Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

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)

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)

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)

2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup

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-holic^{I 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)

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)

Passport names are of little value when our principle is wp:commonname. Alexander Ferguson, Leslie Hughes, Stephen Bruce and Henry Redknapp are known by different names as Premier League managers than as passport holders. It would be good to be able to trust FIFA as a reliable source, but experience tells us (despite its status as a Reliable Source), that it can't be. So I would tend to take his club site (despite its failure to accent the i in his surname) as trustworthy in this case: it ought to be within his scope to get a change made there if it were obviously wrong. On which basis, the h is in.Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 in American soccer

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-holic^{I 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)

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)

I was originally going to say that I didn't see a problem with the titles, but the Adam Smith born in 1991 is a defender. I'd therefore agree that month and years are the way to go, but they should be (footballer born February 1985) and (footballer born September 1985). WFCforLife (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

John Maconnachie

Can someone with the appropiate resources please add some details about John Maconnachie's playing career in Scotland (it's looking a bit Anglo-centric at the moment) and his management career please. Many thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "Ebgland-centric"?  ;) --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about *whistles nonchalantly* GiantSnowman 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aidan White (footballer)

Could someone keep an eye on Aidan White (footballer) as 138.37.248.134 (talk · contribs) insists on removing the new infobox and replacing it with the old one. He now appears to have resorted to churlish personal attacks. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

North American Soccer League

We have yet another new soccer league here in the USA & Canada. Unfortunately, following precedent, they've chosen a league name that has been used before. We now have a situation where the old NASL has been moved to North American Soccer League (1968–1984), and everything that linked to the league of Pelé now links to this new league. I was going to shuffle everything around myself – making this section's title into a disambiguation page – but I'm not sure about what the new league's article should be titled. It had been at North American Soccer League (2010), but someone already moved it away from there. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was me, and if it was still physically possible, I'd move everything back where it was. The new NASL is still an idea, and by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it shouldn't be usurping the page title of a major sports league of 20 years duration. Put a hatnote on NASL directing to the (2010) one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the 70s league should be located at North American Soccer League, and the new league (if it even goes ahead!) at North American Soccer League (2010) or North American Soccer League (current). GiantSnowman 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So should North American Soccer League be a disambiguation page or an article about the original league? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it should be about the original league; if people kick up a fuss, I'd be willing to have it as a disambiguation. However, there is no way that the new league should be there! GiantSnowman 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We should be having this discussion if the league actually happens; but at the moment it's still only a proposal, and perhaps nothing more than a bargaining chip between a few teams and USL-1. For now, let's just put it back, the way it was; I'd merge the NASL(2010) content onto the USL-1 page until such time as we know if there really is going to be 2 leagues. Nfitz (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would feel like it would be presentism even if it does happen. It would take a few very odd occurrences for the new NASL to be as significant as the old one. matt91486 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you decide to do, please get an admin to do it tidily. We don't want to risk losing the edit history of the various pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isabelino Gradín

I have recently been updating Isabelino Gradín and have noticed that there was a book published in Uruguay about his life. Just wondering if anyone happened to have access to it? Hack (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential petty edit war.

Last week, Ecuadorian club LDU Quito beat River Plate de Montevideo 7–0 in the semifinals of the 2009 Copa Sudamericana. It is the worst defeat of an Uruguayan club in the history of continental club football. For that reason, it was originally added by someone to River's historic match section. Disgruntled River fan's have removed it (for shame I suppose). I contend that it should stay because it is a historic match for River (albeit an infamous one). This has annoyed some River fans who edit that page. User:VH1982 has gone as a rant on my talk page claiming that losses should not, and are not, ever mentioned as historic match... in addition to insulting me claiming I'm Ecuadorian indian because of my "sensible reasoning" (He is obviously insinuating that Ecuadorians don't make any sense. Additonally, he seems to think I am one. No disrespect to Ecuadorian indians, but I'm white with an awesome tan thanks to the Miami sun). Then an IP user, User:164.73.129.73, goes to LDU Quito's page and announces that so long as I keep adding that loss to River's historic match section, he will vandalize LDU Quito's page (the user's comment here in Spanish).

Can someone help me with a solution before this gets out of hand? Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first step should be to participate in discussion on the article's talk page - the IP seems to have tried to open a debate, which is the right route. Also, you appear to have hit your third revert - I'd stop now or you could well be blocked under the WP:3RR (and avoiding violating the rule by a mere 8 minutes isn't going to put off an admin who likes enforcing those edit warring policies). – Toon 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was opened today a few minutes ago, days after other users reverted the edits and began posting on my talkpage. You seem too concerned about my edits, where the other person has gone and vandalized LDU Quito's page repeatedly, my userpage, and taunted me on my talk page. Digirami (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be what you want to hear, but you also took the wrong option by simply repeatedly reverting his edits. If you want the user blocked rather than help resolving this situation, AIV is that way - but the edits to the River Plate de Montevideo are part of a dispute, not vandalism. I don't care about apportioning blame, and I don't care who is right or wrong in including the information or not. I never mentioned the actions of the IP because they were irrelevant to course of action that should be taken by both sides. He edit warred, you edit warred - both of you need to discuss it on the talk page (which should have happened after the first revert), and if either party continues edit warring, they'll likely be blocked. – Toon 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The "historic matches" section on the River Plate article suffers somewhat from "recentism", with nothing older than July 2008. Surely there must have been something of interest in the previous 75 years. Of course defeats should be included - see, for example, the Southampton article at the Club records section. Three 8–0 defeats might have hurt at the time, but are now part of the club's history. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I made a comment on the River Plate talk page. "Historic" does not mean "wins only." The fact that River Plate fans have been vandalising, making ownership claims, and even taunting, etc. is rather disheartening. I'll keep an eye on things. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: User:VH1982‎ continues to remove the information from the article. I asked him to comment on the article's talk page, but instead he just removed the information again. I notified him of the 3RR on his talk page. I'm not going to add the info in again, since there's no point in me getting dragged into a senseless edit war. Thoughts? Cocytus [»talk«] 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted again since your warning, instead he has continued the discussion on the talk page. Progress. – Toon 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's a group of editors/IPs that continue to disrupt, I'd take it to WP:ANI personally. GiantSnowman 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears it has been resolved, thankfully. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical matches sections seem as devoid of evident inclusion/exclusion criteria as Famous players sections, and so are equally open to OR/POV. If no formal grounds can be be agreed, then let it be dealt with appropriately and proportionately in prose, but no need for a separate table. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DanCarney got rid of it for this reason, and I agree that this was a good call. Knepflerle (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

László Kubala

Hi footie fans, can some-one please take a look at László Kubala. The stats in the info box are wildy different from some of the in-text stats provided in the article, i'd edit them, but there would be a very real risk of me replacing the correct (or incorrect) stats with more incorrect stats. Cheers Darigan (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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... --ClubOranje^T 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

National football team player's clubs

There was a prior discussion here that made note that in national football team articles there was no mention of a nation next to the flags of clubs. A clear example of what was being mentioned can be found in the Scotland_national_football_team#Current_squad article and the respective players section. Nonetheless, I have attempted to "fix" what might be a point of controversy by adding the "Flag Athlete Template" to the clubs in the Peru_national_football_team#Players article and section. It seems to me that this, up to a certain point, "solves" the situation by adding the country's name abbreviation right next to the club in question. However, my questions are:

• What do the rest of you think about this?
• In case you do like the idea, since football clubs are "Athletic institutions," could it be plausible to say that the "Flag Athlete Template" could work for football clubs?
• In case that's not right, is there some template that has already been created or that could be created in order to specifically use the matter for clubs?

Even if you don't agree with this proposal, I really think that something should be done in order to fix this club and random flag thing in the national football team articles. If anybody wishes to propose an even better idea, feel free to do so.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the reason there's exceptions for sport people (and teams?) that {{flagicon}} uses alt text and links to the country? (so It won't be missed by screen readers etc) chandler 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty strange to use an unlinked flag, and then the three letter description. I'd go for either {{flagicon}} (although I'm not sure if strictly speaking that meets the guidelines), or Alianza Lima (Peru), which does meet them. WFCforLife (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Having an unlinked flag, at least from what I understood based on prior discussions, is not a problem as long as the country's name appears in obvious relation to it (Such as in the second example you provided). This is one of MoS flag issues popped up in the old discussion (which is in the archives now): [[1]]; When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size. WFCforLife, your second example ( Alianza Lima (Peru)) essentially fulfills the same purpose as the "Flag Athlete" dealie (Flag - Club or Athlete name - Nation); and thus that would work with the MoS thing regarding the flag and country name. Nonetheless, why can't the "Flag Athlete" template simply be used? It seems easier and simpler to use.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Full names are better than the three letter abbreviations because they are completely unambiguous and understood by everyone who can read the encyclopaedia. Why leave any doubt to the casual reader as to whether MAR means Morocco (as it does to the IOC), Martinique, Mauritania or Mauritius, when writing the name removes all doubt?

I'd rather see the flag have the link and alt-text, and we could alter one of the templates to output the country name in brackets automatically easily enough (i.e. giving Club Name, Flag-with-alt-text (Country)), but there is a more fundamental question - do we really need the flag at all? We gain next-to-nothing over having Club Name (Country). Knepflerle (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't think the flag is actually needed, but it is more of a trend most of the football articles have (including FA-class articles). So, attempting to "fight the system" in this case could possibly be highly tedious and very long, and there's a 50/50 chance one might win or lose the argument. Therefore, is it really worth it to fight it? On the other hand, having both the flag and the country name is a much simpler compromise. On that note, I added the full name of the countries; apparently the "Flag Athlete Template" can include full names. Which once again raises one of my original questions: Is it OK to use it for clubs?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Video evidence in football (soccer)

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)

Thanks to Jnestorius for adding something on this subject to Instant replay. Stevvers (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Mirren's club records error

St. Mirren F.C.#Club records claims that David McCrae is the club record goalscorer - scoring 221 League goals between 1923 and 1924...it is obviously a typo, but does someone know the correct detail? Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.stmirren.info/id45.html cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Played for them until 1934 per RSSSF, [2] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Super. One ref shows he scored 221, one shows he scored 222. Only fitting I guess that St. Mirren F.C.#Club records and David McCrae show different things too.--ClubOranje^T 23:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers guys! GiantSnowman 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat Molloy

Pat Molloy managed Galatasaray and the Turkish national side in the late 1940s and early 1950s. A 'Peter Molley' managed Fenerbahce in the same period; any sources to show that these people are one and the same, as I suspect? GiantSnowman 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This [3] would probably help you.Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great, cheers, I'm willing to say that they are the same person now. Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The best way is probably to find his full name and his complete career. He may have played in the Football League, no? But, yes they could only but be one person. --Latouffedisco (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He played for Bristol Rovers in 1933-34, making six appearanaces in the Football Leaague - but that's all I can find about his playing career. Any help guys? GiantSnowman 19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the same person? 91.106.123.39 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - I would have thought that if they were the same player, there would have been talk about the Irish player playing in England or the English player playing in Ireland - but there's nothing. GiantSnowman 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There's zero proof on the Pat Molloy page that he's English either though. A quick google search on "Pat Molloy" or "Peter Molloy" seems to suggest that the Turkish manager was referred to Peter Molloy not Pat. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RSSSF confirms the Molloy who managed the Turkish national side was English. It seems likely Pat Molloy's real name was Peter; but I am still confident that we are discussing two different players.

Having a quicksearch (I don't have registration) at http://www.allfootballers.com/ there is one Peter Molloy who played in the football league from 1930 to 1945. Pat should be a nickname. Anyone would confirm this?--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription, but the free bit of the website confirms that a Peter Molloy did play for Bristol Rovers in 1933, just like Pat Molloy did...GiantSnowman 14:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

They are the same bloke. Joyce's book confirms a Peter (Paddy) Molloy b.20.4.1909 in Athlone, d.1993, playing for Bristol Rovers and a string of other clubs from 1930 through to Notts County after the war, including Bohemians during the war. Ireland was part of the UK when he was born, so he was both British and Irish. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Neil Brown confirms Paddy Molloy made one League app in 47-48, having previously played for Bradford City (!) and Kettering Town. GiantSnowman 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for all your research guys. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the Pat Molloy page to Paddy Molloy and turn Peter Molloy into a redirect...any opposition? GiantSnowman 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

According to allfootballers.com there were 2 players called Peter (Paddy) Molloy: an Irish one born ca. 1921 in Athlone who played for several clubs in Ireland (like Bohemians) and Notts county and an English one born 20-4-09 in Rossendale (last clubs in England Bradford, Accrington 1944-45, Kettering) . In old editions of Hugman the were thought to be the same player.According to the latest edition they are different players Cattivi (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cattivi and all of us. I also found this [4] where he is noted as Northern Irish! And born 20-4-08 (should be 20-4-09?) in Rossendale.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1908 could be a typing error I can only find 1909 in my books (and 1911 in old sources, footballers often lied about their age in the past), He died in St Albans 16-2-1993 During WW 2 he played for Bradford City (last match in 1943)Cattivi (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about a typing error in that page.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So there are two players called Peter Molloy after all?! Jeez, looks like I've opened up Pandora's box here! I'll create new two articles later tonight on Peter Molloy (footballer born 1909) and Peter Molloy (footballer born 1921), and hopefully attribute the right clubs to each person, I'm pretty sure who played for who now...GiantSnowman 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, with a dab created at Peter Molloy, and with 'Pat' and 'Paddy' redirecting there seeing as both players seemed to be nicknamed that. Hopefully I've got the careers spot on! GiantSnowman 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I like it when someone open some Pandora's boxes. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nelson F.C. seasons/archive1

Hi guys, would anyone mind having a look at this FL nomination? There's been a few comments, but they've all been resolved now (even though some haven't yet been marked as such) so we'll be looking for some votes on this soon... Thanks, -- BigDom 08:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

National teams' wins

Hi! I think that we should reach a compromise about the tables and the templates of the international tournaments winning teams such as FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro etc, regarding the presentation of the former countries and the modern states that emerged. There is a dispute for example about the Template:UEFA Euro winners. Please, have a look at the latter and let's decide what the general and common policy would be. - Sthenel (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Russian Premier League#Statistics

Opinions on the content, please... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my word! The attention to detail is great but it's a case of WP:NOTSTATS surely? GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well, just wanted to reassure. The stuff will be gone within the next hour, if no one opposes. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

Since several Wikipedia-Books are football related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WikiProject Football people can oversee books like York City F.C. much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. However, while we're on the subject, has anyone noticed Wikipedia:Books/The premier league 08-09? Candidate for deletion, I'd say! – PeeJay 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think turning the book into "The Premier League" (and cover all years, perhaps divided into in two sections "current clubs" and "former clubs") would be the better option. But I don't know what The Premier Leage even is so here's a good example of where WP Football's clue > WP Wikipedia-Books' clue :P. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. From a quick look, there are 5 books (I've tagged them, see Category:Book-Class football articles) related to football. Obviously it wouldn't be too hard to create others (or expand these books). An easy way to create books are to use the book creator ("Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left) and add all the pages in a category like Category:Manchester United F.C. (click "add this category to book"), and order them in a sane way. [And of course check for ommision, or irrelevant stuff]. Anyway, if you have questions, just ask me. Have fun. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule

This article seems unneccessary, but I like the chronological overview of everything. Perhaps it should be categorized as subsequently re-titled as a list-class article? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry FAR

I have nominated Thierry Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox captions

Wonder if anyone might want to express an opinion at Talk:Jack Wilshere#Caption on a disagreement as to whether infobox image captions including information such as the date the image was taken, or who the player was playing for when the image was taken, are helpful. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Swedish football champions FLRC

I have nominated List of Swedish football champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Russell Green

