This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
@
SLBedit: no. It's up to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, and according to it: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.MYS77✉16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I can not see that the club has played in the Chinese FA Cup and I would not say that the amatuer league is real part of national level and Since 2014 there is optional promotion or relegation between China Amateur Football League and China League Two so they can choose league. I would say clubs in China League Two and up are notable. Qed237(talk)16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It's debatable. The
China Amateur Football League is a single league covering the entire country. It has regional divisions, but clubs from different divisions play-off against each other for the title. I think it would be extremely harsh to consider clubs playing at level four in the world's most populous country automatically non-notable (and almost certainly a systematic bias issue if this is done without searching for information in Chinese).
Number5716:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would agree that being an amateur club does not automatically mean a club is not notable the fact that these articles are completely unreferenced violates
WP:PROVEIT and
WP:GNG. It is up to the creator to prove they are notable and well referenced, and not up to this project to prove they are not. Delete unless the creator is willing to provide sources for the articles and content created.
Calistemon (
talk)
19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sporting informed that Benfica signed
André Carrillo, but he can only play for Benfica in July 2016, meaning that he still is a player of Sporting, so he should stay in the club's article. Right? (same with
Franco Cervi)
SLBedit (
talk)
23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
International footballers - men or women - are notable, but if there are no reliable sources to verify the claims then it should be deleted.
GiantSnowman18:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Football biography infobox - adding a college section
User:BiHVolim is complaining that this infobox is too narrow for nations with long names, such as
Bosnia and Herzegovina. As you can see from
this version of the page, the flag near the bottom of the infobox spills onto the next line. My suggestion was simply to remove the flags from the infobox (as a first step towards doing the same for all nations). The flags aren't necessary for identification purposes and are simply decorative, so per
MOS:FLAG they shouldn't be there anyway. However, because the flags haven't been removed from the infoboxes of all 200+ national football teams (and their youth teams!) yet, BiHVolim has changed the page back, despite originally
agreeing to my solution. Since it will affect hundreds of pages, I guess this is an issue that should be discussed here: so, flags or no flags? –
PeeJay09:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Guys, be aware that other sports WikiProjects use flag icons for Olympic team and other national team membership, and they do not consider such use "purely decorative." I understand that WP:FOOTY uses flag icons for players in ways that are different from other sports, notably including flags in team rosters. That said, there are ample exceptions in MOS:ICON for national teams, national team members, and other athletes in international competition. See, e.g., the infobox @
Dara Torres, which is standard formatting for Olympic swimmers, whose highest athletic achievement is representing their country in international competition. As a symbol of their current or former national team membership, they get one 7-mm flag in their infobox. Cheers.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to #57 for the fix, looks grand! FYI I never agreed for only Bosnian flags to be removed. I like uniformity across all pages. It does not make sense to modify only
Bosnia and Herzegovina and not others of the kind. That would look totally odd. If flags do get voted out, vote them out for all 200.
BiHVolim (
talk)
13:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I had a suggestion. I wanted to know if we could switch the Major League Soccer teams roster template to the original template where every other football team in the world has. For me its much better for organization, looks more professional, and also it just looks better. Thoughts?
Hence the question. Finishing second in Primeira Liga is not an honour. No medals received (like in any league). Nothing.
SLBedit (
talk)
21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Being or not being a honour is a subjective question depends the "taste" of the person. If you have 20 titles, runner-up is not a big thing. If you don't, that its remarkable for that club.
WP is not original research. Being runner-up in a national/international official competition is considerer as a honour oustide WP: Yes like: [eurocupshistory.com/club/777/boavista_fc here],
here,
here,
herehere or
here.
If this runner-up is removed from "honours" its information removed. If stays what could harm? And like the notabilty criterias, you cannot make and article just because some club was runner-up (like you cannot made an article because some guy is spanhish). But if the articles exist, that information can be included. You cannot remove "player X is spanish" just because being spanish is not notable.
This was discussed so much times without consensus. The "defeated" will keep trying to re-open this issue until wins by tiring the opposition?
Rpo.castro (
talk)
19:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
everything.explained.today is a tertiary source. scbraga.pt and vfc.pt are primary sources. The "defeated" shouldn't add a second place in league as an honour.
SLBedit (
talk)
19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
....
12, Sky Sports Football Yearbook (former Rothamns Football Yearbook). Discussed in late december 2015, Discussing again 1,5 months later? Better open another discussion topic just in case...
Rpo.castro (
talk)
20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Look links above, or just look into libraries and google. There are plenty sources which considerer (and which don't). Since there is no definition by any organization (FIFA or UEFA) where honours is defined (which per se is a subjective thing), we have to strick to what sources mentionate. I really don't understand where is the discussion. There is any doubt that club A was runner-up? So whats the problem of being listed aas a honours or a major result instead? Its just to make other clube to have a better record? WP is about information, not about "club A is better then B".
Rpo.castro (
talk)
22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not want to imply any club was better than another, just gave my opinion. This discussion is probably as old as WP itself, getting really tiresome. However, since I don't edit club articles (only individual players),
S.C. Braga or any other club, I won't edit war with anyone. --
84.90.219.128 (
talk)
23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Luck you, because everyone in WP can face an editor who wants to edit warring. I would like to understand how can you say there is not reliabale sources, when there is...
Rpo.castro (
talk)
23:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
With respect, those sources may not indicate it is an honour, just that the team finished second in this or that season. Again, like I said, you don't have to worry about me reverting anyone. Cheers --
84.90.219.128 (
talk)
17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Vanderlei Luxemburgo: template include size
The
Vanderlei Luxemburgo page has a problem in that it includes too many templates and the page is in the hidden
Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. That means some of the templates did not work, and any further templates added will cause other templates to not work. It has to be fixed, and the easy way would be to remove several of the "managers" navboxes at the bottom. That would possibly be a good idea because they are an overkill. However, if they are wanted, the navboxes needs to be fixed. For example, {{America Football Club managers}} includes lots of {{Football manager list entry}}, as do the others. That puts a zillion of the "entry" templates in the main article. The navbox might be replaced with a module that would reduce the number of templates down to a small number. Thoughts?
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
another possible option would be to create a 'navboxes top' and 'navboxes bottom', which would avoid passing the entire stack of infoboxes through the navboxes template.
Frietjes (
talk)
20:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Frietjes for that info which I will digest.
@
MYS77: thanks for the links, but would you mind saying what you think should be done now. Due to my lack of familiarity with this project I can't follow the comments. Should I fix the manager navboxes so they appear as currently intended without error? Or, are people here wanting some other solution such as removing the excessive number of navboxes?
