - Following up on that, contemporary reports from The Times over several years, some now cited in the article, consistently use the -ery spelling, so I've copied a version of this thread to the talk page, and intend to move the article to what seems to be the correct spelling, unless there are any sound objections. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Are physios likely to be notable? if so, why? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - It depends, as usual, on whether they've had significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Being the head physio for the England squad for
nearly over ten years sounds like something which might have been picked up on, but that would require research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - I've linked to a couple of articles about him on the talk page, one of which refers to him as "legendary" and confirms that he was physio for England. (It's not clear to me whether this is enough to make him notable.) Stevvers (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I've updated the article using the sources you and another editor put on the talk page, and removed the proposed deletion. I don't know if there are enough sources to make him notable, there certainly aren't enough yet actually in the article, but don't think a prod is appropriate now. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Club navigational boxes Have we agreed on a standard format for these? Some clubs list everything in various corresponding Group/List pairs, but others greatly utilize the Above and/or Below fields to link to articles and/or sections in the club's main article. Some articles use club colors on the Title bar while most others utilize colors on the Groups as well. Some utilize an outline around the Title bar. There are other variances as well. Do we even want to bother with building a consensus? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't think it's practical to come up with hard rules. Our coverage of different clubs varies enormously in depth, and what works for one won't work for others. The simple advice to stick to the layout suggested by {{navbox}} (i.e. stick to horizontal rows and use key-value if it's practical) should see us fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thierry Henry Looks like his page is experiencing some vandalism, which I can understand following yesterday's match against Republic of Ireland. Can someone have a look at it, I'm fairly lost in the history and barely understand some words used by vandals. Cheers everyone.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - It's been fully protected now at what looks to me like a clean version. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether I'm just doing a poor job of searching for it, but I can't find an article discussing the use of video evidence for making decisions in football. There is an article called Instant replay that has discussion of its use in other sports, but surely there's been sufficient debate about this in football to warrant an article? I don't really have the time to write one properly myself right now; hopefully someone else will step up. (There should be plenty of material available, given this: Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off).) Stevvers (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - There is this little snippet: Hawk-Eye#Further developments chandler 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I'd forgotten about goal-line technology; maybe the article title needs to be a bit broader. (Perhaps Use of technology by officials in football, if that's not too wordy.) Stevvers (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I think one of the key reasons that we don't have much coverage of it is that the esteemed Mr Blatter has rather opposed its introduction. It's difficult to discuss things which don't exist or which are rarely deployed. As you say, with last night's shenanigans it may lead to changes in that regard, but we are followers and not leaders by definition: we need other reliable sources upon which to base our coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are enough sources for an article about the subject. It seems some manager or player is demanding the use of technology every week these days and I'm sure I saw a piece on a company designing goal-line technology for football, although I cannot remember where (football focus maybe?). If it is widely demanded by people at (or near) the top of football and discussed by various journalists and regularly ruled out my Mr Blatter it should be easy to find enough sources. It would be important to ensure the article avoids speculation about exactly how the rules should be changed. King of the North East 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article restore As per the request at the bottom of this old AfD, can the Edward Herrera article be restored. Source. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 21:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Minor milestone Per stated goal (write#4) of WikiProject Football, every New Zealand full international capped player (official matches), both men and women, now has an article. Next step, (improve#1) improving them... --ClubOranjeT [edit] Nobility standards for football matches Seeing as there's some support for having a separate article on something like the France - Ireland match... And before that we had a long AfD about Chelsea - Barcelona earlier this year. Is it important to get a nobility standard for matches as well (I currently couldn't find one)... because every football game now a days get coverage from multiple reliable sources. Every game with a controversial decision gets double. Every game with a controversial goal gets triple. And I think in most cases (I include France-Ireland here) the controversies have natural places they can be merged to, for example 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round or Liverpool F.C. season 2009–10 (for the beachball game) chandler 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - I think it's important to make clear that these matches would not normally be considered notable, regardless of AfD outcomes. As far as I'm aware, there already is consensus on that. But no amount of consensus here is ever going to override subjects considered to pass the WP:GNG. You can't legislate for every blade of grass. WFCforLife (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think to mention them on the respective articles i.e. ireland international football and france, then that would be all that should be needed, to have separate articles on every controversial decision then it would become farcical.(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