Hi, can an admin please intervene at Russell Green, I am perilously close to passing 3RR; basically I have removed unreferenced info & POV from this article that an IP and a user called Stuvigreen (possible COI? possibly the same editor?) keep on adding back, despite my directions to WP:POV and WP:V. Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have always thought those state flags were needless decoration, but I don't think it will be easy to gain concensus to remove them. Jogurney (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The flags that is removed violated WP:MOSFLAG. Rettetast (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the amateur era they served a purpose because the players on each team were actually from the indicated state. For example, a team from near my home, the Harmarville Hurricanes S.C. won the Cup twice in the 1950s, and everyone on those teams was from Harmarville and worked together at a local steel mill; they were representative of Pennsylvania during that era. I also think that they have no place on articles since professional or semiprofessional teams began playing in it, which I believe began happening in 1995. I like the flags, but I also realize that they are unnecessary and violate MOSFLAG, and I would agree to removing them, especially so since the beginning of the professional era. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I had removed flag icons that identify team locations from several articles such as USL First Division, but some (not all) of them (e.g. USL Premier Development League) were reverted with an explanation that these flags are not superfluous; PDL is a muti-regional league with a defined geographic specificity; the flags indicate the states of each team and provide important info on each division's makeup. Additional opinions would be helpful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the deletions in the PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL pages. This was my more detailed rationale: "Hi, thanks for your message. I completely understand why you think removing these flags is a useful thing, and having read the guideline I agree that on the single-division leagues (USL1, USL2 etc), the flags serve no purpose as the leagues are nation-wide and the state of each team is immaterial. However, the PDL, NPSL, WPSL and W-League are different; the states in which each team is located is very important because each division within the league covers a specific geographical area. Having the flags and names indicating the states in which teams are located gives readers an at-a-glance overview of the makeup of each division, and provides a geographical context that allows the span of the league to be quickly conveyed without going into detailed prose that could otherwise confuse readers. I know you may think it is "just for decoration", but it's really not; it's valuable information which followers of the league need to know." --JonBroxton (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I should also point out that on those four articles mentioned above the flags are not used alone; each of them is listed alongside the name of the state in text form, and as such will not confuse readers in any way about the meaning of the flag or what it represents. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I lean towards removing them also. I remember looking at them sometime ago and wondering why the city flags weren't used. That kind of shows in my mind that it is not necessary and is distracting from the primary content.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not every city has a flag. And, besides, in 90% of the teams the city appears in the team's name. The state in which the city is located - which is important for readers to know as it illustrates the geograpbical makeup of the divisions - is not always apparent, and is therefore shown by the state flag and it's standard 2-letter abbreviation. I really don't understand why there's this witch-hunt on flags right now, especially with regard to articles such as these where the flags are conveying incredibly useful information. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised to find out that they don't actually (I haven't checked all of them) (All cities in the MLS do have flags. San Jose and Kansas City's Wikipedia pages need updating). Some city's just don't have famous flags (Chicago's is seen throughout the city while Seattle's isn't). The city flag would show the geography but then there would be confusion with teams like Colorado, New England, Chivas and teams who represent a city but play in the larger metro region out in the burbs. To much confusion so both choices bug me. Furthermore, geographical location is shown in their name, the article, and sometimes the conference template. It just isn't needed and for whatever the reason, there is not a universal acceptance of flags on Wikipedia. Why create a concern when it doesn't out weigh the benefits. Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We were'nt talking about MLS though. I actually agree with Andrwsc with regard to the MLS, USL1 and USL2 pages, because these are nationwide leagues where knowing the location of the state isn't important. For PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL, however, I am arguing that showing the *state* flag *is* important, because each division is aligned along geographical lines, and having an at-a-glance overview of the states in which these teams are located allows the geographical split/distribution of leagues to be conveyed quickly to readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a Western Conference and an Eastern Conference (is this 1800? The Mississippi hasn't been the dividing line for quite awhile now). There is a template mentioning it. The also are not flags aren't relevant for domestic or international competitions. They appear to be purely decorative me at least. The Sounders won the Open Cup (with a Washington flag in the article) so got a slot at the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League (with a US flag). The US flag is relevent since only x amount of teams from each country are allowed. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about the Mississippi, so I'll ignore that for the time being. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the flags are there to pretty up the article. They are NOT. On the PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL league pages they provide important geographical information about the location of teams which cannot be conveyed easily with a map or with prose. I agree - they are NOT really relevant on MLS, USL1 or USL2 pages, because these are leagues which play regular season games across conference boundaries so, in effect, they are nationwide leagues. The teams all play each other anyway, so the state in which they are located is immaterial. However, with one or two minor exceptions, PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL teams from different divisions do NOT play each other in regular season play, so having the flag/states showing provides readers with an easily-understandable shorthand which conveys the geographical split of divisions, and provides an at-a-glance overview of the league's makeup. It's important. I don't know how to make this any clearer. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am only taking about the top-level league pages here, not the results part of season articles or US Open Cup articles, which I agree don't need the flags. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Mississippi comment was in regards to Houston being in the "Western" Conference (not really related so don't worry about it). I did totally fail to mention the lower leagues, though. Teams from the MLS, USL-1m USL-2 make up a sizeable portion of the matches played. It seems weird to cause confusion when the state has no bearing on the understanding of the team or the leagues they play in.

And again with the MLS, I also wanted to mention that New England having MAs flag could cause confusion. It looks like someone changed it, by the way.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I'm confused. I'm talking about the US Open Cup article as a whole.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm talking about these pages: USL Premier Development League, National Premier Soccer League, W-League and Women's Premier Soccer League. What are you talking about? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was talking about the US Open Cup page. I wasn't even looking at those. Nevermind!Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat my reply to JonBroxton (on my talk page) here, and add to it: PDL teams do not represent the states/provinces they are located in, which is why they are inappropriate. Also, tiny decorative flag images (many of which are unfamiliar to most readers) will not convey the geographical context you claim. I would say that a much better solution would be something like File:MLS map team locations.png. That would be an extremely obvious way to indicate the geographical area covered by each division. I dispute that something like ON is "easily-understandable shorthand", or that it helps the reader understand the geography of the league (especially since Ontario-based teams appear in three different divisions). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the notion that the flag indicates the state they represent. The flag/statename combo indicates *geographical location*, not any kind of statement of ownership or official representation, and has never claimed otherwise. And, there is already a map like the one you mention at File:North America USL Premier League Map 2010.png, which shows the locations of the states in which teams are located on a natiowide scale. However, as the PDL has 68 teams, and the other leagues only have a few fewer, showing the specific location of each team in a way you suggest is impractical, and would make the map almost impossible to read. The only other solution would be to have a map for each division, which increases the workload of keeping them all up to date enormously, and would overrun the page with maps. Really, I don't know why you're on such a crusade with this. The pages under discussion are absolutely fine the way they are, present most pertinent information in way which is both easy to understand and easy to maintain. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption here that sub-national flags and abbreviations are widely recognised outside the country they refer to: I don't believe that this is the case. And similarly, 2009_Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup#Goal_scorers should use (if anything) flagathlete, not flagicon, and give the name of the scorers' clubs, not an arcane abbreviation of such. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a separate discussion for the city codes at 2009_Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup#Goal_scorers. I will start one right now.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"There seems to be an assumption here that sub-national flags and abbreviations are widely recognised outside the country they refer to: I don't believe that this is the case" - one simple click tells anyone unfamiliar with state flags and abbreviations all they need to know. As for your other point about the goalscorers part on the US Open Cup page; I wasn't responsible for that, so I don't really have an opinion either way. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But what advantage is there in adding logos and codes that will only lead non-US readers (and recognition of these flags will be very, very low outside the US) away from the article? Would it not be equally valid to say that if anyone really wishes to know what state a team is in that they can click on the link for that team? Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about now? The US Open Cup page, or the league pages? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that "one simple click" will help the reader is a false one; the English Wikipedia is not just this website, but paper content as well. I re-assert my statement that the average reader (regardless of medium) will not be able to make the geographic connection for the Great Lakes Division by seeing IL, OH, ON, IN etc. The best image to use to describe that division would be a map. For text, it is much better to display the full names for Illinois, Ohio, Ontario, Indiana, etc. The flag icons are totally superfluous in that context. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You honestly think that having ten tiny maps that will need at minimum annual updating provides a more user-friendly way of presenting information on soccer team locations? If we're taking 'paper content' into consideration as well as online content, having ten maps will be utterly useless as clicking on them to make them bigger will not be an option, and having them big enough to read when printed will make the online page look ridiculous. Just leave it as it is. There's nothing wrong with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As a life-long US resident, I certainly agree with Andrwsc about the lack of recognition of state flags. Few people know what their state's flag looks like unless it is one that unusually prominent or heavily used (e.g., Texas). To place the flag of Illinois in front of a team from Rockford, Illinois (along with IL) won't immediately conjure thoughts of Illinois for most US residents, let alone most Wikipedia users. Much better to use the full state name if the geographic information is truly importance (but I don't think it is). Jogurney (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kit details

Can someone explain to me why kits featured in infoboxes or in Template:Football kit should not be an accurate drawing of the actual kit? When I look at other sports (like my home town teams the Miami Dolphins, Miami Heat, Florida Marlins, Florida Panthers, and the Miami Hurricanes football), they have accurate drawings of their uniforms. So, why shouldn't any football team have accurate drawing of their kits?

I'm not saying that every team should have an accurate drawing of the kits, but if it is available, why not use it. Digirami (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues maybe? GiantSnowman 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus we'd have to change them every season to take into account the microscopic changes in trim/detail which kit manufacturers feel the need to introduce every year, along with changes of shirt sponsor. Take a look at Liverpool's kits - every one since 1995 is eseentially just all-red, but if we went with the "accurate drawing" approach, we'd have had to create a new image seven times to take into account the tiny changes in the white trim. AFAIK it's different with American teams in that they don't feel the need to roll out new uniforms every year or two with tiny changes from the previous year's...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The standard templates have the advantage of being transferable between articles, easier to maintain and over large sets of articles and are less susceptible to year-to-year changes (they go out of date less quickly). We don't have high-profile teams looking out of date every time a new competition-specific kit comes out or the sponsor changes, and we don't have to have editors looking up the sometimes hard-to-find details of lower league kit designs to stop them looking like poor cousins to the well-maintained higher-profile clubs' articles. Knepflerle (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Knepflerle. Although it irritates me that there is one rule for football, and another for popcorn sports. WFCforLife (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the ridiculous details that some editors add to the kits in the infoboxes really annoying. Additionally, the Template:Football kit/pattern list page is not updated when editors create new kits, naming their new file something along the lines of "chelseaaway0910" rather than a generic name. Some of the new kit images created are suitable for general use, and should be readily available for all editors to deploy. Not sure how to address this all, though. Dancarney (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, which "popcorn sports" are you referring to? I know from experience that football is far and away the sports whose infoboxes are best maintained, but I've done work on most other sports infoboxes and it's rare that they've got kits at all... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Club officials

Am I correct in thinking that all of the following are not needed to be listed in a club article;

• Manager:
• Assistant first team manager:
• Player/Coach:
• Reserve manager:
• Physiotherapist:
• Chairman:
• Vice Chairman:
• President:
• Directors:
• Commercial Team:
• Financial Manager:
• Company Secretary:
• Assistant Match Day Secretary:
• Reserve Fixture Secretary:
• Head of Football Development:
• Football In The Community Officer:
• Youth Development Officer:
• Club Doctor:
• Kit manager:
• Club Shop:
• Programme Editor:
• Website Editor:

I personally think everything below the "Directors" is complete overkill. Is there any previous consensus on what should be listed? Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kill these list. Unnecessary recentism and a lot of work to keep updated. Rettetast (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be serious! I demand that we also research and publish the names of every turnstile operator, programme seller, purveyor of slightly reheated pies and knitter of bobble hats. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't list the vice-chairman and directors as they generally don't play a notable part in the club. Also, I would be ever-so-slightly inclined to list the club secretary as they generally do play a big role in the club. Just my tuppence worth. Bettia (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which items I would include. However, in the Man Utd article, I tend to include anyone who is included in the annual team photo, as well as the most senior club directors. I would even include United's kit man, Albert Morgan - you may remember him from a recent Nike TV advert in which he showed of his "silky skills"! – PeeJay 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that makes a kit manager notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. Dancarney (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat after me, folks: "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources". Any and all of these could be notable, but are not worth including simply because they exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There has been a lot of work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs in the seven months it has existed. Especially User:Jogurney have done a lot of work in adding references. Since July we have gone from 7767 unreferenced BLPs to 5919. Since September the total has been cut with about 500 articles a month.

There is still a lot of work left to do. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country you'll find articles sorted by country. You are more likely to find articles you are interested in helping with there than in some dated category. Do anyone have ideas for what we could do speed up the process? Rettetast (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to monitor new article creation and warn editors to add references to new footballer BLPs. There are several people working through the backlog, but keeping the backlog from growing with new articles will be the biggest help. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have been trying to work through the huge number of new articles adding references, adding proper categorisation and correcting glaring errors, etc, but the archive of new articles is growing quicker than I can work through it, I'm still going through new articles from August. Even if I devoted all of my editing time to this task I'd be left behind. I think we could design some kind of friendly footy specific warning template with instructions on how to create a good footballer biography directing people to WP:FOOTY, the footy MOS for players, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CAT, MOS:DATE etc. When we see someone create a low standard unreferenced article it would be an easy way to help them do better next time. King of the North East 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of football (soccer) players

Hi there,

I have a dispute with some guy who considers a wikipedia page as his own. But this dispute is concerning a more general issue: The nationality of football players. My oppinion is that tha nationality of a football player is given by the National team who plays for. This is the way FIFA (the world football/soccer governing body) dealt this thing, as one player cannot play for more than one senior national football team.

Now, the player in cause is Carlos Espínola. He played four times for the Paraguayan National Football team, so, in my opinion, he should be considered a Paraguayan. But, since he has acquired the Ecuadorian citizenship, some guy who thinks he owns the Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito page, changes everytime the page, considering that Espinola is ecuadorian.

To support my affirmation, I can tell you that many southamerican football players have EU passports, but all are playing fot their original national teams, so they are considered Argentineans or Uruguayans. It was even a big scandal regarding some fake EU passports for those footballers playing in Argentina, as you can read here: http://www.journallive.co.uk/newcastle-sports/football-news/2008/07/14/raids-linked-to-italian-passport-probe-61634-21334569/

Thank you very much,

Andrei.besutiu (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly Paraguayan, as we use sporting nationality.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We record the nationality of footballers as country of birth unless he/she has played internationally for another team, in which case we list the most recently represented (contrary to your assertion, currently, as in the past, players can be permitted to play for more than one national team) or the players' recognised nationality if the birth occurred away from the family's country of citizenship was due to a temporary relocation to a place where the parents had no intention of settling (I doubt Cruz Beckham will ever be considered Spanish). As to the assertion that all South American players represent South American nations, perhaps someone should tell Deco. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While Espinola has played for Paraguay, his sporting nationality is officially Ecuadorian. He is registered by the Ecuadorian FA as an Ecuadorian and also with CONMEBOL as an Ecuadorian. Digirami (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to the many South American internationals with European passports, including Messi and Ronaldinho, being considered EU players. Their holding of European citizenships does not negate their football nationality.Hack (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. UEFA considers Messi as Argentine, even if he holds a EU passport. His EU passport allows him to play in Euorpe, but doesn't define his sporting nationality. But in the case of Carlos Espinola, not only did he adopt a new nationality (Ecuador), but it superceded his previous one since his new one now defines his sporting nationality in the eyes of the Ecuadorian FA and CONMEBOL, even if he played for Paraguay at some point. And since he is officially considered Ecuadorian, any flagicon should not indicate otherwise. Digirami (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we picking one nationality for this person, when it is clear that the situation is more complex? Why do we have to oversimplify everything into one flag? How are our readers supposed to know what criteria we used, so as not to be misled as to what this one flag actually "means"? Do we have any sources to support picking this single nationality for him? Knepflerle (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently, he is registered as an Ecuadorian by both the Ecuadorian FF and CONMEBOL. That is why I have maintained his nationality has primarily has Ecuadorian, despite his past. Digirami (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles are not to be written solely from the perspective of the present day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But if we are talking which flag to display to indicate their sporting nationality under a "Current squad" list, then yes, it has to be from the perspective of the present day. Digirami (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"That is why I have maintained his nationality has primarily has Ecuadorian" - exactly. That is merely your judgement call, and this is why it is invalid, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not your job as an editor to make final proclamations or decisive interpretations of evidence - you report which sources say what and leave it at that - and that is why in this case it can't be summarised into just one flag. Knepflerle (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it has to be summarized into one flag because the template doesn't support two. Trust me, if the template could support two flags, this would be a non-issue. Since it doesn't, it should display the nationality mentioned on official records and squad lists, which in this case is Ecuadorian. Digirami (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're putting the cart before the horse. If the template is stopping you giving the correct or full information, either correct the template or don't use it at all. This is an encyclopaedia - giving the correct information comes before anything else. Knepflerle (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct info is that he is officially Ecuadorian. Plain and simple. Digirami (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is merely your judgement call, and this is why it is invalid, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not your job as an editor to make final proclamations or decisive interpretations of evidence - you report which sources say what and leave it at that - and that is why in this case it can't be summarised into just one flag. Knepflerle (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Örgryte IS managers

As I created Örgryte IS managers template, I was wondering if Herbert Chapman and Jack Carr did manage the team, but could only find the club page reference. Does anyone know the answer?--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither biography in Graham Betts' excellent book "England: Player by player" mentions a stint at Örgryte. It's highly unlikely, if not impossible for Chapman as he was manager at Arsenal from 1925 until he died in January 1934. Carr's biography stops after his time at Blackburn Rovers ended in 1926, so it is possible. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. According to Örgryte official site [5] Carr has coached the team in 1920. So, before his time at Blackburn. Is it possible? Or is it another Jack Carr (looks like this name is quite common)?--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Carr was assistant-trainer of Newcastle United 1912-1922. It could still be him, the amount of matches played for the championship was very limited. Cattivi (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Len Puddefoot has to be Leonard Frederick Puddefoot born in London ca.1898 who played 1 match for Falkirk in 1921-22 He is Syd Puddefoot's brother Cattivi (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created a stub on Len Puddefoot. GiantSnowman 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these informations.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Head-to-head records

Head-to-head records in national teams' articles - for example Poland national football team#Poland versus other countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team#Head-to-Head Records against other countries - do we need or even want these?