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No - to be honest it is a "small deal" in most cases. The fact that I have several books on the history of my club and not one bothers to list past captains or even mention who was captain in any given season is quite telling --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - As an interested friend of the WP:FOOTY family, I would like to note that none of the other major sports WikiProjects sanction navboxes for team captains. While these positions may have had more substance to them in the early 1900s, with the rise of professional managers and coaches in the 20th Century team captain became a relatively meaningless, almost honorary position on sports teams in most of the English-speaking world. In 2016, the position does not rise to the level of a notweworthy honor that merits a navbox.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No - per previous consensus. I will note (in response to Dirtlawyer1), however, that there is at least one sport where the position of Captain is not merely honorary; in ice hockey, only the Captain (or an Alternate Captain if the Captain is not on the ice) may address rules interpretations with the officials. As there is no captain succession box in a sport where the position actually means something, how can we justify it in a sport where the position means almost nothing? —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s18:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, came across
D.C HILL C.F in my gnoming capacity. Not sure if it's notable or not, but it is currently unsourced. (I had to
remove a poor blog reference.) It's also unclear to me if "under-16" means that it's a kids' league, (probably not notable) or if that's some special football lingo. Thanks for looking at it.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
12:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Per the template include size discussion
above, some articles exceed the template include size because they use many club manager navboxes, and each navbox uses many subtemplates. I have converted three navboxes to use the new syntax of the sandbox template. Assuming no problems are raised, I intend to convert more navboxes and the main template. Please have a look at the sandbox link above for documentation. Any thoughts?
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have converted 16 of the navboxes to use the new system (a list is temporarily
here). While doing that I noticed that different styles are used for the note which appears at the bottom of some of them. Examples:
The issue is very minor, but if there are any opinions on what the note should be, I will make the navboxes consistent when I edit more.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I agree that looks best and will standardize on it when doing more editing. What about (i) interim — is that different from caretaker? Some navboxes like {{Fluminense Football Club managers}} use "(
a.i.)". I won't try to change that because those who maintain them clearly like it, but I'm curious if it is another way of saying "temporary" (t?) or "caretaker".
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@
Johnuniq: A caretaker manager is usually someone from inside the club who holds the fort until someone else is appointed. An interim manager is usually appointed from outside the club until a permanent replacement is found (e.g.
Guus Hiddink at Chelsea).
Number5720:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess you are happy with (c) = caretaker manager? If I'm editing lots of the navboxes I may as well improve consistency, so which of the following should be used for interim?
As mentioned above, I'm planning to replace {{Football manager history}} with something that uses a module. A module can check its parameters to detect errors. I haven't put in much checking, but for example, it could reject invalid years such as "from 1970 to 1968". The module does check that a year is given and will show an error if it is invalid. When working on {{convert}} it was decided that a discreet error message should be displayed, but I've found that editors often miss such messages. Therefore, the navbox module won't show anything except a big error message if there is a problem. A hidden tracking category should be added to help locate such errors (like
Category:Convert invalid options).
I found the following hidden tracking categories but they don't seem suitable for reporting a template error.
This seems to me in the "you've got to be kidding me!" category, but here goes. In
2015–16 Primera División de Fútbol Profesional season, between Apertura and Clausura seasons,
Juventud Independiente sold it's spot to Segunda División (and former Primera División) side
C.D. Luis Ángel Firpo. The issue is that for whatever reason, Firpo was forced to register as Juventud, so all official league records (and sites such as Soccerway) indicate Juventud, but it's actually Firpo (players, stadium, colors, etc.). Juventud is actually sitting out the Clausura season, supposedly having not registered in time for Segunda Division's Clausura.
We have a referenced note of this at the end of the section about promotion & relegation after last season, and what's basically a copy of that at the top of the Clausura season, noting that in that section Juventud really means Firpo, but I'd like some input as to whether that's the best way to do it, or if the entire Clausura section should just reference Firpo, or something else. Thanks!--
John, AF4JM (
talk)
18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
From our perspective, I'd suggest that the current explanations in-text are quite clear. I'd be tempted to change the links in the Clausura table and fixture list to
Pipelink to Firpo, so that it reads as Juventud Independiente but takes people to the Firpo page. Alternatively, you could just enter it as Firpo, with the note above the table explaining. --
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Zero purpose whatsoever, from what I can see. I think the original argument was "if the team article is moved, we only have to update the one template to keep all the links from other pages accurate", but that makes zero sense when we have redirects to do that job for us. If the change of an article title is that problematic, a bot can do the job instead. The template should be subst'ed and deleted. –
PeeJay10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, articles should definitely be titled with historical accuracy. If the club wasn't called SL Benfica prior to the 1908-09 season, the articles should use the former name(s). –
PeeJay10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also agree due to historical accuracy. We don't retro-fit to 1965–66 Premier League for the same a similar reason. C67920:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's actually slightly different, since the Premier League was a brand new league formed by a mass resignation of First Division clubs from the Football League, forcing all Second/Third/Fourth Division teams to be automatically "promoted". It feels like a renaming of divisions, but it wasn't. –
PeeJay10:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Has anybody heard of "Montsy Piggont", apparently a French third-tier football team. Google only shows four results, all either at the
Alieu Darbo page or the reference of the particular statement used at the page itself. It talks about 2–0 win in what was apparently the
2010–11 Coupe de France, but the only 2–0 win for his team was against
AC Plouzané, according to our article, although I haven't been able to
verify details of that match, either. Any ideas? Thanks, C67916:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it must be Plouzané. "Monsty Piggont" is part of a
direct quote from Darbo in the source, so I assume he just got confused. The match against Plouzané also occured around the time of the game he mentions.
Number5716:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He appears to have one appearance in the Egyptian Premier League (which is an FPL). Do you think this stat is incorrect?
Number5720:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The photo is in this
Swedish article from 2013, there is a link to Dinamo Zagrebs website in the picture, so probably copyviolate. The only Darbo games I found stats on, is his four games in the Maltese Premier League. --
Fredde (
talk)
11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
My interpretation of this situation is that FIFA rules indicate that as long as the player did not represent the first country in an official competition prior to gaining citizenship in the second country, then that player may petition FIFA for a change in eligibility. Koffie played for Ghana in a U-20 competition before even becoming a permanent resident in Canada. As best I can tell, Koffie has not yet been granted citizenship; his residency allows for MLS to count him as a Canadian player, but internationally he remains Ghanaian. After he is granted citizenship, he would still have to petition FIFA for a change in his eligibility. While the rules as written preclude that change, FIFA can and has granted exceptions. Until FIFA announces that Koffie is eligible to play for Canada, we have to assume that he is not. To say otherwise is incorrect supposition. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s13:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
My question is, do we feel the disambiguation convention of F.C. on all football club articles outweighs the policy of
WP:Commonname. For instance take
Manchester United F.C. If you search for
that term you only get 73,300,000 but search for
Manchester United you get double at 156,000,000. In this case there is no need for the disambig as there is not likely to be any confusion with
Manchester and there are no other articles with the same name.
Ive been advised in the
Talk:St. Mirren F.C. move request that for
WP:Commonname to overrule the standard disam for all football clubs an RFC is required. Im not sure thats the case, however I am willing to start one to debate further, but would rather see what the opinion of the project is. I agree its a difficult one, but if we have a common name policy it should be used properly and not just when we feel like it. So my question is if no disambig is required why do we insist on there being one.
BletheringScot23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Consistency. This is one of the five key
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA – some clubs need the F.C. for disambiguation purposes (e.g.
Liverpool F.C.), so it's much better to use it for all clubs rather than have a mishmash of different club name formats.