[edit] 2009 football betting scandal Anyone fancy starting an article named 2009 football betting scandal? Sources should be available in more than sufficient numbers (e.g. Der Spiegel, just for a start) in both English and other languages (especially from the German-speaking countries, Belgium and Turkey). Even UEFA itself speaks about the "biggest fraud scandal there has ever been in European football"[1], which is no wonder considering that there are 200+ matches from 9 countries and over 300 suspects involved. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - I wasn't going to, but when I saw that UEFA themselves are describing this as "the biggest betting scandal ever to hit the sport in Europe", I went ahead. Slightly tweaked your suggested name though. WFCforLife (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. As usual, we have now two articles, as another user started 2009 European soccer scandal. Time for a copy&merge... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Phil Babb vandalism Can an admin semi-protect the Phil Babb article please; IPs from a forum have decided to start a rumour about him and vandalise the article accordingly. I have filed a request at WP:RPP but there looks to be a delay or backlog or something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Looks like you've been beaten to it by an ANI admin - tut tut ;) GiantSnowman 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tyrone Berry number at York City F.C. Could someone keep an eye on York City F.C., as a number of IPs insist on adding a squad number for Tyrone Berry without a WP:RS? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Player naming in club article squad lists The Birmingham player Christian Benítez wears the name Chucho on his shirt, though the media refer to him more often as Benitez than Chucho. How do people think he should appear in the squad list section on Birmingham City F.C.#Players? as Christian Benítez, Chucho, or what? From the WP reader's viewpoint, would a combination such as Christian Benítez (Chucho) be better: if someone looks at the squad list and is wondering about this Chucho that they saw on television yesterday, listing him as Benitez isn't desperately helpful, and vice versa, if someone read about Benitez in a match report, it's not overly helpful if no such name appears in the list. Views? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - Putting the "Chucho" in brackets would appear to be the most appropriate option, although then would the same need to be done for the likes of Pele and Eusebio? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not really comparable, they're only ever referred to as Pele and Eusebio. Chucho/Benitez is more often referred to as Benitez. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Another question, why is he at "Christian Benítez"? FIFA lists him as Cristian and I thought every player in a World Cup squad had to show the correct name information from a passport? chandler 11:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Ecuador FF, on the other hand, list him as Christian with an h. And passport name isn't necessarily the same as common name: in prose, FIFA refer to him as Christian with an h. The page was once at Cristian, but was moved some time ago (long before he came to play in England) with edit summary "real name" to Christian. Both spellings are in common use in Spanish-language sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- FIFA isn't the Gospel truth; they referred to Andy Aitken as Aitkew, for example. GiantSnowman 18:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I guess as the Ecuadorian in the bunch, I should input my opinion. I say keep it has Christian Benitez. In Ecuador, we refer to him as Chucho Benitez, but that is mainly because we tend to insert nicknames to pretty much all our players. But for all practical purposes, we don't include the nicknames in squad lists (for example, you will never see a squad list that says Pato Urrutia or Sombra Espinoza).
- To take a similar situation, Juan Román Riquelme has "Román" on his Boca Juniors jersey, but he isn't listed as Román in the squad list. Digirami (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Admin please ... could you reinstate the deleted page Jonathan Hogg, player made his Football League debut yesterday. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - Done. Rettetast (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Could one of our CONCACAF members please check this article stub and, if necessary, do the appropriate actions (correct erroneus information / Speedy per A3 / ProD per WP:CRYSTAL / expand article)? Thanks in advance, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Probably just abit early and jumped the gun. Judging from this it looks right. Transaction Go (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - The big problem with Gold Cup articles is a total lack of consistency about whether it and the previous CONCACAF Championship (which no longer has a separate article) share continuity, or whether they are merely different events that have served the same purpose at different times. Even that one sentence stub is controversial: is it the 11th championship called the Gold Cup, or is it the 21st tournament to determine the Champion of CONCACAF? Kevin McE (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Last I checked, the Gold Cup is a different event that serves the same purpose. According to CONCACAF and FIFA, Mexico has 5 Gold Cup titles (which are the 5 earned in the Gold Cup era). So the one sentence in the article so far is correct. Additionally, you can say "The 2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup will be the 11th CONCACAF Gold Cup and the 21st tournament to determine the champion of CONCACAF" and it'll be correct.
- Furhtermore, I would move to seperate the CONCACAF Championship stats from the Gold Cup seeing as it is considered two different tournaments. Digirami (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mentioning flagicons and leagues in US Open Cup articles Is there any reason for having flagicons for the states the teams come from, or the leagues they play in, in the articles for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, such as for 2009? Digirami (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - As someone who hates these flagicons with a vengeance, my response is "No - there is no valid reason". Articles like the 2009 one should come with a free pair of sunglasses and a packet of paracetamol to deal with the headache caused by the over-use of coloured symbols. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The creation of this template has been kinda-but-not-really discussed before, so before I started putting it into articles all over WP, I wanted to get some feedback about it first. I figured that I could redirect Template:2009 MLS season by team to this template because everything in the MLS template is included in this one. Thoughts, recommendations, etc would be greatly appreciated. If you see an error then feel free to fix it yourself. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - I would shorten the headers of the team season rows to their common abbreviations, e.g. MLS, USL... etc. Otherwise a fine template. On a curious note, are all articles listed in their respective season article categories as well? Just askin'... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Most American leagues have their own sorts because they're not in a league structure like what most nations have. Whether or not everything is sorted properly is beyond my knowledge at the moment. MLS article-sorting is fairly well developed, but the rest of the leagues, however... :^\ Feel free to help with that. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Adam Smith dab There are two Adam Smith's born in 1985, who have been disambiguated by position (forward & defender). Is general consensus to add month and year of birth to the title as per the Paul Robinson discussion earlier in November? Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