First things first - as it stands they are completely unsourced, and should be removed from the articles in the very near future if they remain so. WP:V is a non-negotiable.

Second according to WP:NOT (particularly WP:IINFO), Wikipedia is not a statistics almanac - we're treading close to that line with these tables. This are merely context-free and explanation-free long lists of numerical data - bare statistics and nothing more.

Even if we do keep this information somewhere (once it's sourced of course), do we want it in the national teams' articles or would it be better in some sort of secondary list article? WP:SUMMARY would certainly suggest so. Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that once the information is verified that it should go in a separate list which is linked to in the main article. The information is not vital to understanding the national football team of any particular country, but it could be useful information to a user specifically looking for that kind of data in one place. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Those kind of info is nice to have, when updated and sourced, but in separated articles. FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

eg New Zealand national football team results as a branch from New Zealand national football team.--ClubOranje^T 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Wright in India?

Does anyone know if Harry Wright (footballer born 1900) is the same Harry Wright who managed the Indian national team between 1963 and 1964? GiantSnowman 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:National team coaches

. What is the point of this category? It seems to exist outside the pre-existing category structure, duplicates the function of Category:Football (soccer) managers poorly and with a very weakly defined inclusion criterium. As it currently stands it is a slightly Brazil-centric but otherwise seemingly random selection of 58 sports managers. Anyone object if I CfD it. King of the North East 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, go right ahead! GiantSnowman 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If existing, the national teams coaches category should be divided by countries. FkpCascais (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Peñarol / CURCC

I have recently updated a couple of articles relating to the history of the Uruguayan club C.A. Peñarol. According to the Peñarol club page the Central Uruguay Railway Cricket Club is a former name for C.A. Peñarol while the CURCC page suggests the club is defunct. The lead of the Peñarol article attributes suggestions that the two clubs are separate to Nacional fans, which seems to be a POV argument. If they are the same club it seems that having two separate articles is unnecessary. Any opinions would be appreciated.Hack (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool help

Hi, does anyone if there is a tool or anything that can tell me if an article links to two other articles? I want to quickly see if there are any Unsourced BLPs on my subpage...GiantSnowman 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

clarify - not 100% sure what you mean? wiki articles LINKED FROM this page? blue links (duh). Wiki articles LINKING TO this page? what links here in the toolbox (left margin). External site linking in? google search link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GiantSnowman/Articles poor example, nothing links there, try link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GiantSnowman. Alternatively, get creative with CatScan, or use something like www.wholinks2me.com (or dozens of others on the web) --ClubOranje^T 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I want to see if any articles appear on both User:GiantSnowman/Articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country. GiantSnowman 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no tool that does this online. However WP:AWB can be used for the task. 42 articles are know available at User:GiantSnowman/Articles/Unreferenced BLPs. Rettetast (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rettetast, you're a genius. I occasionally use AWB for mass corrections of typos, how do you do it for the BLPs? GiantSnowman 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NP. AWB has a list comparer function. It lets you make lists in different ways, such as what links here, articles in a category, or what i used here; links on page. With some ingenuity (and time) you can do pretty cool things. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country is pretty much based on this. Rettetast (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, oustanding work, many thanks - it's EXACTLY what I wanted. When I've got some real free time I'll have a proper look at AWB and see what else I can do! Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you can do exactly as you want, but you might like to try clicking on the "updated list" link for one of the countries (it doesn't matter which). This will open the Cat Scan programme, where you can enter, say "Bradford City A.F.C. players" in the "search in category" box, then press "Scan". This will produce a list of unreferenced BLPs for that club. That gives a list of 12 articles for you to get your teeth into. (see here) You can the try other clubs. I hope this is of some help. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Shane Duffy

Shane Duffy (footballer) has been moved to Shane Duffy (soccer player) due to Shane Duffy (Gaelic footballer). I thought soccer was only used in North American DABs? Should this be moved back to "footballer" or different title to avoid confusion? --Jimbo^[online] 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both soccer and football exist as names for the game in Ireland. Shane Duffy (footballer) is potentially ambiguous with the other sportsman of the same name, so the non-ambiguous form is preferable. Tameamseo (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shane Duffy (association footballer) is the ideal solution here I feel. Jimbo is corrent in thinking 'soccer' is only used for North America/Australia. GiantSnowman 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly happy with "association footballer" because it's not really a term used in actuality in Ireland, whereas both "soccer player" and "footballer" are in common usage. It does seem to be on Wikipedia though, for instance "Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers". I'm happy to have the article moved to that if there's some reason why the current "soccer player" is unnaceptable for the disambiguation. However, I don't understand what the objection to "soccer player" is. It's certainly incorrect to claim that it's only used in North America and Australia. Tameamseo (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience in Ireland is that "association football" is called "soccer" where there is any grounds for confusion: I don't believe that the phrase "association football" is colloquially used anywhere. Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of precedent already regarding the use of 'footballer' vs. 'soccer player' for Northern Ireland players. On Northern Ireland national football team, three disambiguated names all include 'footballer': David Healy (footballer), Andy Kirk (footballer), and Michael O'Connor (footballer born 1987). Bryan Burgers (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, those examples don't appear especially relevant. The problem here is that Shane Duffy (footballer) is also considered ambiguous hence we need a different disambiguator. We could keep it at the current disambiguator or move to "association footballer". However, I see no reason why the current disambiguator should be unacceptable and "association" preferred: as Kevin McE says, it's a term which is in common use in Ireland, unlike "association footballer". Tameamseo (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Shane Duffy (footballer born 1992)? That seems to disambiguate him, is used for other footballers, and keeps the 'footballer' tag which is, I'm assuming but don't know for sure, is more prevalent in Northern Ireland than 'soccer player'. Bryan Burgers (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that those three examples are relevant since they show common usage for football/soccer players from Northern Ireland. I vote for Shane Duffy (footballer born 1992) as well because of other disambiguation pages (e.g. Jason Williams and the cited Michael O'Connor) that use the birth date in the name. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree that (footballer born 1992) is the best option. In a few other cases I have found they differ somewhat, we need to find a consensual solution, possibly involving the WP:WikiProject Gaelic games members. Bobby Doyle, both gaelic and association have been DABed as (Gaelic footballer) and (footballer), although Thomas Doyle is DABed as (soccer player). --Jimbo^[online] 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a note on that WikiProject. I would say the two Doyle cases differ from each other in that they are from different countries. "Soccer player" seems a good disambiguator in the case of T Doyle from the republic of Ireland. However, I don't think "soccer" would be an appropriate disambiguator for Bobby Doyle as he is Scottish. Maybe "association football" in that case? (Or "footballer born in"). Tameamseo (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive edit war! I´m fed up!

Can somebody please intervene and finish my edit war with some Matthew hk here? If not, can someone point me out if I´m wrong? He´s giving priority about a text in Croatian wikipedia here(completely unsourced, and based on a transfers forum, by some words of some anonim, I checked. That was the only match with the info found there.) over a perfectly sourced info (I think National-football-teams is considered a source, but I can find more, just don´t see the point of having a list of ext.sources saying the same...), that he insists in deleting! See also mine and his talk pages. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see the point here. National-football-teams is quite reliable, but other references should be added.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with National-football-teams being reliable , but in this case they are right. Dusan Kerkez was a used sub in the match vs. Iran He replaced Baljic in the 82th minute (source European Football Yearbook} This means 5 caps not 4 Cattivi (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) RSSSF agrees [6] Cattivi (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I already did added more sources, but this is enough. The problem here were the clubs, not the nt stats. Can somebody please intervene if Matthew deletes the info again? FkpCascais (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 allegations of tapping up in English football

Does this warrant an article? Not only is the title awful, but nothing has really come of it other than Chelsea's transfer ban, which may yet be lifted. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was first suggested in this AfD. GiantSnowman 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Was a notable event, it should stay. Transfer bans don't happen every day, and investigations are still ongoing. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I am myth'ed why User:Dudesleeper keeps adding dispute banners to Tottenham articles, I have read through the articles, and can only see that references need to be added to section's. He hasn't pointed out any bias nature I see in the articles. Can we get some more help please to understand what Dudesleeper is about has be hasn't pointed out problems directly. Or is it he who is the bias one? Govvy (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

be a bit more precise with what article / articles you are questioning(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

heh, I don't get the dude, he has removed the others he put down and is insistent on keeping Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season 2009–10. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dudesleeper is an extremely experienced contributor to footy-related articles. If you've got a problem with his edits, take it to his user talk in the first instance rather than bringing it here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out the bias on the talk pages of both the season article linked above and the root Spurs article, so don't state falsehoods please. - Dudesleeper talk 22:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pacheco

Hi! It looks like the Daniel Pacheco can be re-created following his appearance in Liverpool's CL match today. It says it can only be re-created by an Admin. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, already asked for a restore from an admin but waitin' Steve-Ho (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Angelo (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the article, please. It does not have a single reference, other than an External link to his Liverpool FC profile. I have added the "Unreferenced BLP" tag, but this keeps getting removed. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of references quickly from Google News searches. Camw (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - surely whoever creates/expands an article has the responsibility to add proper references. It shouldn't be left to someone else to pick up the pieces afterwards. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the creators of this lot! King of the North East 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bayern Munich v Norwich City

I'm slowly working on pushing this to FA. Long way to go, but now's a good time to ask what you guys think of the structure (with FA in mind).

Comments about content, and especially help with editing gratefully received, but I'm keen to pin down whether the structure is good before pressing on.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Asst management in player infobox

There is a section in the player infobox headed "Clubs managed". For a number of players (e.g. Paul Mariner), largely those who have held such a role in the US, there are clubs listed with a note in parentheses that he was assistant manager at that club. Is this accepted use of this field? Is a rephrasing necessary if this practice is to be continued? Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that the field was reserved for permanent or caretaker manager status, where they have actually been in charge of a team. Of course, the position of assistant manager should be mentioned in the person's article but I don't see any need to have it in the infobox. -- BigDom 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Being the senior assistant manager at a club, especially if you have played a major role and/or been a prominent face of the club, can represent an important part of a coach's career. Mariner, for example, was a very high profile #2 to Steve Nicol at New England Revolution, and I think his infobos should reflect that; having the word 'assistant' in parentheses works fine. However, I think the infobox should be limited *only* to head coach/manager and assistant manager/coach roles... anything further down the hierarchy than that enters the realm of overkill. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Jon B, whose interest (I believe I am right in saying) is largely in US "soccer", is the one speaking up for this practice, as it is on those who have been asst managers in the US that I have noticed this occuring most often. Is the "manager" role there more akin to what in European football be would call a general manager/director of football, such that the assistant manager's role is to select the team and determine the tactics for each game? His suggestion for the limitation of extending this would suggest not, but I'll ask anyway. Profile of assistant managers varies greatly: I have just looked up the assistants to Mssrs Ferguson, Wenger, Benítez and Ancelotti, and in most cases my reaction was "oh, yeah, so he is: I have heard that", but it was not something I could easily have recalled without research (on Wikipedia, of course). I suspcet that most readers, without looking it up, could name more Premier League chairmen than assistant managers. So two decisions need to be made: whether assistant managership is important enough to include in an infobox (it should of course be in the prose), and whether a section headed is "Clubs managed" an appropriate place to record it. My preference would be no in both cases: I would strongly argue no to the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think assistant managers in the US have a great deal of exposure. I follow the Chicago Fire, and I am aware of most of the clubs assistant coaches, but the club's general managers (Peter Wilt or John Guppy) have certainly had higher profiles. Accordingly, I don't support listing assistant coaching positions in the infobox, although as you say they should be mentioned in the article text. Jogurney (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It varies from club to club. I wouldn't say that the manager/assistant dynamic is very different in the US than anywhere else; the manager (or head coach) picks the team and chooses tactics and formations and designs training, and the assistant manager... well... he assists. The only real difference is that in the US there is also the General Manager, who (usually) is a different person than the manager/head coach, and is the one responsible for transfers and other financial matters, probably like Sven Goran Eriksson at Notts County, or what Lawrie McMenemy used to do for Southampton. My only thought about it was for keeping a complete record of a coaching career. People like Ray Wilkins, for example, still have a very high profile, and I would argue that Steve McClaren, Brian Kidd, Sammy Lee, Pat Rice and others also enjoyed high profiles at Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal despite never actually managing those teams; in order to give a more complete representation of their career I would think their assistant manager stints at those clubs would be worthy of mention in their infoboxes since it represented a significant part of their lives. I don't have THAT strong a feeling either way... I just think it would be a shame to remove information that is useful and, in a number of cases, extremely relevant. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC we used to have a firm rule against anything like this in the Management section. I would certainly be very wary of including it generally, considering the huge variety of backroom positions open to ex-pros these days. It wouldn't seem as though omission of assistant manager positions was even that controversial: Walter Smith is a prominent manager who was assistant at one of the handful of the world's mega-clubs in recent history and it's not in his infobox, and it isn't really to the detriment of the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions

No idea whether this has ever been voiced, but they seem to be on a minority of pages out there; with the percentage of those football pages with images inside the infobox caption being less than 1%. You may well say that this is obviously a very small issue, affecting only a few pages. All true, but for someone such as myself who likes to take a look around footy pages the vulgar addition of worthless material really does become an issue, even if it only effects less than 1% of infobox images in the footy community. I am looking for a broad base consensus on what the feelings are here on the matter, whether that be they belong or do not belong.Stephen Hayes (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The caption parameter was only recently implemented, and (I think) only in the newer infobox, which probably explains why it's not yet widely used. As to its value, I repeat what I said at Talk:Jack Wilshere: that when the picture was taken and whose strip the player is wearing in the picture is information helpful to the reader, who may have little or no prior knowledge of the player or of football in general. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Captions quite clearly establishes that one of the main purposes of captions is to identify the context of the image. In the case of a player, who the player is, when the picture was taken and what club the player was with at the time are exactly what are required from the caption. As for it not displaying in footybio1, I'll get that corrected later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated before a simple caption can show many things which the reader might wish to know; when was that taken, who was he playing for then, what game is that photo from etc. Really don't see how captions are 'vulgar'--Egghead06 (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions are also useful when the image cannot be displayed for some reason (mobile browsers, screen readers, text only browsers, etc) to give some idea of the missing content. I can't see the harm in them, even if they occasionally state the obvious. Knepflerle (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually the point of alt text, which is quite different from caption text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, alt text does the job too. That's why I don't see a need to make captions compulsory (although one or other should always be there) - I was just pointing out another small upside to captions as an aside. Knepflerle (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the concern consistency (since many do not have captions) or is the concern captions in general. I'm not familiar with past discussions but if consensus is to have a caption parameter in the infobox than we should focus on creating a standard caption ("Player with team in year", Player doing x while at", ect.) and have some people start plugging away. I know I would not mind updating a couple teams. We shouldn't hinder improvement just because people are lazy with it. Disregard if the caption parameter itself is not preferred. Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As WP:CAPTION says, captions aren't mandatory but they're usually helpful. Given the, erm, eclectic nature of our bio portraits (varying from high-quality game images specially re-licensed for us, to mobile phone camera shots of players in nightclubs) I'm not sure that a standard caption format would really work; there really isn't any standard for captioning across most of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles about UEFA competition finals

I'm not sure if it's necessary, or at all professional, to have large swathes of match description in the articles for recent UEFA finals. Any account of a match, no matter how well-written, is inherently biased, and the articles for European finals on Wikipedia definitely suffer from this. For a few examples of particularly un-encyclopedic and/or POV passages, I direct you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_UEFA_Cup_Final#Second_half
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_UEFA_Champions_League_Final#Second_half (thrilling pace? I was clearly watching a different match)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UEFA_Champions_League_Final
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_UEFA_Champions_League_Final#Summary

I think all that should be included is the basic facts of the match. That way there's no room for editorial bias or fans of certain clubs making articles suit their point of view.