Number5723:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet we are not consistent. Take
Kerala Blasters FC,
Gauhati Town Club,
Bharat FC,
Eastern Railway FC for instance all Indian club but the point stands we are one of the lest consistent projects around. I agree that when disambiguation is needed consistency is key between F.C. and FC, even though we aren't. However can we seriously argue as a project that when no disambig is required such as with
Manchester United that we are above common name. I dont see how we can.
BletheringScot17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Whether deliberate or not, you have chosen an example that is entirely misleading – FC is not part of Gauhati Town Club's name, so is not included in the title for a reason.
The F.C. on the end of Manchester United is not a disambiguation tool, it is part of the club's name. And then it goes back to the consistency argument.
Number5718:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we are being disingenuous to a tea. There are plenty of clubs who do not have football club as part of their name and we force F.C. after their name. As for Manchester United there common name is clearly simply Manchester United. I will say it again
User:Number 57, as a project do we believe we are above the common name policy. You say we need consistency, but clearly we do not have it, so exclude
Gauhati Town Club you still have
Kerala Blasters FC,
Bharat FC,
Eastern Railway FC and plenty of others who use football club and we show no consistency on.
BletheringScot21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I've seen any examples of where F.C. is used in a club's article title when it's not part of it's name, certainly not any English clubs. I also don't see any inconsistencies in the Indian examples, because we use the clubs' names in each case. And regards the common name policy, no, I don't believe we're above it. However, you need to understand that common name is not the most important naming policy – consistency is equally important.
Number5721:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I do understand consistency is key, however there is inconsistency above. Yes FC is official name but we use F.C. for hundreds if not thousands of clubs who are Football Club and don't use F.C. anywhere in their name. So we either use F.C. or FC if football club is in their name. We are not consistent at this time. Common name if proven meets other key points of our naming policy such as recognisability and naturalness. Equally important parts. Im going to start a RFC on the subject of local naming conventions as i feel policies such as common name should not be disregarded at RM simply because a local convention exists.
BletheringScot21:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
sigh* Consistency is not a "local convention". But if you're insistent on pursuing this agenda, at least please ensure the RfC is done on this projects' page.
Number5721:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 No consistency is part of Wikipedias naming policy, as is recognisability and naturalness. F.C. is a local project convention on naming, if I'm wrong tell me now. Im being clearly advised by
User:BrownHairedGirl that policy of common name does not overrule this projects local naming convention. If i was to start an RFC it would not be here but at
Wikipedia:Article titles as the subject of whether a policy is overridden by local convention is a subject for the whole community as it effect every project.
BletheringScot22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
F.C., A.F.C. or whatever is part of clubs' names that we use in order to get consistency in how we name club articles – this is an agreed convention that follows the naming guideline. Many projects have agreed conventions on naming formats, and as long as they are within the bounds of the naming guidelines, that's not a problem.
Number5722:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 I agree it is not a problem, but if common name is proven should those local project naming conventions overrule. I don't think they should and I'm advised they do, specifically this projects ones do. Whats your opinion?
BletheringScot22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things here. The use of F.C. is not a "project naming convention" – it is an agreed application of the naming guideline, specifically
WP:Consistency. Common name does not overrule this.
Number5722:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you feel common name does not overrule this. It is part of
Wikipedia:Article titles as much as consistency is. Are we saying that consistency is more important than recognizability and naturalness or what reliable sources call something.
BletheringScot23:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Because it's one of the five key naming criteria (the top level rules) – none of them overrule another; it simply comes down to a choice of what is preferable when you can't hit all five. In my experience, in topic areas where there are hundreds or thousands of articles, consistency is usually the option that editors go for. For example, look at
Category:Railway stations in Suffolk; some of them are town names, and require disambiguation, but others are names that are only used for the station (e.g. Oulton Broad North). However, the railway project has obviously decided that it's better to go for consistent naming in order to avoid the aforementioned mishmash.
Number5723:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Kerala Blasters FC and Bharat FC are all officially named with the "FC" at the end (not F.C.). Gauhati Town Club is literally Gauhati Town Club. Eastern Railways might have had F.C. but official sources just has them as FC. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:ArsenalFan700 not all clubs use F.C. as part of their official name. My team certainly do not, they use FC but we list them F.C.. The project has almost always used F.C. either as a disam tool or to signify football club. You mentioned official sources that marks my point to a tea. We are not consistent either on what official sources use of what the club's common name is. To me it is clear, where common name is clearly proven it should be used unless their is significant need to disam from what they are named after.
BletheringScot21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that this Football Project is unusual in having a local convention which clarifies how the policy at
WP:AT applies to its topic area. As noted in the policy at
WP:MOSAT, there are many such naming conventions, and they can be controversial. In my experience, naming conventions are most successful and most likely to retain broad community support when they don't stray far from the general, Wikipedia-wide conventions.
The football club approach seems to me to have very broad support, because it is simple and minimalist. So simple that I am not sure if it is even codified anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. AFAICS, it amounts to roughly "If a football club's name includes the words 'Football Club', then the wikipedia article's title should always include the initials 'F.C.'. This creates a consistent naming structure, and in the vast majority of cases it creates a unique and stable title which avoids timewasting arguments over ambiguity".
The "Foo F.C." format may not always be the most common name, but it is always a widely used form in reliable sources, and it is only a very minor variation on the most common name. So it meets all of the 5 points set out at:
WP:CRITERIA:
Recognizability — Most sources use "Foo F.C." (or a variant thereon) when discussing the club in a non-football context
Naturalness — the initials are self-evident, and the clubs themselves usually use "Foo F.C." in their own materials
Precision — the "F.C." suffix nearly always creates a unique title
Conciseness — it adds only 5 characters to the shortest form of the title
Consistency — it allows all clubs to use the same format
So I'm not sure what the basis is of
Blethering Scot's objection to this convention ... apart from BS's unwillingness to accept that that like most en.wp policies, WP:AT isn't about one single principle. It balances several principles.
I am somewhat bemused to have been dragged into all this. I found 3 Scottish football clubs titled "St. Foo", and quickly nominated them all at
WP:RM:
St Cuthbert,
St Johnstone, and
St Mirren. It's a fairly simple issue:
the MOS says don't use the dot, common usage in reliable sources doesn't use the dot, the clubs themselves don't use the dots in the text on their own websites (tho some use it on the logo).
But BS is furious about this, and has generated a huge amount of heat over these simple dots. So the third RM remains open as BS's indignation continues. I hope that the RFC is more productive. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most nonsensical debates I have read. Brown haired girl sums it up perfectly, I really don't see why we need an RfC, when there is obviously clear consensus about this issue. If it ain't broke, don't fix it
NapHit (
talk)
20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl where is your evidence for your edit above that I am furious about this. I am most certainly not and never have been furious. As for I am somewhat bemused to have been dragged into all this. Well you dragged yourself into it.
BletheringScot00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Uche brothers
Any Nigerian users out there? I have no idea if
Ikechukwu Uche and
Kalu Uche's full names are correct, but I do know they have competed in Spain for ages, so I think the BDFUTBOL.com link should have some "weight".