For an example of what I'm talking about, I direct you to the Italian Wikipedia's format for UEFA competition articles:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_2008-2009
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppa_UEFA_2002-2003
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppa_delle_Coppe_1998-1999

That's the only way to keep articles about matches truly NPOV. Descriptions are just naturally prone to bias.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:POLE! More seriously, so long as description is rooted in RS, it's fine. Wikipedia has some magnificent articles including dramatic and living, breathing description, that are NPOV because rooted in RS. I refer you, as an example, to just about any of the articles in Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates#The Invicibles. --Dweller (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to trust the project to try to maintain neutrality and provide counterbalance to edits that are excessively partisan. However, many articles do go, I would argue, far too far down the road of description such that encyclopaedic, formal style is abandoned in favour of journalistic style match reports. Opinions that are sourced are still opinions, and merely sourcing them scarcely guarantees that there is balance in the presentation of those opinions. Reporting of the reflections of managers, players etc is a journalistic, not an encyclopaedic, endeavour. Articles about matches should provide links to match reviews: they should not be them. Kevin McE (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:POLE has some truth to it, but rather talks about bias rather than content as such. An article can fail to exhibit particular bias to one viewpoint or another while still being written in a completely inappropriate manner for an encyclopedia article. Such is the case for a great many footy articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing should be fixed. However, making generalisations about excluding description or indeed manager comments is not helpful. You can't generalise about these things. Some comments from the participants can be absolutely critical to comprehensive coverage of a topic, as is description - see Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series as an example. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that 2009 UEFA Champions League Final seems to have escaped criticism here. As soon as I can get hold of the DVD of the match, I'm taking it to FAC! – PeeJay 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

What do we do when anonymous IP's report that footballers from years ago with few appearances have died? e.g. Andy Shankland. It is quite possible for them to die and not get reported anywhere, yet I don't want to have an article listing a dead person as alive.--EchetusXe 00:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As per any other bio, unless the death is confirmed by reliable sources then we have to treat it as a BLP (and thus immediately remove any unreliably sourced information). Anons do not, in general, have better access to such information than regular bio-watchers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A valid principle, but how old do we allow people to get before they can be assumed to have died? Eventually, do we take omission from List of living supercentenarians as proof of death by the age pof 110, or will we have to assume that all those early Wanderers and Engineers are still alive, if no longer kicking, indefinately unless a publication states the contrary? Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I already did this question to miself when filling the line living= in the talk pages of some players that are now quite old, that played before WWII, or when atributing the Category:Living people... This is a good question that should get an unswer as soon as possible, so editors know what to do. FkpCascais (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As Chris said, with a death report, have a quick search for a reliable published source, and if you don't find one, remove the death report forthwith, per WP:BLP. If it's a good-faith report, the editor should be able to supply a source.

As to assumption of death, see the documentation at Category:Living people. It says that people aged 90-plus with no recent proof of being alive can be moved to Category:Possibly living people, and people aged 123+ may be safely assumed to be dead, and then put in Category:Year of death missing. Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that for Possibly living people, the {{birth date and age}} in the infobox should be changed to just {{birth date}}, as well, but I can't find it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. I was 124 last August. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ajax Academy "famed" or not

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb#Ajax_Academy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.200.70 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about whether the Ajax Academy is famous or not, but rather whether or not a peacock term to that effect should be included in an article. I believe that the addition of the word "famed" would violate the spirit of the WP:PEACOCK guideline regardless of whether or not it is deserved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I get that, however I disagree with your interpretation of WP:PEACOCK. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Footballer articles moved

A number of footballer articles were moved by a user recently (see [7]). Some of them involve adding a comma to the 'footballer born in ...' dabs that are added, which I take to be against the general consensus of the naming format. Not sure about some of the other moves, perhaps they're all fine, but does someone else want to take a look? Please note the user is marked as semi-retired. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have a problem with the use of "English". In one or two of the moved articles, they've changed English to British in the prose as well. The ones moved to (footballer, born xxxx) are fine, just need the comma removing, if it hasn't been done already. But certainly some of the ones moved from (English footballer) to just (footballer) are wrong. E.g. John Charles is the Welsh legend and obvious primary topic, but they've moved John Charles (English footballer), so called because he's not the Welsh footballer, to just John Charles (footballer), which clearly doesn't disambig at all, either from the Welsh or the gridiron footballer of that name. And one which I should have noticed on my watchlist (oops), Steve Bryant (English footballer), was so called because the Steve Bryant article is about an American footballer, so again, Steve Bryant (footballer) doesn't distinguish. Fortunately (from the point of view of clearing up after it) all they've done is move the pages, not changed the dab pages or double redirects if any. I'll go through them and move back those that need it, and leave a note on the user's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done that. Wonder if one or two of them who only need distinguishing from a player of American football, like Steve Bryant (English footballer) and Joe Carter (English footballer), might be better at just (association footballer) rather than including the sporting nationality? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I'm still a proponent of the school of thought that says that DOB should be primary disambiguator, followed by nationality. As I have learnt recently, 'association footballer' is rarely used. GiantSnowman 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right about use of 'association footballer', more's the pity, and DOB is a reasonable enough disambiguator between similar association footballers, at least from an editorial point of view. And if you start from the disambiguation page, it doesn't matter what the pages are called so long as they're described clearly. But from the point of view of the reader of Wikipedia typing into that little search box on the left and seeing what drops down, (English footballer) distinguishes an English association footballer from a player of Aussie rules or gridiron rather better than (footballer born 1963) would. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at those Struway. I did manage to move one page! Eldumpo (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out. The Stephen Hugheses looked fun... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing the Stephen Hughes dab changes - it was on my list. Eldumpo (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Total Football

Someone keeps adding Doncaster Rovers to the article about Total Football, which is crazy unless I've missed something. I've removed it twice already. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporters Groups

I have some concerns with the new article: Supporters Groups. I have made a quick mention on the tlak page and wasn't sure what the best follow-up would be so thought I would bring it up here.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the poor grammar (it should surely be supporters' groups), it seems to be largely copied from ultras: merge back into that? Kevin McE (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't ultra-style groups be a sub-section of supporters' groups? Hack (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and fansites as external links

An IP has been repeatedly adding blogs and fan chat sites to the Valencia CF article. I've reverted twice but is there any policy or previous discussion against this? Blogs like this Macedonian one don't seem encyclopedic and don't appear on other articles. Valenciano (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:RS. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines on external links can be found at WP:EL, and more specifically what should be avoided at WP:ELNO. Hope this helps, --Jimbo^[online] 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But what makes any of the fansites linked to here any more reliable than any other? In many cases omissions will most likely be due to nobody bothering to add their clubs' one, but as a more general question where should the line be drawn? WFCforLife (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fred Eyre

This chap is fascinating, and I've sent him to DYK. It passes (but only just!) the 1500-characters of prose minimum, so if anyone has anymore details about any of the twenty non-league clubs he managed to appear for, it'd be much appreciated! Thanks, GiantSnowman 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyre summarises Manchester City matches on local radio. While he has great appeal to listeners of a certain age, he is the most relentlessly negative summariser I have ever heard; when I get in the car I pray to hear Nigel Gleghorn or Andy Hinchcliffe instead – we jokingly have a theory that Fred Eyre co-commentary is a bad omen for the match ahead. As a result, his book is unfortunately one of the few to prominently feature Manchester City that I do not own. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading one of his books and thinking it was very good, but that was over 20 years ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Artur Łaciak

I would like to point out that this player is not notable and should be deleted. He has never played higher than third division (certainly an amateur level in Poland), and being a GK coach even at a major club does not confer notability. I tried to initiate the AfD procedure, but the article author reverted my edits. Please help. 85.221.240.201 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You actually initiated deletion procedure with PROD, not AfD, which is the correct way to do things in the first instance in this case, (wasn't a candidate for SPEEDY deletion as it made an assertion of notability) but the author is quite within his rights to contest the PROD, which is done simply by deleting the notice. The next step, if you still believe the player to be non-notable, is to nominate it for AfD. Read the information at AfD and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Sing out if you have any difficulty, but looking at your brief edit history I think you'll work it out. ps, thanks for your contributions, why not consider registering an account, it is free and as anonymous as you wish it to be, makes it easier for others to communicate on Wiki things, and WP:FOOTY could always use another member who has an interest in and knowledge of Polish players. --ClubOranje^T 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have dug out my old account and nominated the article according to the procedure. Hope for this issue to be speedily resolved, as the evidence is overwhelming. Silvermane (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Hollydays for all!!!

Hi footy lossing time on wiki lovers! Since I´ve seen people are starting to send individual messages wishing marry Christmas to others, I don´t wan´t to bother, so I´ll send it to you all from HERE!!! I really wish you all have nice presents, and I hope we have an excited transfer window. (Sorry, exciting, not excited, but it can work too...). Well, since I saw many of you are complaining about the unsourced articles, I started 2 days ago working on the Serbian players list. I already did more than 50 (I think, maybe more, I´m about the half of the initial list...) and my fingers are hurting me already!!! I just want to ask the so many editors that are adding caps(goals) to those pages, since they obviously care about those players, could they by the way add some sources to the pages? I also wan´t to ask you guys, how many pages do I need to fix to deserve some medal, or something? Wishing you all the best, yours FkpCascais (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You deserve an award, so I've given you a barnstar. Happy holidays. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:First Bundesliga footballers

I am not sure I like the titling of the category, shouldn't it be renamed? Like a name with a date range? Govvy (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

what is the list meant to be, players playing in the german first division or the first players to play in bundesliga?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Rename to Category:Fußball-Bundesliga players, per naming conventions. GiantSnowman 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, shouldn't categories with names such as "football (soccer) xxx" in the name be moved en masse to "association football xxx"? WFCforLife (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence?

I created Bill Findlay (footballer) a couple of months ago, and more recently have done some work on it, now that I actually have my Watford book back. Anyway, when cleaned up the disambiguation page I came across William Findlay (s*cc*r) (and I must say, as much as I hate that word there's a lesson on good disambiguation if ever I've seen one).

Anyway, the Findlay I've worked on played for the Scottish junior club Musselburgh Bruntonians. The other Findlay was born in Musselburgh. Furthermore, they were born four years apart, and while I don't know the precise dates that the American international player was at Third Lanark, it seems to be in a similar period to the Watford one. Clearly these are two different people, as they both have differing and verified dates and places of birth and death, but does anyone know how I can try to work out whether one has been mistaken for the other somewhere down the line? WFCforLife (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Emms/Wells book mentions a William Findlay playing for Third Lanark in the 1920/21-1924/25 seasons 93 league matches 6 goals, this is the American one. Nothing about the other Findlay in this source, it's possible that, at least, some of the 23 league matches from the 1923-24 season should be credited to the 'Watford' Findlay, The Emms/Wells book is not always reliable. Players with the same name, playing for the same club at the same time always cause problems.. This was certainly the case in the 1920's. The American Findlay is supposed to have played for Musselburgh as well.. The American Findlay played for Galicia in 1924 Maybe he returned to Scotland to play for Third Lanark in 1924-25 (23 league matches 5 goals) and being born in Musselburgh , he could be the Musselburgh Bruntonians player as well. The Watford Findlay could be the 1920-24 Third Lanark player (70 league matches 1 goal) , would Liverpool pay 2500 pounds for a player with 0 league appearances (August 1924, not 1925 according to my copy of Trefor Jones book) ? In my opinion a mistake is very likely but this is all speculation Cattivi (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've corrected the Liverpool date (the infobox was correct). I assume that Jones is probably mistaken about Musselburgh Bruntonians; it seems so unlikely that they both played for such a small club. Not sure what to do really. Perhaps it is worth mentioning on both players' articles that both played for Third Lanark in the 1923-24 season, and perhaps using your source to help reflect what you have just said in a non-OR way, i.e. that there is only a record of one William Findlay making appearances, but that both were on the books at the club? WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was also a Billy Findlay who played for Killie and Hibs in the 1990s. I have added him to the William Findlay (disambiguation) page and added links from the other footballer articles to that disam page. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A good edit. Based on this discussion (and indeed, the apparent confusion in reliable sources), I've added {{Distinguish|William Findlay (soccer)}}. Feel free to add the Killie and Hibs player if you consider it appropriate.

@WFCforlife I wouldn't change the Scottish career of the Watford Findlay, at least it is well referenced now. It could be wrong, but I can't give a good reference for the complete Scottish league career of both Findlay's with stats, maybe in the future when the Litster CD Rom of pre-war Scottish players is ready. The only thing that seems to be certain is that the Findlay playing for Third Lanark in 1924-25 was the American one Cattivi (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The career of the Watford Findlay according to the Fossils and Foxes book by Paul Taylor and Dave Smith is similar to the one in Trefor Jones book. According to this source he played for Preston Grange Athletic until 1922 and Musselburgh in 1922-23. All 1923-24 appearances for Third Lanark are credited to the Watford Findlay in this source. (at least a little bit of support for my theory) He played 0 league matches for Liverpool, but he played for them in a friendly match against an international South African touring side. 100 league appearances 0 goals for Leicester He was a qualified physiotherapist and a religious man (an elder of the Presbyterian Church) Cattivi (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some fantastic research. I've made an edit to reflect his appearances for the English club, which I can't imagine being incorrect. Would you be able to make a brief edit to add your source to the references, and perhaps the detail about his personal life to the prose? WFCforLife (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Eriterian national team goes AWOL

There are numerous media reports that the entire Eriterian national football team has gone AWOL/ will probably claim asylum in Kenya. I was just wondering if the tournament they were playing in is full international level? Steve-Ho (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The tournament in question is the 2009 CECAFA Cup Steve-Ho (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD: Kristjan Gauti Emilsson

I proposed deletion for Kristjan Gauti Emilsson which expires on 18 December. It doesn't seem to have turned up in the proposed deletion section for the WikiProject Football. For those who aren't aware, Emilsson agreed to join Liverpool from 1 Jan 2010 from the Icelandic champions. He has played three matches for them. My reason for PROD is that the Icelandic league is not fully professional according to the project list. I just wanted to be sure before the PROD expires - is it the case that the Icelandic league is not fully professional? Steve-Ho (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You are correct, the Icelandic league is not fully professional as confirmed by the reference given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I've added this PROD to the table. Bettia (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

India U-23 national football team results or India national under-23 football team results

India U-23 national football team results and India national under-23 football team results both exist. Are they both about the same thing? Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.--EchetusXe 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

International youth tournament squad templates

I know this has been discussed before but cannot find the converstation. Are templates such as these deemed notable? --Jimbo^[online] 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Youth championships like that, no. If I remember correctly, the only ones which were deemed notable were the World Cup, the various Continental championships (Euro Champs, African Cup of Nations, CONCACAF Gold Cup), the Confed Cup, the Olympics, and the major FIFA international youth tourneys (like the U17 World Cup, U20 World Cup etc.) --JonBroxton (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Prior concensus was that only senior and Olympic competitions at international or confederation level needed such navboxes. In the case of the Bolivian youth side, it's apparent that very few of the participants are notable and the navbox is mostly a list of redlinks for non-notable players. Jogurney (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Stadiums

Can someone help me out with Vale Park? I can't seem to be able to make much progress with stadium articles. If anyone has any books/websites or just advice then that would be much appreciated.--EchetusXe 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed a little bit about the hight above sea-level section, but that is all I can do to help really. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thnx.--EchetusXe 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham 2018 FIFA World Cup Bid