I have redirected people to the aforementioned link in my summaries, receiving in return only reversions without any summary or (the latter happens rarely, mind you) a summary saying "name not correct", yes, quite "helpful". Also, I don't think inserting that link as a ref in box will solve anything, they'll just keep on removing it.
I am turning blue in the face over here, and the next time this happens (unless problem can be addressed pronto) I think I'll leave it be and the names stays how they leave it, they can leave it "Kalu" or "K" or "IU" in the full name field that it won't "wrinkle up my forehead".
Could I please get project consensus on weather we should use – (en dash) or the HTML code in articles. For example, see this
diff on
2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. Unfortunately
Blethering Scot is displaying
OWNership issues again. See his archive
here for some background. Most automated page tools will automatically convert the HTML tag and it also reduces the size of the page. Could I please ask for your feedback. Thanks,
JMHamo (
talk)
20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
JMHamo was advised to take this to
WP:AN. This is an editorial judgement as discussed previously at AN. JMHAmmo advised me he was following
WP:BRD, he was not as he [
this reverted me] after i reverted his initial edit. It was me that was following BRD, not Hamo. Its disappointing that once again he feels the need not to say the full picture. As for ownership issues, HTML is nothing to do with ownership. I've explained this previously very clearly. HTML creates consistency in season articles that are under construction or not complete and prevent inconsistency. There is clear evidence that using plain dashes created confusion as articles under development end up riddled with varying types of dashes, this doesn't happen when HTML is used. Its a different story once they are completed, this is a case of editorial judgement. Note that I will never revert previous season articles, as there is no benefit at that point. Everyone here knows my view that this project is a laughing stock.
BletheringScot20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Being completely uninvolved in this issue to this point, I will say to
Blethering Scot that claiming to be the "main editor" of an article does tend to portray an air of
article ownership. I will also say that the hyphen, ndash, and mdash ASCII characters all look the same while editing ("hyphen - ; ndash – ; mdash —" appears as hyphen - ; ndash – ; mdash —) due to the fixed-width font used, while the HTML code makes it obvious which is being used when editing. However, individuals unfamiliar with HTML may not understand what they are looking at when editing, while the ASCII characters make it more obvious that it is a dash of some sort. Each method has its benefits over the other, but the most widely used method that I have seen to date is to use the ASCII characters rather than the HTML code. While
MOS:DASH states to type – and —, it also says that an editor can use the methods described at
Wikipedia:How to make dashes. I believe that
JMHamo's original intent was to seek consensus within the project, which I find preferable to taking this to
WP:AN, since that should be an avenue of last resort. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s21:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that
JMHamo's original intent was to seek consensus within the project, which I find preferable to taking this to
WP:AN, since that should be an avenue of last resort.. You have that 100% correct Jkudlick.
JMHamo (
talk)
21:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
ASCII - In response to JMHamo's confirmation of the intent of this section, I will give my support to using the ASCII characters in any association football article. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s21:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
JMHamo original intent was to be difficult and run to his friends, consensus here is very limited.. That was his intent & i have little to no respect for
User:JMHamo due to previous & continued trolling of me. This project holds no overall weight to a decision as to whether html should or shouldn't be used across the main site. This was discussed at AN previously, where i was clearly advised this was purely an editorial judgement. HTML code allows clear & consistent use across an article. Without it you constantly se Ip editors who are principally inexperienced in editing wikipedia using incorrect dashes. You frequently see - instead of – and frequently interspersed between the two. Most Ip editors dont know there is even a difference and just use the standard dash on there keyboard. Yet when &ndash is in the article they just copy it and low and behold we have consistency. This is only an issue in article under creation. Any person reading our site does not see the difference between using HTML or not, but they see the benefit of it in a clear and consistent approach. It is my belief and most of the community's. I don't see this is as my own article I see it as one I'm making sure is consistent and up to date. That is my principal concern on all current season articles. Once the season is over and updates will no longer be made to individual games, HTMl loses the benefit as the consistency will have already been applied. inexperienced editors do frequently edit these articles and it is clear, they make more consistent edits when using HTML than not.
BletheringScot23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Umm, hang on Jkudlick ... is there any particular reason why football articles should have a different policy on this to other articles? It's fine for projects to have MOS variations on matters which specifically relate to that project's topic area, but I don't see any reason for project-specific guidelines on dashes. For the record, what's been happening here is that BS has been using html entities for dashes even within links, which I have never seen anywhere else. And on every other type of article I have edited, there is no prob using html entities in text ... nor any objection when such entities are routinely converted to unicode by any number of scripts. Those same scripts can readily convert hyphens to endashes as needed, so there is no practical advantage to retaining the HTML entities. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry BrownHairedGirl but lets hang on a second. Firstly I agree WikiProject Football has no right to having a different policy to any other part of this site.
MOS:DASH allows use to HTMl as it does, standard characters. This is an editorial decision, you may not like there use in links, yet you say they can be used in standard text. Can you specifically say where it says they can't be used in links. Not using in the links creates as said previously inconsistency. It may be your personal opinion, which seems interesting to me as you are edit warring to force your opinion, yet you are an admin. Yes scripts can convert, but the article will have inconsistent for however long it takes someone who uses the script to come along. An article being inconsistent for even a day frankly isn't acceptable. We have to think about how using two different typed of dash could look to a reader. Very inconsistent is how it would look.
BletheringScot23:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
BS, wikipedia isn't a set of black-and-white laws. Most of it is conventions established by usage, and where it's written down, there are exceptions.
The use of html entities endashes in filenames breaks many of the normal tools for bypassing redirects. That's why when I saw that my AWB wasn't fixing those redirects, I added a few lines to convert the html entities to unicode -- so that the filenames could be corrected.
And finally, wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It will never be finished. There is always some degree of inconsistency, both within articles and between articles. That's nature of vast multi-user, multinational collaborative project. Learn to live with it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl you recently argued with me that consistency is key, now you argue we should accept it. Your using your own opinion again and again, yet
MOS:DASH does not agree with you. I suggest if you feel the code should not be used on Wikipedia because of the issues you say the you should seek to get its inclusion on the site removed. Of course there are exceptions, but not exceptions because you don't like it. You don't like me I get that, but that does not excuse your behaviour. You clearly state above you have no do not disagree with being used in text but dont want in links. Fine I wont use in links. If you now say no to that its clear its an issue with me as you clearly stated there is no prob using html entities in tex.
BletheringScot00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:JMHamo I am not POV pushing. [[
User talk:BrownHairedGirl clearly asked why is there any particular reason why football articles should have a different policy on this to other articles. This project has no right to its own and must follow
MOS:Dash or challenge it. Secondly she clearly stated there is no prob using html entities in text. So actually she does agree with me.
User:JMHamo i quite frankly want nothing to do with this project. You and others such as Jkudlick, clearly think this particular project adheres to its own rules and no one elses. Im happy to stay away from here yet u seem to want to keep drawing me back. I suggest that it is you that needs to
WP:DROPTHESTICK as it was you that again decided to pick this issue.
BletheringScot00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) BS, please do try harder to be less simplistically black-and-white. Consistency is a goal. It is rarely achieved in one step, or maintained all the time.