Does this warrant a separate article from the England bid page? The individual city bids are kind of theoretical, dependent on England winning the main bid. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why Nottingham warrant a separate article from the England bid page. The Nottingham bid page should be merged into the main England bid page. --Carioca (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Carioca is spot on, I would merge it. GiantSnowman 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Merge on. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Romani Footballers

Is this, [8], a reliable source for Romani Ancestry? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Other sources are needed Spiderone 09:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mitchel Hahn

This article was deleted back in the spring after an AfD, but has now been recreated, with the addition of information about him taking part in the 2009 Maccabiah Games - is this sufficient claim to notability to save the article from being deleted again.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By no means. The list of the UK silver medal squad shows that it is certainly not composed of fully professional players, and we've been here before. I'm intrigued that the GB (sic) team were the first team to reach the final in 50 years: presumably several teams shared bronze in previous editions. Venue of final, according to its article, has capacity of 14,000, casting some doubt on claim in Hahn's article of 60,000 attendance. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to be about a player with a claim to notability in that they play football at a level less than fully pro and that they are Jewish. Take away his involvement with the Maccabiah Games and you are left with just another non-notable player with a history of playing for clubs outside the Football League. He is also the only one of the 20 strong squad, Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games, which appeared in this final in 2009 to have an article created (other than Sam Sloma who has played pro football). --Egghead06 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Have re-nominated it for deletion here. -- BigDom 09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to delete this page, semi pro doesn't count here. – Michael (talk) 17:21, 18 Devember 2009 (UTC)

Harry / Henry Abbott

It appears that these two articles, Henry Abbott (footballer), and Harry Abbott (footballer born 1895) are about the same person. In fact, the latter one was created just today, so I was wondering what should be done about this? -- NelsonD92 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge any relevant content into Henry Abbott (footballer) then turn Harry Abbott (footballer born 1895) into a redirect. – PeeJay 22:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The other way round, I'd suggest. Harry Abbott is how the player was known, according to the source used in both articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Landon Donovan

The announcement of Landon Donovan's move to Everton in January has lead to repeated disruption at Landon Donovan, Everton F.C., Los Angeles Galaxy and the squad templates for both clubs. Donovan cannot join Everton until the transfer window opens, but IP and registered editors keep putting him as playing for the Blues already. Is it worth semi-protecting any of these pages? Dancarney (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit overly-pedantic. The move has now been formally announced on multiple major news sources, so no-one is jumping the gun. It's fairly standard practice for confirmed, non-controversial transfers to be added to infoboxes etc. once the deal is finalized, even if the player hasn't physically moved yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC etc report that Donovan 'has signed' for Everton. No he can't play until January but he has signed a contract with Everton so for the sake of about 2 weeks perhaps not worth vexing over?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits should not anticipate events. It might be standard practice in other WPs for infobox updates to precede events, but we, properly, try to avoid it here. Some might not consider it worth "vexing over", but does anyone really consider it to be a good encyclopaedic practice? Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's questionable practise. But in cases where it is absolutely certain, I see fighting against good faith, harmless edits as a waste of good editor's time. Indeed semi protection, however quick, takes up admin time that could arguably be put to better use. WFCforLife (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Landon Donovan has signed a loan deal with Everton: FACT. Players who have signed for teams have that team shown in their infobox, even if they are not contractually allowed to play until after a certain date: FACT. How is this anticipating events? These events have already happened. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that anything that happens in 2010 can be described as a fact today, you need to reconsider your definition of the word fact. Whether players have data placed in their infobox is a decision depending on the discretion of editors, and whether that is considered acceptable is a matter of policy and consensus. To say that it is a fact that his infobox had already been edited is indeed a statement of fact, but whether that historical event was desirable in this project is what is being discussed here. If you can refer to a policy of wikipedia, or a discussion wherein this practice gained consensus, please direct us to it. If not, I refer you again to my question: does anyone really consider it to be a good encyclopaedic practice? Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking in late here. The answer is no, I do not consider it good practise. But I simply do not see the benefit to wikipedia of pedantism in instances where we know the information is correct in practise, if not in law. By all means, take action as you consider it appropriate. The purpose of my previous post was simply to point out that discouraging or entirely undoing good faith, true but procedurally questionable edits is not necessarily a constructive thing. One of my first edits as an IP was of a similar nature, and without meaning to blow my own trumpet I would consider the outcome to have been a net positive. WFCforLife (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a good encyclopaedic practice to report the fact that Landon Donovan has signed a contract to play with Everton (or that any other player has signed for any other team), and that he will be eligible to play with the team in January 2010. Infoboxes should reflect these facts. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that he has signed a contract with Everton, but the field in the infobox is Current Club. He is not currently an Everton player, and cannot be until the transfer window opens. Dancarney (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the text should state that he has signed such a deal: the infobox does not have the flexibility to explain such subtleties, and is better suited to reporting historical fact after the event. A comparable discussion was recently aired at WT:NOT. The appalling alternative is found in infoboxes such as this, giving a date span of 2010-present. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See also David Beckham for future dated infoboxes.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it's more trouble than it's worth to keep reverting "done deals" over and over. When the player has been in the papers holding the new scarf over his head then unless he's Mo Johnston we might as well just let people edit the article; anything which attracts new editors is good. In cases where the transfer isn't actually confirmed and is just rumour then we have to remain vigilant, however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Shoutout

For editors not following the discussion anymore, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposal and the preceeding discussion. It would be a shame if the vast discussion does not result in consensus of some sort. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories of national footballers

Further to the interesting thread above, which was primarily about the use of flags, but also discussed wider issues of 'what is nationality', I was wondering if Footy should agree some text to be added to each of the Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality category pages? I checked the English, Scottish, German, Brazilian and Italian pages and none have any kind of intro text to clarify exactly what the category is for. If some agreed text were added, then if it were felt people were being added inappropriately to the category, it could be challenged.

Or should this issue of nationality firstly be dealt with at a much higher level in Wikipedia, as it applies to a number of other sports (as pointed out above by King of the North East). Eldumpo (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• It also applies to painters, politicians, architects and every other sub category of Category:People by nationality and occupation. I only raised this issue to show how the inferred nationality problem (cited as a reason to remove flags from current squads) is much bigger than the use of flagicons in current squad sections of football clubs. If it is considered thoroughly rather than just as a stand alone argument to remove flags, the problem of widespread use of inferred nationality runs far deeper than the flag issue. Even if the solution were to require a single reliabe source per article this would involve a vast amount of work considering the backlog of completely unsourced footballer articles and the scale of new football article creation. King of the North East 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to categorisation, if for instance a footballer is French but of Algerian descent, there is no problem with him being in both categories. John Barnes' sporting nationality is unquestionably English, but no good-faith editor would attempt to suggest that he cannot be categorised as Jamaican, where appropriate categories exist (rather than simply being created for his benefit, such as Category:Jamaican managers of Tranmere Rovers). Another good example is Owen Hargreaves. I understand what you're saying about inferred nationality King of the North East, but if you are born in a country that nationality can be inferred. Whether it should be assumed to be your primary one is another matter. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"but if you are born in a country that nationality can be inferred.": no, it really, really can't - read ius sanguinis for a very clear explanation why. This common misconception is one of the problems with nationality proclamations. Extrapolating birthplace data to nationality is unsound and should be avoided.

More often than not the list of nationalities given for a person is incomplete and based on the unsound application of sources, if sources are used at all. Then we have the common mix-up between entitlement to nationality and assumption of nationality - I imagine it will be very unpopular amongst some people to flag up unassumed entitlement to Irish nationality on many articles of people from Northern Ireland, say.

If someone is born in country X and played for Y, just say that they were born in country X and played for Y. Knepflerle (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the overall view then - that no guidance is required at the Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality pages, because it is a much wider problem, and that it should be continued practice for now that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence Or perhaps if someone wants to add them to a country category not of their birth, then a suitable reference should be provided? Is anything being done at a Wikipedia level regarding nationality? Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"it should be continued practice for now that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence" - no, because (yet again) one does not imply the other. Convenience doesn't make it true.

How about categories "Footballer born in X" and "Footballer for Y national football team", since both are verifiable and indisputable?

"if someone wants to add them to a country category not of their birth, then a suitable reference should be provided?" - yes, per WP:V and WP:BLPCAT ("Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced.")

"Is anything being done at a Wikipedia level regarding nationality?": not that I am aware of - and not that that means that we shouldn't. Knepflerle (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been practice "that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence", that the guidlines suggest a different method is not the issue. Established editors tend to include sources or external links to verify nationality claims, but there are thousands of other editors creating unsourced or poorly sourced articles using the "common sense" method of categorisation. There are many more that insist on using Category:People by ethnic or national origin categories without even citing sources. Inferring nationality by birthplace seems pretty sensible in comparison to inferring ethnic origin by surname.

Everyone that knows about such things accepts that biographies should be sourced as per WP:V and WP:BLPCAT and they tend to use sources. The real problem is what to do about the backlog of thousands of footballer biographies like Pejman Jamshidi (random pick, there are many worse than this) and the dozens of new unsourced football biographies that are created every day. King of the North East 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on which country you are talking about. An example: As far as I know there isn't a single professional footballplayer in the Netherlands born in Suriname or of Surinamese descent with a Surinamese passport. Surinamese law doesn't allow double nationalities, they are all Dutch. The moment these players became Dutch citizens they lost their Surinamese nationality. This explains why there aren't Dutch based played in the Surinamese national team. I used to be an editor of a 'reliable' website and I can tell you that not all editors of this site can be bothered to add accurate nationalities. Most of these major databases are wikipedia like projects facing the same problems as wikipedia.. Cattivi (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I allways say something to this discussions because I use to edit a lot of articles from ex-Yugoslavia, where I found all this questions you guys are dealing here. The problem there is that you have 6 1/2 new countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia&H., Montenegro, Macedonia (country), counting Kosovo as 1/2 cause it´s still unclear), and also as many nationalities. But things would be easy if it was this simple (6 countries, 6 nationalities). The problem is that you have: Serbs of Serbia, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs of Croatia, Serbs of Montenegro, Serbs of Macedonia, Croats of Croatia, Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croats of the Republic of Macedonia, Croats of Slovenia, Croats of Serbia, Croats of Montenegro, Bosnians of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks of Serbia, Bosniaks of Montenegro, Slovenians from Slovenia, Montenegrins of Montenegro, Montenegrins of Serbia, Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegrins of Slovenia, Montenegrins of Croatia, Macedonians of Macedonia (country), Macedonians in Serbia, Macedonians in Slovenia annd the latest incorporation Kosovar Albanians, Serbs of Kosovo... and this all only between the 6 1/2 countries, without counting the Hungarians in Vojvodina, Italians of Dalmatia, Albanians of the Republic of Macedonia, Albanians of Montenegro, Banat Swabians, Serbian Jews just to name some.

Even so, with all this dificulties, I can say that, because of enough good editors, at lest 90% of the biographies are corect despite all difficulties.

But, I had to chose in the categories to consider Abdulah Gegić in Category:Serbian football managers, when he is clearly a Bosnian from Serbia, more Serb than for exemple Nemanja Bilbija a Serb, but from Bosnia, wich receves the Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers.

Where it does hert most is when for exemple, I had some time ago a debate with Necronudist about the list he made with the List of foreign La Liga players where he insists in putting Ratomir Dujković under Croatia, being him clearly a Serb of Croatia, even coaching currently the Serbia U-21 team. The reason he gave me, and you guys here generally aproved, was that since he didn´t play for any National team, he MUST be placed in his birthplace, "couse it would be too much work otherwise"...

This issues can be sensible, remember, there was war between Serbs and Croats there, so this issue may be sensible, like calling an Israeli a Palestinian, and saying it doesn´t mather, he was born in Gaza, so he must be Palestinian, despite his family being Jewish since Abraham... FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I´m not saying Dujković cares, I don´t know (despite he allways stated clearly as being Serb), maybe it is not even important to him, but maybe he had family killed... We should anyway use the nationality as people desire (if possible, as here is) so this way we avoid any missunderstandings. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It has certainly been practice that we lump people into "category: Xian footballers" by the simple assumption of their nationalities, but that doesn't make it good practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was "good practice", but it has clearly been established practice. If people feel that the "Xian footballer" category structure needs to be addressed it is going to take a huge amount of tedious work considering the amount of work needed to find sources just for the unsourced footballer biographies, let alone all the ones without specific references for nationality.

I believe there are much bigger problems to do with nationality. Specifically the plague of unsourced "Xians of Yian descent" categories that have descended on thousands of football biographies based on no more evidence than inferral of ethnic origin by surname, in clear violation of WP:CATGRS. King of the North East 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores 2009 - points v aggregate

2009 Copa Libertadores has reference to 'points' in the knockout tables as the means of illustrating the winner of the 2-legged ties, rather than the usual aggregate. This is explained in the talk pages as due to the fact that Conmebol make no reference to 'aggregate' in the official rules. Is this a common-usage issue though, whereby aggrregate is generally quoted not total points. Had a quick look and here's a couple of sources showing the aggregate. [9] [10].

Note the page is currently protected, but this seems to be for an unrelated dispute. Eldumpo (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the official rules of the Copa Libertadores, the winners of two-legged ties are first determined by points (3 for a win, etc). It makes sense: if you win both legs, who really cares what aggregate is, and if you win one leg and tie the other, aggregate doesn't really matter again since you pulled of a W and the other team didn't. But, if there is a tie in points, the following is officially taken into account according to the rules: 1) goal difference; 2) goals scored; 3) away goals; and 4) penalty shootout. It therefore makes no sense to mentioned aggregate if it is officially never taken into account, although it is common practice in the media anyways. Digirami (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that the 2009 edition is not isolated in this system. I have the rules going back to 2005 and it is still the same: points, not aggregate. I suspect that this has always officially been the case for the Copa Libertadores since teams in 1960 (the year of the first Copa) advanced on points, not aggregate (but it is something I can't definitely prove). Also remember that newspapers are likely not keeping tabs on the official rules (more so if it is not in the geographical area). And since those are British sources, they are likely to adopt a system that they know for similar circumstances: aggregate. Digirami (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response although the key point I am making is not what the official rules are but what is regularly reported in the media (and noting you say above 'It therefore makes no sense to mentioned aggregate if it is officially never taken into account, although it is common practice in the media anyways.) It's a fair point re sources but I have also found French/American media sources that are referring to aggregates. [11] [12]

Anyone else got a view on this? Eldumpo (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But again, the media is reporting a fact that is never officially taken into account when it comes to two-legged ties in the Copa Libertadores (or any CONMEBOL competition). We should not be posting details that are officially non-existant. Digirami (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Browns

I've recently created the article Brown family (Argentina). Does anyone have any good sources that I could use to expand the article? Hack (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bon voyage

Hey guys, I'm going travelling in a week so I'm pretty much going to be off Wikipedia for a whole year - estimated return date is mid-December 2010. The only articles/tasks I consistently update/do are List of Bradford City A.F.C. players, List of Hamilton Academical F.C. players, and the AfD archiving here. If someone could keep an eye on these for me it'd be much appreciated! Oh, and if you need to contact me you can do so by e-mail. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Bon Voyage. Your contributions will be missed. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a great trip!! Take care en route. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See you later. Will be lots to keep up with in your absence! Cocytus [»talk«] 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What they said. Have fun!! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck :) You have been a fantastic contributor to this project. Enjoy your break! --JonBroxton (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll and I'll miss you and your contributions.Bonne chance. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice trip!--EchetusXe 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a great trip! We will miss you and your contributions. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this week came at a good time, you get to acclimatise before you even get there! You'll be missed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, enjoy yourself, and see you in a year matt91486 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words everyone! :) GiantSnowman 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Upgraded current squad template

It has been mentioned at WT:FOOTY a few times previously, but I thought I'd mention it again as a lot of editing time can be saved by merging the code for the football squad and the navbox using {{Fs2}}. I have made a blank version which can be found here. When this has been done there is far less work to be carried out per team once the dreaded transfer window opens again (tick, tick, tick...)