Thank you for agreeing to drop the use of html entities in filenames. That is welcome progress.
And yes, of course there is no prob using HTML entities in text. But in ten years of editing, I have never before heard of any problem in converting them to unicode ... let alone of an editor angrily reverting back to the html entities, and angrily denouncing everyone who disagrees. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl. Yet you did argue consistency was key. You can't say it & then argue the opposite. Again you are not assuming good faith and calling me an angry editor. Thats three times now tonight and i can advise you Im most certainly not angry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with HTML you just don't like it., i get that. However not liking something is not a reason to do what you have been doing. Ive argued very clearly why I feel it should be used and stated consistency as the primary reason, i have no issue once the season is over. You will have noticed i did not revert a single edit you made to remove the code on previous seasons. I would of spent another two hours creating content tonight yet you &
User:JMHamo thought it was better to spend it here.
BletheringScot00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
That time you could have spent creating content was wasted on argument because you chose to waste it on argument. Just as with the simple stylistic issue of the dot in "St Mirren", you have chosen to believe that you are being persecuted by malevolent liars, and you have once again gone straight into
WP:BATTLEFIELD mode.
Where have i suggested I can control what others do. I simply asked the question 'If that is the case you will have no issue with it being returned to the article? Something you haven't answered. I have not called you a
malevolent liars. Im starting to feel I am correct about harassment. You keep making these bold statements, without evidence.
BletheringScot01:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:JMHamo. You brought this here for discussion. I am participating in this discussion. At no point in this discussion have i displayed any signs of being angry, shouty or displayed ownership issues. I have clearly stated the issue is about consistency and I have interacted with brown haired girl. She clearly asked why you and this project think
WP:Footy should have their own dash policy. She clearly said it was ok in text. I ask you right now to provide evidence that I am owning this article and the issues for me is anything but consistency. I have relaxed a lot over the years & you need to provide evidence that as of this moment this is an ownership issue. It isn't, i would say the same thing for any football season article under development. HTML is better for consistency. You dont like me & I suggest you stop making the issue personal.
User:BrownHairedGirl you have repeatedly used terms tonight such as angry, furious shouty etc. Please provide evidence that I have done anything other than discuss. You don't like me either but this is about HTML not your opinion of me.
User:JMHamo if you want to take this to AN then feel free, hardly something i didnt suggest right at the begining. However you have provided zero evidence to balk up claims made today, that at this time this is anything but a consistency issue.
BletheringScot00:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
And
User:JMHamo you are not an admin so threatening to get an admin to look at blocking me looks distinctively looks like trying to shut down a discussion. So does using the word Stop Thats all this is a discussion. If you weren't interested in me discussing, then you should of raised here and notified me.
BletheringScot01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sick of your
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here. Just look at the length of this thread! It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you are just disruptive. It's at AN/I now.
JMHamo (
talk)
01:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I dont know how you can say taking part in a discussion you asked me to take part in is disruptive. Im pleased you have taken this to ANI.
BletheringScot01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@
BrownHairedGirl: I'm replying down here since my reply would otherwise get lost up there.
MOS:DASH states that "Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as – (–) and — (—) or click on them to the right of the "Insert" tab under the edit window; or see
How to make dashes." Emphasis original My interpretation of that statement is that there is no single correct way to enter en and em dashes, so my comment was merely stating was my personal preference for consistency throughout association football articles. If I have misunderstood the MOS, then I will apologize and let sleeping dogs lie. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s12:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this a contender for
WP:LAME discussion of the year already? – and — produce the same as – and —, so there's really no difference. If anything, the plain characters are preferable for
WP:ACCESS purposes, and there seems to be a clear preference among most editors to replace the code with the plain characters. –
PeeJay10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
He was uploading his club's crest to commons and a bot was removing as copyrighted work. I've added a logo with the non-free use rationale. It should be ok from now on.
TheBigJagielka (
talk)
14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering that none of the three profiles indicate that he ever played for Afghanistan, I'd have to come to the same conclusion as Fenix down. The only places that seem to indicate that he did play are not reliable sources, e.g. transfermarkt. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The first one says he went straight into the team and made his international debut, which I think is fairly clear cut.
Number5718:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
By all means deprod if you want but the fact that they can't even get the tournament he supposedly played in right (Der 25-Jährige gehörte bei der Qualifikation zur Südostasien-Meisterschaft zum Aufgebot des gebeutelten Landes), I am not convinced that Und schaffte er auf Anhieb den Sprung in die erste Elf means he actually played as opposed to got into the first team but not off the bench, particularly when
NFT has match stats for everyone else in the team but him for 2008. It could be an error, but the overall sources aren't that convincing to me.
Fenix down (
talk)
18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@
Number 57 and
Fenix down: I ran both of those articles through Google Translate, and neither of them state that he actually played in the tournament, only that he was named to the team. NFOOTY is failed, and those two brief pieces about him being named to the Afghan team do not satisfy GNG. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s18:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The first one does use the phrase die erste Elf but it is not clear from the article whether this means he was in the starting 11 or part of the first team squad. that is the only source that to me indicates he could have played and the preceding sentence gets the tournament in which he was supposedly involved completely wrong, so not the best in terms of reliability. I tried the wayback machine for the sources listed in the
2008 SAFF Championship article, one was totally dead and the other two made no mention of him specifically.
Fenix down (
talk)
19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, a quick look at his
German article gives plenty more sources noting international appearances:
RevierSport (dreifache afghanische Nationalspieler: "three-time Afghanistan player"),
RP describe him as an "Afghan international" (afghanische Nationalspieler) and
FuPa (drei Einsätze in der afghanischen Nationalmannschaft, "three appearances in the Afghan national team").
Number5719:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
WHat does the tournament organisers say? We use UEFA match reports for UEFA Champions League and I think our naming should match the sources. If matchreport/source say "Etihad Stadium" then so do we, and the same if they say "City of Manchester Stadium" then we show that. Qed237(talk)22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sponsored names are mostly temporary and can change several times in a row during time. But COMMONNAME can be tricky cause it can bring us inconsistancy in the stadium articles titles. Certainly some sponsored names stayed for longer time and got to be widely used, while some others ended up having their sponsored name ignored overall. That would create a situation of some stadiums having a sponsored name used as article title, and some having their sponsored name just as redirect, an odd situation which could create problems and which could be best solved by an overall decition, sponsored names yes or no. Then, for particular cases of usage in articles, following what sources say as sugested by Qued237 can also be tricky and drive to inconsistancy. I would favor usage of article titles despite sources using sponsored names along a decition not to use sponsored names as article title. It can also be benefitial on the long run, cause sponsored names can be of one sponsor today and another one tomorow, so if we stay consistant today we will not have the problem of sponsor outdated stadium names in few years time. This may be one of those exexmples where sacrifiying COMMONNAME can be productive.