I have already upgraded the finest team in the land to the convertable navbox/current squad. King of the North East 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something must be wrong with Wikipedia....that link goes to 'Boro! --ClubOranje^T 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They put up a good fight against the second best yellow team in the world a few weeks back. WFCforLife (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would suggest making the spacing between the trigramme and the position smaller. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I Agree with JonBroxton. But that is a major improvement in copyediting.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, the three letter code is a complete waste of time. Either go the whole hog and put the country name in, or don't bother. The acroynm is ludicrous and in very clear defiance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), a guideline that is indeed far less controversial than the one that initiated this entire debate. WFCforLife (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2002-03 season articles

I am in the process of individual club articles for the 2002-03 season (see Template:2002-03 in English football. I would appreciate some help from editors with filling in results and squads (particularly if it is your team) using the style of the Manchester United F.C. season 2002-03 article. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks. 03md 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Watford one is on my to-do list. Although to be honest, they shouldn't be created unless there is an intention to make said article more than a bunch of stats. WFCforLife (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall get started on improving the Plymouth Argyle page, though I must say that I like WFCforLife's layout more! I'll focus on getting the table's done first and then add text with references when I can. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to try and establish consensus on the layout of the page at the Season article task force on the layout of the page. I like the Watford page layout but we have different setups on virtually every article in the 2002-03 category. 03md 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the biggest sticking point seems to be that nobody wants to change the way their results are formatted. To be honest I don't think we necessarily need to agree on that one. Where we do need to reach consensus is on what a season article should cover (suspensions? loan deals? seperate stats for goalkeepers? routine coverage of finance, or only in exceptional cases, such as Watford this season and in 2002-03? what should the prose cover? etc). WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite comfortable with the collapsible style, but I'm not surprised there are many differences on other club pages because its down to the personal taste of the editor involved. Loan deals are fairly standard, but suspensions would probably be harder to find, especially if we're going way back (60's, 70's, etc). I see no problem covering finance in exceptional circumstances when details are readily available in the public domain, but otherwise its a bit tricky. I'll try to get a bit more done before I call it a night, didn't realise how long it took, but its worthwhile and satisfying. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Cards in Match Results

I'm hoping to achieve a consensus here to defuse a brewing edit war. Namely, should red cards be included in match results? I believe that they should, as they are an important part of a given match, both in terms of play and in terms of statistics. Additionally, while the major argument of opponents that I've run into seems to be that the particular template parameter red cards are entered into is "goals", I think that the parameter's name is simply a useful abstraction of the information that should be included within it and not necessarily an exhaustive list of what's allowed. Again, though, I'm hoping to achieve some sort of consensus on this matter so that a policy can be established for future match result articles and edits. cassius1213 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that red cards should be included as they do not directly contribute to the result of the match. Match results are not determined by the number of red cards suffered by each team, but by the number of goals each team scores. While it is true that a player getting sent off may make it easier for the opposition to score, that is merely an indirect consequence of the sending-off. – PeeJay 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including both red cards and yellow cards in match reports if the editor is willing to put forth the effort to make the whole page consistent. I can't stand pages that have card information for some matches and not for others. It either needs to be all or none for a given page. As long as there is an external link to a match report that includes the card information, there should be no problem with WP:V either. On club season articles in particular it is very useful when trying to determine when and where a player accumulated all of their cards. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. If it's a match article, certainly (and yellows and substitutions too). If it's a season article I personally include red cards, but not yellow cards (or indeed substitutions). The fact that one team had nine or ten men may or may not have had an effect on the outcome of the game, and I believe it's up for the reader to interpret. Also, the danger of excluding reds entirely is that red cards against the team are pointed out in the prose, while red cards against the opposition are sometimes not, thus unwittingly introducing POV. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Red and yellow cards must be included - they are significant events during match play. Leaky Caldron 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify, this discussion is about {{footballbox}} and {{footballbox_collapsible}} only. It is indisputable that yellow and red cards should be included next to players' names in articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final or 2008 UEFA Champions League Final, but the argument here is whether or not they should be included in the match summary templates in the "goals1" and "goals2" parameters. Sorry for the confusion. – PeeJay 10:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is key. If red cards are included for one match then they must be included on all matches.--EchetusXe 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Undecided. Adding the cards to match boxes can add helpful additional information, but sometimes – especially if there are a large number of yellows – it seems to add more clutter than additional knowledge. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that adding yellow cards to the match boxes would add unnecessary clutter. However, I still do believe that adding the red cards awarded in a match (when such information is available) would still add helpful information. cassius1213 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're using {{footballbox_collapsible}} the clutter is not a problem. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Club season article structure

I'd like to draw people's attention to this discussion, in the hope that with many ideas we can come up with a good model for season articles. WFCforLife (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blew family

Does anyone know if Horace Elford Blew and Frank William Elford Blew are related? Both were born in Wrexham, Horace in 1878 (or 1873, depending on which source you believe; [edit] the 1911 census states that Horace was actually born in 1879, but that shouldn't make any difference) and Frank in 1902. Since Horace was playing football for Wrexham in 1902, I find it entirely likely that they are father and son, but it is entirely possible that they are uncle and nephew. Can anyone confirm either way? – PeeJay 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, a Horace Blew was Mayor of Wrexham in 1923 - do you reckon it's the same guy? GiantSnowman 23:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely! Blew had long since finished his playing career by then, and he would have been in his forties, making him a good age to be mayor of the town. And it's not exactly like "Horace Blew" is a common name! – PeeJay 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you though, 'Frank Blew' is much less common - and when I searched for him using speech marks to limit searches, they were all among the lines of "Frank blew out the candle"! GiantSnowman 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, nice one! I wonder if anyone here has a subscription to a site that provides access to the 1911 census. If we could find Frank Blew's birth records, that would be smashing. – PeeJay 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As we waited, Dr. Frank blew on the pig call as if to announce, "Hungry lions, injured pig for dinner right here." A few moments later, Dr. Frank nudged me and pointed straight out. No more than 15 yards away was an intense pair of eyes staring right at me. I looked to the left and saw another lion pacing back and forth just five yards farther. She stopped, turned and gave us the biggest, longest snarl I have ever heard. GiantSnowman 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Even without a subscription it's possible to find they are father and son. According to the 1911 census there were six people with the name Blew, living in Denbighshire. There's only 1 Horace and 1 Frank with the correct age. 2 were head of a household Horace and Francis. When you do an advanced search: search for Blew, relationship to head of the household: son ,other people in the household: Horace Blew, you will get Frank as a result. Nellie was a younger sister, Mary (1881) was Frank's mother. This only works with rare names. Horace was mayor of Wrexham (Wrexham a complete record 1872-1892 page 92) Cattivi (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh cool, I didn't realise there was an advanced search option! Thanks, Cattivi! – PeeJay 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Exact dates of Birth would cost me a total of 14 Pounds, and I'm not that mad... Cattivi (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas everyone! Hope you all have a peaceful holiday! GiantSnowman 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Same to you and everyone else reading this.--EchetusXe 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Kerrea Gilbert, 07/08

Did Gilbert make in appearance for Arsenal during the 07/08 season? – Michael (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No - see Soccerbase - he made six appearances for Southend, five in the league and one in the Cup. GiantSnowman 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags in club player lists: three questions

Two questions should be raised about the inclusion of a flags column in Template:Football squad player: to what end, and on what grounds.

To what end? Not only is it entirely incidental to a player's membership of a team and his role, it is, in many instances, largely incidental to the player: Adam Miller has always lived in England, and always played for English clubs, but on account of a grandmother from Norn Iron, and an U18 call-up, he is shown as being N Irish: this is of no relevance to his club, but appears on that club's article. Far more relevant to a player's role in a team are his experience, age, height, salary, pace etc, but we don't mention those (most are unverifiable in most cases, or not easy to describe succinctly: I am not proposing their inclusion).

And on what grounds? Apart from the fact that displaying flags without the name of the country, contrary to what is mandated at MOS:Flag, any regular visitor to these pages will know that it can be a contentious issue, involving sensitive ethnic issues and the pride of many contributors, difficulties when a player declares for another country or countries change their boundaries, and much uncertainty (and many editwars) where a player takes out a new passport, plays in unofficial internationals, or is selected for a squad but doesn't get onto the pitch (among other scenarios).

So a widely used template presents, in a prohibited manner, an image that (often unclearly) represents information that in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the key subject matter of the article, and is often contentious. Which leads me to my third question: can we really defend that state of affairs? Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that the only legitimate use of flag icons is to represent national teams. Not to represent player/coach/manager nationalities, and not to represent team locations (or leagues?) such as Real Madrid C.F.. But I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's informative to the reader to see the nationality of club players and coaches. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it more informative than all sorts of information that we don't give? What difference does it make whether Carlisle United's left back is English or Scottish? Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If reliable external sources routinely used flag icons like this, then I'd be happy to see the same on Wikipedia. That's why I have no problem with flags used for Olympic, golf, and tennis results, for example. But are they routinely used for football team squads? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-state my comment from another topic: why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden? Flags in the team templates convey at-a-glance very useful information about a team's international makeup, which a lot of people find very informative. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden?" - because the problems are not being addressed, particulary those related to WP:OR and WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is only informative if it is undoubtedly correct. Cases such as that in the discussion immediately preceding this one illustrate that often it is not uncontrovertible.

Is it at a glance info? Would you confidently distinguish the flags of Netherlands and Luxembourg, or those of Slovenia and Slovakia? If you see the flag of Moldova or Armenia, do you instinctively recognise it as such? Many people wouldn't: that is why MOS:FLAG insists that country names should accompany flags.

Yes, I could, and if I couldn't I'd move my mouse over the flag and watch the country name pop up. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone uses Wikipedia from computers with a mouse. There is a massively growing mobile internet readership, where this facility is not always possible, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant, useful info? If a player is nowhere near his national squad, then where he was born is no more relevant to his role in the team than is whether he was born as the oldest child in his family. Kevin McE (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to leagues where there is a quota on foreign players. Players who don't play for international teams are still counted as foreign players if they were born elsewhere. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mouseover gives the country name if there is any confusion over which country is being represented. Removing the flags from squads would not add any utility to the encyclopaedia and would remove at-a-glance information that many people (including myself) find useful, especially in South American football where there are quotas on foreign players. King of the North East 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced original research based on hidden, non-standard criteria which oversimplifies complex issues is increasing the encyclopaedia's utility. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The case of Adam Miller above is far from isolated, and is a clear case of where we are misleading readers. We have oversimplified this person's nationality status with the use of one flag, when the reality is more complicated and cannot be reduced to an "at-a-glance" colourful box.

The only excuse we ever hear for the misuse of flags is their "at-a-glance" nature, when actually we need to acknowledge that complex issues such as nationality can not be explained "at-a-glance".

In most instances more worryingly, these flags are actually examples of WP:OR - they claim a "sporting nationality" for players who have never played for a country, against this project's guidelines. Editors are coming to their own conclusions on a player's "sporting nationality" based on a birthplace in an almanac or a mention of a parent's nationality in a newspaper article. However, this player may have other national eligibilities we do not know about, or may choose a country of heritage over that of birth, or may naturalise to another country in the future, or... the possibilities are manifold, and yet Wikipedia editors feel able to decide for them by slapping a flag next to their name based on their own whim. This widespread plague of original research must stop. Knepflerle (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Miller's sporting nationality be English anyway, as the last representative team he featured for was England National Game XI? --Jimbo^[online] 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we inventing criteria anyway? How are our readers even supposed to know what our criteria are? Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are we creating criteria? MOS:FLAG states; "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality". Is this not just a case of defining Miller's sporting nationality? --Jimbo^[online] 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Do our readers know that a flag represents "sporting nationality" and not anything else?

Do our readers know how Wikipedia determines "sporting nationality" when they read an article?

Do any reliable sources define "sporting nationality" in this way, using the same criteria (England C appearances etc)?

Can readers find out what sources we've used to determine someone's "sporting nationality", particularly when they haven't played for a national representative team?

Do readers even realise that in most cases no sources have been used?

Do they realise that in most cases of complex nationality, editors just pick the flag according to their own criteria and whims?

In summary: in the vast majority of cases, a flag slapped next to a player's name is an unsourced oversimplification based on unrecorded criteria, often not even satisfying our own concept of "sporting nationality" - a criterion our readers don't even know we use.

This is an encyclopaedia - we cannot dump WP:V by the wayside just so our articles look a bit more like Football Manager Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not unrecorded criteria though as the majority of the articles written on footballers have some sort of reference stating who they have played for, especially those born of one nation, representing another national team which differs to that of their birth. What's so unverifiable about that? --Jimbo^[online] 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Miller case is completelly right the way it is. He has choused to represent N.Ireland on international level, so he should have a NIR flag, if he decides to represent another nation, the flag would be changed, despite having all other ties linking him with England... I agree with KingoftheNorth about flags, they are allways used in all football websites (the ones that don´t use them are much penalised because of that), and I think, despite all debate about the meaning of sports nationallity, that most, if not all, people know what they represent. And it is not thru that they are not relevant for clubs, couse the main competitions in wich the clubs compete have usually a foreign players limits, so it is very usefull to know their nationalities. Removing the flags would be a major minus, just as having to add the country name next to it... FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a player's international career can be relevant at club/national level. When you add a sporting nationality to a player you can no longer see if a player is foreign or not at clublevel or if he has an EU passport. It doesn't matter which country a player represents at international level for EU labourlaw. How many South Americans and Africans would there be playing football in the EU if non of them had an EU passport? Aren't these EU passports much more important for clubs and players at clublevel? A few years ago the minimumwage for non-EU players older than 23 years in the Dutch Eredivisie was ca. 340.000 Euro a year, for EU players of the same age it was ca. 16.000/17.000 Euro, the minimum wage.... User:Cattivi|Cattivi]] (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth isn't always relevant for a player's nationality. Jus Sanguinis versus Jus soli Cattivi (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both last opinions are right. But, for instance, Siniša Mihajlović allways had a Serbian flag next to him despite being comunitarian (he was a holder of both Italian, making him UE citizen, and Serbian) and being born in what is today Croatia. But, the flag was right, because he was Serbian, and played internationally for Serbia. I don´t agree about making the "birth place role" for non international players because people today are much mobile and there are more and more possibilities of other nationalities being born in different countries (without talking about national minorities...), so there must be some flexibility about it, but this is another debate.

I think that this discussion would be reasonable somwhere where editors don´t know much about football, but here I see so many excellent editors that the flags are 99% (if not 100%) correct, having a hands countable number of wrong (or discussible) flags in a thousands of players. I am in favour of making some roles about this (some club pages indicate separately the non national, or comunitarian, players after the squad list, or with *), but I still think their removal would be a major minus. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe that club articles should be exempt from the principles of WP:FLAG? Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...or more pressingly in most examples, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying say that I agree with all JonBroxton, KingOfTheNorthEast and Jimbo say. It pretty much covers completely your first question: "On what purpose?". You are wright about the WP:FLAG principle, I do remember the recent national teams debate here. If adding the flag country name next to it would be the only solution, then, what else can we do? Because, not having the nationality of the players in the squad lists would be "unbeleveable". FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of Kevin McE's points above, and in general I'd be happy to excise flags altogether from footy bios if that's what it'll take to end this. The value gained is limited compared to the potential for confusion and the constant need for original research to ensure "completeness" when it comes to flagging people by "footballing nationality" even where that's never been a consideration for a given player professionally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC time? This needs deciding once and for all. Most of the flags in current use are unsourced, ignoring WP:V, and the invention of our own in-house concept of "sporting nationality" (unused elsewhere, so probably WP:OR) is leading to editors trying to give every player one, single nationality, no matter how complex the situation, according to their own syntheses of nationality law and sources.

The project needs its priorities in order, and these articles brought under the same policies as any other article. This is an encyclopaedia - everything is secondary to information integrity. Real people do not come with one single flag attached to them à la Football Manager, and articles should not pretend otherwise. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making an ENORMOUS mistake if you do this. Most of the flags in current use are NOT unsourced, because the source is either 1) the place of birth, or 2) the country the player represents internationally, if it is different from his place of birth. For the tiny percentage of articles where there is some kind of difficulty or point of contention, then that player's article will go into the necessary detail. It's really not that hard. As I have said repeatedly on numerous topics, the nationality of players is VERY important in terms of indicating a team's makeup, showing the percentage of non-domestic players in leagues where there are quotas on such things, and so on and so forth. I think this entire argument is utterly absurd, and will be a significant backwards step on soccer articles in terms of the information provided to readers, not an improvement. --JonBroxton (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS specifically says not to use flags simply to indicate place of birth, and only a tiny fraction of the footballers we cover have played for a national side. Furthermore, in the modern game (at least in Europe post-Bosman) the nationality of the players therein is actually of no consequence to the running of the club, any more than in any other profession. It's rather a throwback to the days of quotas that it's even a consideration, really. In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace is neither sufficient nor necessary for nationality - read ius sanguinis (for example, being born in Switzerland does not give you Swiss nationality - read Swiss nationality law), so straight away we are using a false criterion and misleading readers by assigning nationalities we have no true evidence for. Most flags in articles are unsourced - where's the link to the source on 99.999% of these "nationalities"? In difficult cases the player's article may go into detail, but everywhere else in Wikipedia he will appear with just one flag next to him, assigned by some editor's original synthesis, and readers are being misled. "Information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists." - exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has an RFC been opened yet? If so, please provide a link. FWIW, I agree with the removal of these flags. Most of them are indeed a violation of WP:OR. The arguments for at-a-glance value are ignoring this fact. It's not useful, even at-a-glance, if it's not correct and verifiable. The bigger reason that I support their removal is to end all of the wasted time bickering about them. I've only been working on soccer related articles for 6 months or so, but I've already been involved in a few spats where some editor decided to change a flag based on a technicality I wasn't aware of. Near edit wars usually erupt at that point and we end up creating a new topic here to "have it out" over the matter. Let's just get rid of them. In at least 90% of the cases they're used, they're not verifiable at all. They need to go. Please point me to the RFC so I can add my thoughts there. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the opponents of flags are overstating the case somewhat. The vast majority of players have unambiguous nationality and to pretend otherwise would illustrate a willingness to ignore reality in pursuit of a specific objective (eradication of flags, or "all the pretty colours in the squad lists" in rhetorical language). I don't know (or care) much about obscure 4th tier players in any country but I do know and care about football in South America. The claim that the use of a flagicon to denote nationality (of South American players) is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is verifiably false. The argument that we need to remove flags that are not accompanied by text is countered by mouseover.

As I said before the use of flags allow the reader to quickly identify the foreign quota players in a squad without having to click through the whole squad list to find them. The problems of duel/ambiguous nationality could be easily overcome through improvement of the current squad template to allow the display of 2 flags or allowing it to display footnotes. Eradication of this useful at-a-glance information because of a very small percentage of ambiguous cases, instead of finding a practical solution would be a classic case of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. King of the North East 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with King of the North East. Removing valuable information such as this is counter-productive to the entire project and will be enormously detrimental to the many, many people who find this information useful. I mean, really, out of all the thousands and thousands of soccer players who have a flag icon by their name, what percentage of them has any kind of controversy. 5%? 10%? Even at the most, you're still removing 90% of the unambiguous, non-controversial information on the page, which to me is unneccessarily draconian and akin to cuttng your nose off to spite your face. Also, can the editors who repeatedly accuse pro-flag editors of simply wanting "pretty colors" on the page knock it off. It's demeaning to those of us who work VERY hard on keeping soccer articles up to date. We just think it's pointless to remove useful, informative, important information because there are a few controversies here and there which, in reality, don't take that much effort to work around. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC

It's not "valuable information" or "useful, informative, important information" when it's unsourced, based on incorrect assumptions and original research. It really, really isn't - it's misleading. Knepflerle (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much missed the point entirely there.

The use of flags is not the problem per se - it's this Wikipedia-only invention of "sporting nationality" (and then ignoring this definition and inventing others on a whim, as in the Paraguayan/Ecuadorean case above), the lack of sourcing for 99.999% of assigned nationalities, the misuse of criteria such as birthplace as an ersatz nationality, the compulsion to assign one nationality to players eligible for several... the problems are manifold, and arise whenever you try and simplify these issues to one flag, one word, one country, one whatever. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues come from trying to boil down birthplace and team representation information into one definitive nationality - the information can be sourced, but the "Wikipedia nationality" invented from it is often not.

The claim that this is a "uncommon" problem is bogus on two accounts - it appears on these pages with disturbing regularity, and a lot of cases only fail to arise because they've never been properly researched anyway. Very, very few players with a flag have represented a national team, and for the vast majority of those we know nothing more about their nationality than their birthplace - which in many cases tells us nothing anyway (see ius sanguinis).

This constant appeal to needing "at-a-glance" information is void and destructive - but "information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Nationality is just not reducible to "at-a-glance". Mark players who are counted as foreign quota for a given competition with a ¹ or * or something, if you like. Knepflerle (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept that using Jonathan Santana when Jonathan Santana would be more accurate is not right, that why I suggested modifying the template to allow more than one flag. The fact that you want rid of flag usage is clearly demostrated by your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases. Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do, it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like. There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports (detailed below), trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases, refusing to accept that some/many people find them useful and refusing to consider alternatives to widescale removal looks a lot like an agenda driven position. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases" - unfortunately, you've now even started ascribing positions to people which they don't even hold - I've never even said that. Improving the template would alleviate some, but not all, of the problems.
• "Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do" - that's why I brought the discussion here so that a community consensus could be found. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiables though for all editors.
• "it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like" - now there's a genuine example of a simple suggestion being rejected without due consideration.
• "There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports" - I am at WT:FOOTY, which sport should I be talking about?
• "trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases" - this is not the only reason, as is crystal-clear to anyone else reading what I've written.
• "refusing to consider alternatives" - I'm not - none have been presented yet, just the same old claims about needing "at-a-glance" information (be it sourced or not)
• "looks a lot like an agenda driven position." - I'd love to know what subvertive "agenda" you believe could be some sort of hidden motive. My motive is improving the articles by making sure the information they contain is reliable, sourced and unambiguous. Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- and it should be pointed out that your unfortunate and unwarranted personalisation of the issue in your last post is inaccurate - I am hardly alone in having reservations on this matter: [13], [14], [15], etc. Knepflerle (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- You accuse me of personalising the issue, but I'm not the one constantly using rhetorical language like "bogus", "void and destructive", "same old claims", "pretty colours" to diminish other peoples point of view and making suggestions in the language of personal advice, neither did I suggest that you were alone in having reservations. In my post yesterday I showed that nationality can be sourced in reliable publications such as BDFA, and that it would be fairly simple to amend the squad template to clarify ambiguous cases. You did not respond to either of these points and carried on going on about WP:OR. It's clearly not an OR issue if nationality can be easily sourced in reliable publications. King of the North East (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between using language which dismisses or diminishes the arguments of others and simply making up arguments for one's opponents. I would note that you've done that again here. It has been repeatedly stated that nobody on the "source or die" side of the nationality argument is proposing that the issue of nationality be banned from inclusion in articles: the point is that current convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be. And indeed, because this applies to the vast majority of the articles that we cover, simply amending the template isn't enough. We should be discouraging the default inclusion of nationality in these templates, and our guidelines should be amended to specifically specify where and when nationality is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will overlook the accusation that I am "simply making up arguments for one's opponents...that you've done...again here". I think I've remained pretty calm in discourse with the guy and it is not unfair to accuse him of going on about WP:OR, he's linked to it 7 times so far in the discussion. As for your points about the issue we are on pretty similar ground. I agree that "the convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be" and would say that the statement accurately describes the rest of the encyclopaedia too. The issue is clearly visible in virtually any Wikipedia biography. Even the Manual of style for footballers promotes the use of an unsourced assertion of nationality:

• Adrián Hernán González (born 20 November, 1976) is an Argentine football midfielder...

The category structure is also based on inferred nationality which could be seen as a violation of WP:EGRS. None of the "source or die" side (as you call them) would suggest amending the manual of style to take the form of Argentine born<ref></ref>, Argentine registered<ref></ref> and nobody is suggesting the replacement of Category:Argentine footballers with Category:Footballers for articles that are not meticulously sourced. Although it would be easily possible to argue for these positions using our myriad policies and guidelines. You would admit that the player positions (DF, MF, FW) are often ambiguous (in the case of wing backs, utility players etc), are never meticulously sourced and far less self-explanatory to the casual observer than the use of flagicons. Using similar arguments the current squads could be stripped down to a list of names and squad numbers. I believe that the alternatives to wide scale removal of information from squad summaries should at least be considered. Improved display capacity, use of footnotes or textual rendering instead of/or alongside Vexillological. I would have no great opposition to the replacement with text (as long as it is done in a way that is accessibly displayed), although even this step would not address any of the "source or die" issues. If we come out of this discussion with a clearer, sortable and multifunction template using text without/text alongside flagicons, at least we would be improving the encyclopaedia rather than endlessly debating the wide scale removal of content. King of the North East 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would note as the last editor to the bio MoS that I am in fact strongly opposed to the "Xian footballer" designation without a concrete reliable source. I used "source or die" as a nickname deliberately to present my own side in a self-deprecating manner so as to not necessarily favour this approach. I do not consider the category argument to be a reinforcement of your position; rather, it is simply one which has yet to be properly resolved (as with the "other sports" argument below). The "widescale removal of content" argument has already been lost: project-wide consensus is that we do not keep unsourced biographical detail indefinitely while it waits on reliable sourcing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you use a source like BDFA on nationality issues, when their definition of nationality is clearly different from Wikipedia. (Espinola, previous subject on this page has 2 flags) In my opinion all flags should be added (There could be a lot of them in theory, this will be very difficult if you want it to be reliable) or non Cattivi (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Sports

The idea that flags denoting sporting nationality is a football specific "problem" is easy to counter. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and thats just a selection of team sports, there are also individual sports such as tennis and golf and motorsports to consider. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has anyone said this is football specific? Knepflerle (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was countering the statement that "I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances" from the 2nd post in this section. This is clearly not a football specific issue with at least 8 other team sports using flagicons to denote nationality in current squad templates. The issue should be raised elsewhere as it clearly goes beyond the scope of WP:FOOTY King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, the issue already has been raised centrally, which led to the current state of WP:FLAG. Lots of projects are in outright violation of that guideline, but the people here may or may not be interested in fixing articles outside of the football domain. The issue is not whether the current WP:FOOTY convention is wrong (it is): it's coordinating the work to fix it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would using the word Ex: Mexican in the squad templates instead of solve the problem about WP:FLAG? FkpCascais (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them, by any distance. Flags are just an indication of the larger problem we have with ascribed nationalities, something which takes up roughly 50% of all WT:FOOTY discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement, what with 50% of this page being used to discuss the problems with WP:ATHLETE and all! King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the chatter about individual articles and the friendly banter about Irishmen who may or may not have played for Honved in 1911 makes up the margin of error. :) But seriously, this is far and away the biggest unresolved problem discussed here. ATHLETE discussion basically always ends with someone pointing at the GNG. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whither now?

A week has passed since the last comment, but clearly several people do not believe that the current position is tenable. So do we simply allow the issue to drift away, eventually be archived and forgotten about, or is there enough groundswell of opinion here to formally propose that some change be made? Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a formal declaration is necessary. Right now, a lot of articles over-use and misuse flags. This should be addressed directly on our most high-profile articles, and the guidelines and examples set out by the WikiProject should be looked over to ensure that they don't recommend such things. The only really problematic thing in my mind right now is that the squad template still expects flags; it's maybe worth formally proposing (by RfC) a change to that template to drop the nationality parameter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd comment on an RFC in favor of the removal of the flags from the template. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 02:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And I would vehemently disagree with that proposal. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I want to commend Kevin McE for being especially bold and removing the flags from the infoboxs (not the squad lists, just the infobox... calm down) of well over 250+ club articles. Given that work, I'd at least like to drive for a consensus now that this is the way it should be done in the infoboxes across the board (again, not the squad lists, just the infoboxes... stay calm everyone). Can we at least agree on that one and put that point to rest? If we agree on this one, we can update the club template with some clarifying text not to use flags in the infobox. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had been agreed a long time ago? Flags in infoboxes next to places of birth and clubs have never been acceptable, not only for violation of WP:MOSFLAG, but also because it screws with the row alignment in the tables? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean removing nationality flags next to managers names in club infoboxes. Well, he certainly worked hard, but I still completely disagree with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we introduce a key similar to 1, or the more subtle 2. In a perfect world this key would be built into the template, so that it automatically updates to reflect the nationalities used.

There is a legitimate question as to if and where nationality should be used. However, in some leagues nationality directly affects eligibility to play. Therefore this change would continue to be useful, even if the consensus is that clubs not in such a league should not reference nationality at all. WFCforLife (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) -Can't be bothered to log in (it's Matt91486), but I'd definitely say that the second of the two is preferable if we feel like a key needs to be included. 24.118.120.150 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are fine. FkpCascais (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I have made some test changes to {{Fs2}} (documentation) to display like this. We could request the same changes to {{Football squad}} or start rolling out the superior multifunction Fs2 template. King of the North East 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the basic idea, but that's going to cause a formatting/layout nightmare when you get to players from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Can't we use the FIFA Trigramme? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can easily be done. I'll try it out. King of the North East 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just swap the word in the navbox to change the display like this. King of the North East 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I like it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the triagramme as a method of "explaining" the flag. Some are okay, some are useless. If we're going to expand on the flag icon (which I'm weakly opposed to, with aesthetic preference for a key but not really being bothered), it should be done fully, i.e. in England format. Tough cases make for bad law. I'm sure the half a dozen sentence-long countries can be dealt with appropriately. WFCforLife (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless how? They are FIFA-approved abbreviations, not some random three-letter code plucked from thin air. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So what if they're official. If I don't know what the flag means, how is a three letter acronym I don't understand going to help? Either the flag is good enough alone, or its not. But if it's not, we shouldn't introduce a second thing that may or may not communicate the information. WFCforLife (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In summary, strong preference for the Barcelona variant of {{Fs2}} over the Banfield one, weak preference for a key instead of that. WFCforLife (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (edited WFCforLife (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

None of these satisfy WP:V and therefore, IMO are non-starters. Yes, they're elegant solutions to one of the problems being discussed (WP:MOSFLAG), but they don't even approach satisfying the other (WP:V and WP:OR). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Gnevin's proposal to resolve WP:V, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to deal with the question about communication of information. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. One of these solutions plus Gnevin's solution takes care of all the concerns that have been presented. As has been said below, I prefer just to depend on the alt text as you mouse over the flag, but as this may not comply 100% with WP:MOSFLAG depending on interpretation, if adjustments are requested (during an FA review for example), I think WFCforLife's key/legend suggestion is my preference. I'd rather not inline a bunch of country names (or three-letter-abbr.) in the table. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A Third Proposal

Adding a key or adding text for the country name or abreviation doesn't address the problems stated above which were: 1) edit wars when there is disagreement over the nationality of a player, 2) the fact that "sporting nationality" is a Wikipedia invention, 3) the fact that there's no way to provide inline citations for these "sporting nationalities", and 4) the fact that readers have no idea that the flag represents their "sporting nationality" and not necessarily their actual country of birth.

I propose a more direct solution to the problem. Remove them. We can slay this beast in one shot by modifying {{Fs2}} to ignore the "nat" parameter. I tried this out on a club page (by removing all of the "nat" parameters myself) and it looked fine. One ironic thing I noticed in my experiement is that all of the columns are labeled except the "sporting nationality" column, so when you remove it, the table actually looks natural still. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose an outright ban. In countries or competitions where nationality is relevant to eligibility, it must be displayed, even if the eligibility rules are a figment of FIFA's imagination.

Neutral on the suggestion that they're removed from clubs where this isn't relevant- I have strong conflicting views for and against it.