FkpCascais (
talk)
03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Continuos vandalisation of Bulgarian NT article for more than a year now
Bulgaria national football team article has been constantly vandalised by 2 editors who insert Bulgaria-favorable made-up results and competition classifications from the past. Not sure if they are some sort of phantasy football fans highjacking the page here to add the results they obtain in the game or something similar, but they have been incredibly persistent and by edit-warring and reinseerting same stuff they have got to have the article with the phantasy reality for most of the time in the last year or so. I reverted whenever I spot it, but I am surprised there are no other editors correcting it, seems the article has been having very little monitoring and attention, so can I ask editors here plese to see the article history and see what has been going on, so we can mantain the article correct?
FkpCascais (
talk)
18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You could go for semi-protection for it, which might lighten the problem? I've added it to my watchlist and I guess if a few others here do that that would also help. --
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
14:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protection wouldnt do it cause the vandals are editing using their accounts:
No one there bothered to report them to ANI yet, and Bulgarian football is not my primary scope so I hoped someone else would do it, but till today in about a year, no one did. Its pure vandalism, removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced phantasized one that makes Bulgaria having played World Cups that didnt and changing results from defeats to victories for them. I reported it here by now, if more of us revert them on spot maybe they give up. Thanks you.
FkpCascais (
talk)
04:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Fenix. Seems that BulgariaSources already had problems regarding sockpuppeting before WhiteBoyTroy, so we can all patrol the article of Bulgarian NT and spot that change immediatelly. It is quite easy to spot, as soon as the result of the first match in the infobox against Austria is changed from 6-0 defeat to a 2-0 win, it immediatelly means he has edited the article.
FkpCascais (
talk)
20:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not edited in this article for 7/8 years, so I cannot remember what title did it bear previously. However, I feel the current one is misleading, because: sure, he's no
Pep Guardiola or
Franz Beckenbauer or
Johan Cruyff (or 50 more, I better not wear that keyboard out) as far as being great on the pitch and on the bench, but the man did amass nearly 200 (TWO HUNDRED, OK, 161)
Primeira Liga appearances (please see here
http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=195410190001), certainly he's not to be dismissed as a (former) player.
Consulting
the current status of the disambiguation page, I see the only sportsperson that comes close to Mr. Santos is
Fernando Santos (Brazilian footballer born 1980), the other two are known as "Luis Fernando" and "Castro Santos". Thus, I know it's not possible to move the page to just "Fernando Santos", but were it to be moved, I leave my suggestion, "Fernando Santos (Portuguese footballer)".
I think that leaving the article title
Fernando Santos just for him wouldnt be a crime at all, with a hatnote
Fernando Santos (disambiguation) at top. This is why, among the others listed, the ones more or equally notable as he is are not known as Fernando Santos at all, like cases of Angolan Vice-President
Fernando da Piedade Dias dos Santos who is known as Nando and not mentioned anywhere as Fernando Santos, and Portuguese Minister, economist
Fernando Teixeira dos Santos, who is either known as Teixeira dos Santos, or by his fullname, never by Fernando Santos. The rest, the two Brazilian footballers,
Fernando Santos (Brazilian footballer born 1980) was widely known as Fernando, and
Luís Fernando Rodrigues dos Santos as Luis Fernando, while the Spanish coach
Fernando Castro Santos has Castro as paternal surname and is widely known as Castro Santos. I think this would be a much better solution than Fernando Santos (footballer) which would I think just create confusion, cause nowadays Fernando Santos is really much more known for his coaching role. My 2 cents.
FkpCascais (
talk)
03:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
After seeing so many examples this year of articles that dismiss WP:NOTABILITY, the following question: is
Xemi notable? Remember, has only played in
Segunda División B so far? Played Real Madrid in the
Copa del Rey, so what?
Copa del Rey matches "count" only if both teams are in FPL, according to
WP:FOOTYN. Would therefore seem to be a candidate for AfD. Thanks, C67911:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The answer is yes, so the question is why haven't you AfDed it. Over 100 new footballer articles are currently being added every week, of course they don't all meet guidelines. CSD, PROD and AfD may all be used if you believe notability is not demonstrated. Thanks, C67920:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the appropriate usage of it? I'm watching a lot of Eastern European players due to nature of my edits/interest. Every once in a while I see a certain user is adding player's full name in Eastern Slavic formatting (Name Paternalname-ovich Surname) in Full name field of infobox and placing the template in question on top of the page, despite the name of the article is still formatted as Name Surname. Are we supposed to add this template to pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian person article on wikipedia? --
BlameRuiner (
talk)
13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
NFT Player Tables: notes about players (INJ, RET, SUS, ...)
This is specifically about national team selections and the 'selectability' of "Recent players". Injured players for example may miss a selection, or if they were already in the selection, they may have to leave it (two different things!). Editors want a way to make this clear, so they put INJ next to the player's name. The underlying meaning is often: "this guy is injured and that is the reason he's not in the Current squad" (although this is not explicit and usually unreferenced). Other notes include RET for recent players that are retired (and will therefore not be selected again), and SUS for recent players that are currently suspended (so they can't currently be selected, but they may be a next time).
The RET note is the easiest one: it is a permanent status directly relating to the player, so a note next to the name seems fitting.
The SUS note is not that bad, although it would be nice to have an indication of when it will expire. I have personally been thinking about replacing it with a template that shows a red card, and if you mouse over it, it will tell you when the suspension occured and for how many games it is active. Something like {{sus|Sent off on 17 Nov 2015; suspended for the game on 21 Nov.}}.
The most difficult one is no doubt the INJ note, because not everyone even agrees about what an INJ-note even means, and some people put the INJ note next to the player, while others put it next to the 'latest call-up'.
An INJ note can mean the following things:
currently injured
was injured at the time of the most recent selection
became injured during their latest call-up
I personally believe the first meaning should not be used, due to
WP:RECENT. We shouldn't encourage these notes to pop up and off all the time, so a news item about a player injuring themselves or resuming training after injury, should never in itself be a reason to update an article. But the other two meanings both have something of value, because they relate to actual team selections. The next question then is how to make these two different meanings clear.
This is how the
Belgium article currently does it (after a short discussion on
my talk page): an INJ-note next to the name to indicate that they did not make the Current squad due to injury at the time of that selection; and a different note (plus reference) next to the Latest call-up if they became injured after they has already been selected (forcing them to withdraw). I believe this way, we have all the information, but I'm still not happy about the INJ-note next to the player because people get confused by it: lots of people think it is a current status (like SUS and RET), while it is not. Goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois is not currently injured, but he did not make what is called "the Current squad" (the one for 13-17 November ...) because he was injured then. He is still Belgium's #1 goalkeeper, so it seems important to somehow convey the information that he's not in the "Recent players" list simply because the trainer didn't want him. Something I've thought about is putting |other=was injured on the {{nat fs r player}} call, making it smaller text in between brackets (which normally nobody ever uses apart for "Captain", but you can).