Regardless, editors must a

gree refrain from petty disputes such as the one which derailed the first Seattle Sounders FC FAC while we are discussing the matter. There is a clear willingness to do something, but without a bit of goodwill, there will be no consensus. WFCforLife (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as well. It's a huge part of the sport. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. matt91486 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is a huge part of Wikipedia. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose an outright ban. There has to be a way of presenting this valuable information properly without resorting to a blanket removal. Taking this information away will be a massive step backwards in terms of the useful information provided to readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose an outright ban. 1) isn't even a reason for removing basic data. 2) No it is not. 3) The reason for these anomalies are painfully obvious. 4) I think the average reader has more intelligence than you give them credit for.--EchetusXe 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the rider that a simple, keyed, indicator of those players whose eligibility is restricted is included. In essence, whether a player is French or Malian makes no difference per se to his playing rights, it is whether he holds EU nationality. Showing the holder of a French passport as Malian (because of having been capped by that country) detracts from the understanding of the selection issues in a league where a limit is placed on use of non EU nationals. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the final solution (i.e. even if flags are kept), the suggestion of adding a key for EU passport holders in those circumstances is a very good one.WFCforLife (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They have that here. It is a good idea for leagues with that rule in place.--EchetusXe 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS?!? You want to remove flags from squad lists? WHY? How is that possible justifiable? Eightball (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I care less that 0.5% of contentious flags might lead to debate than that 99.5% are clear cut and add valuable information. Leaky Caldron 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<sigh/> Exactly 0% would lead to debate if we could focus on enforcing verifiability. I don't see how the information can be considered valuable if it's not verifiable. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - removing flags from squad infoboxes is nonsense! GiantSnowman 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you think verifiability is nonsense as well and that original research makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Of course you don't. Please defend your opposition with something more than "it's nonsense". --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what a lot of people - including me - are feeling is that this whole discussion is unneccesarily draconian. The wholesale removal of information from Wiki in this way is not the way to go. You talk about verifiability; when I say that a person's nationality is verified either from his place or birth or the country he represents internationally, someone comes in with something about something in Swiss law about jus sanguis (I don't remember the term). OK, that's Switzerland, but what about the other 211 countries where that is not a law? It seems that every time someone comes up with a good reason to keep the nationality indicators, someone shifts the goalposts again. It seems to be me to be very simple; you have the nationality of the country in which you were born, unless there is a clear, verifiable source that the player has a different nationality, or has subsequently played for another nation at international level (like, say, Preki). What's OR about that? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Skotywa but you sound like a broken record; how do you intend on verifying player's nationalities? Demanding certified copies of their passports to be sent through? GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make this about me. Is your point that it is okay to have some unverified information on Wikipedia because it's hard to verify? Good luck getting anything like that past WP:FA review. My motivation here is based on experience. The bar for WP:FA is going up, and these squad lists with unverifiable nationalities listed will stand in the way of articles being promoted. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who cares about article quality here? (I'm not, here are some examples from above: [16] and [17]) --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this about you at all - but you have presented a "problem" with no solution. 99.99% of nationalities are completely uncontentious, I don't see the issue here to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. I started this section "A Third Proposal" with a (gasp) proposed solution. I even gave reasons for why I thought it was a legitimate solution to the problems raised in the conversation above. Please stop trying to guess my motives or what I'm thinking. It's fine if you disagree with the proposal, but how about suggesting a different solution to the identified problems rather than ignoring them. It may be that 99% are uncontentious now, but that will only be true until they go for WP:GA or WP:FA promotion. That's when Wikipedia as a whole has the opportunity to enforce verifiability. It's currently true that 100% are unverified, whether they're contentious or not. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding sources for player's nationalitis isn't an issue - club profiles, stats websites etc. etc. - so I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here...GiantSnowman 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion here for you now because you've chosen not to read it. Please start at the top with Kevin McE's comment that started this off and catch yourself up before repeating again, "I don't understand". --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Miller is English - as confirmed by a reliable source... GiantSnowman 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, you've got it all sorted out. Awesome. Thanks. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about then. Oh wait... Gillingham F.C. still says he's from Northern Ireland (with no source). If I change it back to England with no source, whoever wanted it to be Northern Ireland will come here complaining or start an edit war. It should be obvious that the problem is bigger than Miller. Other examples of contentious player nationalities have been discussed. Please, don't stop reading after the first comment. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um no, the source I have provided is from Gillingham F.C. and quite clearly states he is English...GiantSnowman 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um yes, click the link to go to the Gillingham F.C. (which I provided) and you'll see that according to Wikipedia he's Northern Irish. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is wrong and I've changed it :) GiantSnowman 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not so much that Wikipedia was wrong, but that Wikipedia (or at least its template for football squads) totally lacks the capacity to communicate the subtleties of nationality. He has represented N Ireland in international football: he was born in England, speaks with an English accent, and has only ever played professionally. His employers use one definition of nationality, Wikipedia has until now used another, the concept of sporting nationality. Is your proposal that we abandon that? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, but in 10 days, it will be changed back because not everyone will know to come to this discussion to find out where you got your information from. Your change is a perfect example of what many of us hope to eliminate here. Unfortunately, providing a source in your edit summary is not sufficient. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gnevin's suggestion (which we actually agree on - shock! horror! ;) ) below should hopefully prevent this. GiantSnowman 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Gnevin's suggestion solves WP:V, but it's completely seperate to the flag hater/waver problem. WFCforLife (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't understand this sourcing rationale. Squad lists should always have the club's official site verifying them. If that club gives a nationality, you would assume it's correct because they, y'know, actually employ the bloke. I do quite a bit of work with featured lists. If you use the book to source 40 entries, on 40 consecutive pages, you don't inline cite each page seperately. WP:V is about ensuring that everything that is potentially contentious is verified. It does not mandate that we insult the reader's intelligence. WFCforLife (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, and honestly, I'd say that simply sourcing the club once at the top of the squad list is sufficient. However, when facts are challenged (as they often are on this very talk page), what should be the prescribed solution? What if the club page doesn't specify? Should inline citations be required then? What if another source contradicts the club? Should a third party source be favored over the club website? These are the types of things I'd really like to see solved with this discussion rather than calling it all nonsense and we'll talk about it again in 1-2 months (that is not an exageration). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same point. I picked a random Prem team - Everton - and went to their official site. John Heitinga is confirmed as being Dutch[18]. Seamus Coleman is confirmed as being Irish[19]. John Ruddy - who is nowhere near his national team - is confirmed as being English[20]. Let's jump to League 2. Torquay United. Elliot Benyon, confirmed as English[21]. Mustapha Carayol confirmed as English[22]. And so on and so on. This is why I absolutely disagree with a blanket ban, because most of this information is NOT just pulled from thin air. Rather than deleting it, we need to come up with a way of adding citations for nationality to the squad templates, which will then remove all the problems. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source more suitable than his club which contradicts it, for instance the national assocation of a country he has played for, or a reliable source directly quoting him as saying he is B rather than A, then we should go with that. If no nationality is given, you are correct to say that we should not make one up, and therefore shouldn't give one at all. I'm simply saying that if the club gives a nationality, that satisfies WP:V. WFCforLife (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are people voting, this is very simple lads....

Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here . Quote from Five pillars

WP:RU removed a the "Irish flag" (see WP:RUIRLFLAG) against WP:CON to keep as it was against WP:OI Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was Original Research. Are you suggesting that wikipedia have invented Ireland, Northern Ireland, and 200+ others?

(correction), actually, that simply isn't true. They removed it per copyvio, and correctly do not use the flags I have given because for rugby it WOULD be original research. WFCforLife (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the official flag of the IRFU can not be use as per copyvio, WP:RU were using an invented flag for Ireland which was removed as per WP:OI and against the WP:CON at the time, an invented Pacific Islanders rugby union team flag also fell to the same sword. If WP:V and WP:OR can't be met here then the flags should go, CON or no CON. WP:5P is very clear! Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to reread WP:Civil. Anyway my suggestion below addresses my concerns Gnevin (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean this with the greatest of respect, but what the fuck are you talking about? WP:V and WP:OR effectively say the same thing- that we shouldn't just make stuff up. There is no disagreement whatsoever about the need to source. WFCforLife (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time or patience to scroll through this massive debate, but has nobody noticed that when you scroll over a nation's flag in the squad templates, it tells you what nation that is? GiantSnowman 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Several people brought that up earlier (including me), but were told that it wasn't a valid point because some people don't use mice. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do they scroll around the screen then? GiantSnowman 20:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They might be browsing around the site with a mobile phone (as I do from time to time). Nevertheless, even clicking on the flag takes you to the correct nation, so I think I'm in the same camp as GiantSnowman on this issue. – PeeJay 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that {{Football squad player}} be changed to included a field called reference. If the reference field is left blank the nat field will not display. A third optional parameter could be added to make these changes optional but include the pages in a hidden category Category:Football clubs with unreferenced squad information Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot. It can be used to link to the player's bio on the club's official site, thereby confirming his nationality, or international team affiliation. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a very good idea; but rather than linking to 25 individual profiles, could we not just link once to the the 'Current squad' page of the team's official website? GiantSnowman 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The template wouldn't care about the reference. The quality of the reference is a matter for this project to discuss else where Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough! GiantSnowman 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this. I have two goals that are motivating me to not let this conversation wither and die without anything being done: 1) I want a solution that will eliminate the constant conversations that go on here disagreeing about a player's flag, and 2) all articles should aspire to become WP:GA or WP:FA at some point, and this is starting to stand in the way of that progress. I think this suggestion satisfies both so I'm on board with this one. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was doubting your motivation, Skotywa. Your adherence to WP's values should be commended, and your work especially on the Sounders article has been excellent. We just needed to find some user-friendly middle ground, and with this I think we have. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If this goes ahead there are two options as I outlined above.

1. We add the reference field and every flag from every club page disappears until a reference is added
2. A major bot run is required to add the opt out to every usage of this template currently. Option 1 would be my preference as we shouldn't be excusing the lack of references Gnevin (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer option 1 as well. I'd say give it a day to ensure consensus before proceeding, and when you do I'd recommend referencing this conversation in your edit summary. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll need to be prepared for a massive influx of "WTF happened to the flags!!?!?!?!" messages when it happens. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 is fine with me; it would allow us to double check every player's nationality as displayed on the 'Current squad' section. I have had to correct a couple already today! GiantSnowman 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support option 1, but a transition period of about a week is needed where the parameter is optional, and a bot goes around to notify the talk pages of articles affected, explaining how to use the new parameter. The typical user WON'T be a regular here. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No sure what you mean a week where the parameter is optional? Once we make the change it's active . I agree we need to notify people as many people as possible ,maybe even village pump? I'd also suggest a handy short cut with a summary like WP:RUIRLFLAG. Does anyone have a bot we can use?Gnevin (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying we make two changes. One to add a parameter for the reference (that could be done right now, it would be entirely uncontroversial), and a little later, a second change so that the reference parameter does what you suggested—that leaving this parameter blank also blanks the nationality. In the meantime the bot notifies everyone, and gives us a little time to add the reference(s). Otherwise, we would be decreasing the likelihood of people adding references, which would be a bad thing. WFCforLife (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea. When adding the ref parameter should we wrap in <ref>{{{ref}}}</ref> or leave this up to the user? Gnevin (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be less of a reference and more of a link. Have a look at the squad list for Chicago Fire Premier. IMHO it should be a better-formatted version of that. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is unbelieveable. Player nationalities are HUGELY important, I can't even begin to fathom how someone would justify removing them. It is ridiculous and quite frankly is destroying my faith in Wikipedia as a remotely decent website. You guys are so caught up in the absurd bureaucracy of it all that you've completely forgotten how to make a decent article. Eightball (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pay no attention to Eightball. He clearly hasn't read the conversation since the consensus was actually to keep the flags and update the template so that they'll show when properly sourced. I've added this comment to his talk page attempting to explain this to him (since he's clearly not reading this page very carefully). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Some examples User:Gnevin/sandbox, can't get the refs to work automatically , so that is a non runner. Let me know what you think Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These look great. Excellent work Gnevin. I've made an adjustment to the note that appears at the bottom of the table. I hope you don't mind. Revert my changed if it's a problem. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they look great too; one minor formatting thing - is there any way we could get the ref note to appear on the same line as the flag rather than below it? It's just a formatting/row height thing. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry meant to say, edit away it's only a sand box. The note will appear at the end of the table . I've updated the example so it's clearer that the note applies to the whole table not just the player it's below Gnevin (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a nationality is all well and good, but it still does not address the two issues that started this thread: why is it considered relevant (lots of people have said that it would be unthinkable to omit the info, but without saying why this is so), and is our display of nationality, reduced as it is to only one nationality, too blunt to be accurate? Some editors might consider mouseover capacity sufficient to get around the insistence at MOS:FLAG that flags should be accompanied by the name of the country: if so, they should argue there for the removal of that stipulation, not simply consider these templates to be above the authority of the encyclopaedia's Manual of Style. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have actually tried to get that stipulation removed from MOS:FLAG, but the idiots on that talk page didn't seem to understand what I was asking for and the request never got anywhere! – PeeJay 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is broad consensus that if it is relevant for other sports, its relevant here. I can't tell if this is a general statement against the notion that we keep flags/nationalities, or if this is a legitimate but mistargetted complaint about the lack of discussion. If it's the latter, challenge weak or non-existant arguments in the places you see them. Calling them weak here will achieve little.

The proposal is that we are going by nationality as defined by FIFA, and in cases where this is not obvious we either seek verification from another reliable source (such as the club, which will report the player's nationality to their association), or we omit it altogether. It may or may not be the ultimate solution, but it's a heck of a lot better than the current situation. And aside from my asertion that MOS:FLAG is completely superceeded by WP:ACCESS and doesn't have genuine consensus anyway, there are a couple of solutions in place to deal with the aforementioned fringe theory. Accepting Gnevin's proposal in no way whatsoever prevents us adopting the suggestions made by myself or King of the North East. WFCforLife (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality issue #infinity

Hamilton player John Sullivan made his debut today, and Soccerbase said his nationality is Scottish, and so I've disambiguated by that. However, I have just found a source which shows he began his career in Ireland - so does anyone know if he is maybe Irish? Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Problem is John Sullivan is common name combination in both Ireland and Scotland and it might take some research to confirm. However a quick google search found these. This link say [23] says Sullivan is a Republic of Ireland youth international and this link [24] has a Sullivan of Bohs played for the Republic U-18s. Its dated just a few months before this Sullivan signed for Accies. Also listed at List of Scottish football transfers 2008–09 with Irish flag. Again listed as Irish at Accies site [25]. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I have moved the page to John Sullivan (Irish footballer). Can an admin please delete the now-useless redirect of John Sullivan (Scottish footballer)? GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Link gives further info about him [26]

Citation Needed for Germany

I was doing my editing rounds when I saw a note saying that the history section in Germany National Football Team didn't cite any refrences. Could the user who created that section please add citations to the history section. Thanks! --Micro101 13:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro101 (talk • contribs)

FC Barcelona early managers

Here we go, just to end this year, with another history question. Having found that Spanish newspapers ABC and el mundo deportivo have just given access to their previous issues online, I'm quite mad and just try to find new informations. I was able to find that Jim Bellamy managed the club from 1929 to 1931, and I was just looking at the Englishman Jack Demby[27], as it is said in the club website. In fact, it looks like he not English! It is more probably Richard Kohn, known as "Dombi". In the 11 August 1993 release of El Mundo Deportivo [28], it is said that "Ricardo Domby" is back at Barcelona, which he left in 1927, having coached "München", and played for Wiener AC. His name his sometimes written "Dombi" release of 17 December 1926 Note that Richard Kohn played for Wiener AC and coached Munich 1860 and Bayern from 1928 to 1933...Enough to correct links and add informations, guys? Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotterdams Nieuwsblad 21-6-1935: Feyenoord engages a new trainer. Previous clubs include FC Basel, FC Barcelona, MTK, Bayern München, 1860 and Hertha (that was in 1924-25, source Michael Jahn, Hertha BSC Eine Liebe in Berlin page 409) Only known by the name Dombi in the Netherlands. He was referred to as a wonderdoctor because of his 'magical potions' to cure injured players. (He was a coach/physiotherapist) Another source that indicates that the club website is probably wrong

[29] The link is about one of his cures: a hot bandage ,a mixture of heated pure latex and paraffin Cattivi (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming me this Cattivi. I like the details, too. So I will be WP:BOLD and add all these informations to Richard Kohn "Dombi" article.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Informations added!Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, another problem: it looks like Conyers Kirby and Ralph Kirby are the same person. In the 28 August 1922 release [30] he is presented as the new CE Europa manager. It is said he played for Fulham, and won the Southern league with them. During the WWI, he played for military teams. On the 1 December 1924 release he left Europa for FC Barcelona [31] to replace Jesza Poszony. On the 11 December 1925, he joined Athletic Bilbao [32] and got in touch with el mundo deportivo by telephone. On the 28 May 1926, it is said he left Atletic Bilbao [33]. Moreover, it is said [34] in la Vanguardia release of 12 February 1924, that he acted as a referee in a match between his team Europa against an English selection. Any opinions?--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to Richard Kohn, sorry. I just found [35] on the 7 February 1926 of el mundo deportivo his arrival at Barcelona. He is called "Little Dombi", "Dombi Littles" and "Mr. Littles". According to the newspaper, he played for Wiener AC, and was the manager of First Vienna before coming to Barcelona. So he would have coached Hertha, then First Vienna, then Barcelona.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and merge Conyers and Ralph Kirby articles.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)