So anyway. This is of course not something we can enforce through the main templates, but perhaps with smart smaller templates (like red cards for SUS and maybe something else for INJ) we may be able to make these notes more user-friendly for visitors, and then maybe their usage will spread across the articles. As long as we can keep it feasible for editors to keep it up to date, too. Any people have some more ideas or feedback? :) –
Sygmoral (
talk)
19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Palestine national football team (Dispute over history of first fixture)
So there's a bit of a brouhaha going on over on the
Palestine national football team page. The
PFA's FIFA page says the team's first fixtures were in 1934- which is the team that represented
Mandatory Palestine. Now I understand that this history is claimed by the Israel Football Association but their page on
FIFA only goes back as far as 1948. Shouldn't the information on Palestine's page reflect the information on FIFA's website?
Redstriker06 (
talk)
01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It should be the other way around. The information on FIFA's website should reflect correct history. Actually, without joking, I think the info on FIFA's website reflect a programming error between two separate Palestine entities, which were merged to one page.
Being the admin who protected the article in question, it was apparent that the brouhaha was being primarily caused by Redstriker, who has repeatedly tried to insert their POV to the article. The evidence presented above suits their argument, but ignores the main evidence, i.e. the FIFA-recognised association affiliation dates that we usually use to determine successor federations:
I suspect that as Eranrabl states, the database is a programming error as FIFA clearly consider Israel to be the successor team to the Mandatory Palestine one, but as the team was named "Palestine", their records have been mixed up. The Mandatory Palestine team was entirely composed of Jewish players and played what became the Israeli national anthem before matches. There was a separate Arab national team, unrecognised by FIFA, which also played in the late 1940s and applied for FIFA membership (see
this account), and it is that one that the modern Palestinian team should be tracing its origins to.
Number5708:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition there are notes about both teams(on the same pages):
Palestine: "The modern Palestine, an Arab state, has no connection with the Palestine (then a British mandate) delegations that played in the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938 under the name of Hitachduth Eretz Yisraelit Lakadur Regel."
Israel: "A Jewish delegation from Palestine (then a British mandate) played at the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938. It was the first Jewish national team, and as such the forerunner of Israel. Was relocated from Asia’s to Europe’s group in 1954."
Infantom (
talk)
12:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That looks definitive, Infatom. NB People should behave even better than usual there, or it'll end up as an
WP:ARBPIA issue with blocks and bans being dished out for silly behaviour. --
Dweller (
talk)
15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia table layout for national football teams
There have been many discussions in the past about the player tables on football articles because they use a non-standard layout. This causes them to violate
WP:ACCESS quite badly, and with no good reason because they can perfectly be modeled using the standard Wikipedia table layout.
About a month ago,
the most recent discussion concluded after I proposed a final layout, so I now intend to apply the required changes. I only intend to update the national football team templates for now; not yet the club ones, those could follow later.
But I thought I would put up this notice here first, because it's a very visible change of course. I just hope people aren't too afraid of change, because I am convinced that this is a change toward a more consistent design across the encyclopedia! And as I mentioned, it's also better for
WP:ACCESS because it will fit better on other readers. Both those that change the design (e.g. dark themes) as well as those that read out loud the content (so that they can understand the content better).
So if you have solid arguments against this change, please voice your concern. In the other case, if you like that this will bring these tables closer to Wikipedia's standards, also let it be heard! –
Sygmoral (
talk)
21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I know it's nitpicking but I really don't like how those separators act when you sort table by some column. And also once you sort table there is no way that I can find to return table to original state (besides reloading page). Disabling sorting would be easiest solution although probably no one would like that idea.
Nightfall87 (
talk)
09:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that the horizontal dividers are useless after the first sort since they always go to the bottom of the table. The solution to that is either eliminate the horizontal rules or don't make the table sortable. My preference would be to eliminate the rules. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s13:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If we remove separators we would need to agree on default sorting of table. Should it remain by position first and number second as it is now or should something other be used (for example caps since numbers are not always available)
Nightfall87 (
talk)
08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say sort by number first, then position, then alphabetically by last name. That's the way the club lists are done, so why not use that method for national teams? –
PeeJay10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
<reduce indent> I'd be against using numbers as the default sorting tool for national teams. They're not consistent from squad to squad, and when a new squad is named the numbers aren't usually released at that stage. I'd suggest position then numbers (if available) and then caps.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
10:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we go number/position or position/number, I do think that alphabetical order should be used after that. If the primary sort is by position and then you sort by number of caps, that seems a little weird. One would rarely search for "England's most-capped current midfielder" after all. –
PeeJay10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a few difficulties with this new discussion though: a default sort is something that could go into recommendations, but it can not be enforced from the template. It would need to be manually updated on every NFT page. Also, sorting by last name will require quite a bit of discipline from article editors because they're need to specify for each name how it should be sorted (since default is by the first word, e.g. first name). I'm not saying these are bad suggestions, just that it won't be easy to enforce them :)
About removing the separators: for now, individual articles are explicitly calling them with {{nat fs break}}, so the only way to remove them on all articles is to edit that template to make it blank. But I feel like that's rather counter-intuitive for editors, so I would like to leave them in for now, and then perhaps they can be removed from the articles themselves when we figure out the best format. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorting by last name is not difficult; that's what we have {{sortname}} for. I guess it might be difficult to encourage new editors to use the template, but it's worth it. –
PeeJay15:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm, right, although that template is deprecated (e.g. not recommended to be used anymore). But yeah, people can still use it of course. Perhaps it would be nice if the "recommended way" was worked into the {{nat fs g player}} template I'm about to change though: aside of the name parameter (which would still work of course), I could add firstname, lastname and namelink parameters. Then the sort-by value can be written into the <td> tag (<td data-sort-value="Last, First">), which can't be done with the name parameter. I do wonder how many people will actually use that, but wouldn't mind adding it. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Well then, I have executed the changes. One thing I noticed while editing is that these tables were always made to occupy 100% width. I'm not sure whether that's the best way to go, but decided to leave it like that (98% actually, to avoid any margin/padding issues). I also made the separators a little lighter. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
20:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I might be a little late to the discussion, but I'm having difficulty seeing the separation in the templates with the blue dividers now gone. Is is possible to make the dividers a tad darker or something? In no way am I trying to say the Wikipedia should bend over to my requests but if another user has a similar problem I think that the divider issue should be considered. Thanks
Inter&anthro (
talk)
01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I did make those dividers lighter than in the example above, perhaps I overdid that. It's a bit darker again now! –
Sygmoral (
talk)
13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This might be a different question, but should there be any "special treatment" to players who have retired from international football, injured players and suspended players? In the
article about the Swedish national team, I've handled it like this...
Notes
INJ — Injured or recovering from surgery.
RET — Retired from international football.
SUS — Suspended in next competitive match.
It there a better way of handling it? Should you include it at all? // Mattias321(talk)-- 17:53, 22 February 2016
You read my mind! Precisely this was going to be my next discussion, because it is a bit of a mess: not every article uses these notes in the same way, and people are sometimes confused by it. Assuming you don't mind, I am going to put this into a new section. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
There is not consensus for that.
WP:ACCESS is for tables. The template {{National football squad start}} is not a table. The
changes are
not accepted. The other same template {{Football squad player}} has not problem about
WP:ACCESS. We must restore the previous version of template, under 2 previous discussions (
1|
2). The wikipedian make new discussions again and again to complete their projects. In the past was given colours in the template with change the default option and violate
MOS:COLOUR. --
IM-yb (
talk)
09:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi IM-yb. I understand you were used to the previous layout, but I promise you: the new one will benefit many more people. Nevertheless, I will take the effort to address your concerns one final time! :)
WP:ACCESS is not only for tables (please give it an actual read!). It is about making sure that all content on Wikipedia is accessible (e.g. readable or hearable) to as many people as possible. One of the issues was that these templates had an explicit white background, resulting in light text on white background in some Wiki-readers (if they use a dark theme and therefore a light text-color).
These templates are tables, and not just in the technical sense: they literally display data about players in a tabulated format.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the changes are not accepted", and why you linked another user under the word "not". I assume you mean you do not like the changes.
I did not change the {{Football squad player}} templates yet, although I admit that I am planning to this in the future. But I will wait with that for a few months.
About the 2 previous discussions you link: the first one is the one you most often refer to, but it only contains your own voice and that of 1 other user, in as little as 2 hours time. Can you honestely claim that that discussion holds the most decision power? The second discussion you link is actually my previous one: it is the one that this discussion here is the continuation of.
You're right about that final thing: of course I "create discussions to complete my projects" :) That's because the intention of 'my projects' is to improve things on Wikipedia, according to its standards. Rather than according to what people are used to or would individually like.
I hope this answer some of your questions. I do admit that I am a little bit tired of reacting however, so if you have more concerns, I hope that you can create a new discussion, and then I do wish you all the best to convince the community of your case. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
17:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry but I don't find the point about improvement. I see only a table who replaced the former code of the template. We have not problem about
WP:ACCESS, but with that table now we have (that you say). More problems? Yes. Improvement? --
IM-yb (
talk)
18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The background colors are the biggest
WP:ACCESS issue, that is solved by standardizing the table format. I find
Sygmoral's argument obvious and easy to understand. I've never read any objection to standardizing the tables and colors except for liking the colored tables better, which is not a valid argument on Wikipedia.--
John, AF4JM (
talk)
18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems a lot of (mainly english) clubs have honours hauls unsourced and occasionally have sources that corroborate less or different honours than those listed. As far as I am aware, we can only publish information consistent with sources available and cannot do our own research or add stuff we think a club has won. Thus I am going to clean up the relevant club's hauls to match their achievements with sourcing available
Davefelmer (
talk)
20:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Do not remove based on your opinion. Prompt for sources to support and / or add the citations yourself as I have demonstrated to you.
Koncorde (
talk)
01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
For reference, the absence of information on a single website does not invalidate the historic "honours" of a team. 11vs11.com may be reliable (or not, it has been used in the past) but it is not the sole source of information. By removing the content that you have done you have basically lined yourself up for another round of edit warring.
Koncorde (
talk)
01:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Typically I tried to find the best and most reliable sourcing. I am not removing anything by opinion but rather just by what the sources that exist state. Do you mean I should reference multiple sources for each or some clubs? Would that be more thorough? Again though, I am not trying to edit war but simply make the encyclopaedia better by adding relevant sources to back up and state information. I'm not saying a club has won 0 other awards than those listed, but surely it is the ones the sources state (through the club, major websites, etc) that have to be taken and used. If some are unsourced or unsited, how do we even know if they are true? It hurts wiki's legitimacy.
Davefelmer (
talk)
15:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If this is primarily aimed at removing honours from the Liverpool or Manchester United articles (I cannot recall which side you support, but I recall your involvement in the problems at the Liverpool–Man Utd rivalry article), I would strongly advise you not to proceed.
Number5715:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Dave's been removing honours from a lot of teams, including deleting from the
Old Carthusians article the list of times they've won the Arthurian League, the only league they've ever played in, on the grounds that it is a "school event" and that to include it is "ridiculous"..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
16:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ridiculous. We don't just remove this material in any case, we ask for sources. These aren't BLPs so the personalised censorship that
Davefelmer is indulging in is disruptive and should be strongly discouraged.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have issued a final warning. Given the complete lack of consensus for his actions here, at best this is disruptive editing and at worst an attempt to goad people into an edit war.
Fenix down (
talk)
18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with man utd or liverpool. I have ADDED sources for honours counts that were previously unsourced, and made minor adjustements to the counts to match said sources because some didnt match and appeared to be original research or added for no reason, both of which isnt wiki policy.
Davefelmer (
talk)
18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You have added a single source for some of the honours, and removed the other honours that don't match your single source - as previously explained on numerous occasions few sources are so exhaustive as to cover every single competition. In the case of removing historic competitions, particularly those that pre-date the club entering professional leagues or that served as senior regional competitions this is disruptive, needless, contentious and something that you have pushed on prior occasions. Please cease.
Koncorde (
talk)
19:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
One source for a trophy haul is better than the 0 that are currently listed and is enough to start with, and then if further sources are found for other competitions not listed, then those can be added to. At the moment, nothing is sourced and competitions are added seemingly out of original research which is against wiki policy. Successes must be sourced, how do we know they are even true without them? It undermines the whole project, which I am trying to make better. I found the best sources available to match the club honours, then removed any comps not in the source, because wikipedia is only about sources, not our own research or knowledge. How is it preferable to leave everything blatantly against policy, unsourced and potentially fictious?
Davefelmer (
talk)
22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be much more preferable, I don't see anything particularly controversial in any of the content that has been removed, it's not like there are claims of clubs being multiple champions league winners or anything.
Fenix down (
talk)
08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about controversy, it's about the fact that nothing is sourced which is against wiki policy and the only honours I remove are those that don't coincide with the sources available. How about we add citation requests and if in one month nothing is found, then I bring in the best sourcing available and adjust the honours to match?
Davefelmer (
talk)
23:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How about you find the source to support what currently exists and try to be inclusive rather than destructive? Also, no, the competitions are not original research - they are often largely referenced by documents (be it newspapers, books, websites) however they just haven't been provided as a reference specifically for those sections of the article. If you think something is fictitious then challenge it by requesting a source - or better still actually look for one yourself and work to improve the sourcing without removing content in a disruptive fashion.
Koncorde (
talk)
02:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I did look through and couldnt find sources to match. what would you recommend now? And I am trying to be inclusive. I only removed honours that didnt match the well-publicised and used sources I found for articles that had no sourcing. Most removed were friendlies and youth compeititions anyway that you could debate in itself dont belong on pro club honours lists. Regardless, yes I will add the citation requests, but again, at the moment there are no sources (I checked) and you cannot take every trophy listed as being probably true. there is no way of proving it currently and unless you are suggesting we have a total free for all on all football club pages complete with assuming everything written is in good faith and reliable even if unsourced, then it can't stay that way.
Davefelmer (
talk)
07:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As you will see on
your talk page, for your edit to Swindon Town, you obviously didn't look very hard as we have sourcing to support the claims either in the competition articles or specific seasons articles for that competition, so you don't even need to go outside of WP.
Fenix down (
talk)
08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Dave, the problem is that you are not really putting any effort into confirming what is on the page. For instance, you removed the Southern League titles from several clubs' pages (e.g.
Swindon), as well as many county cup titles. In Swindon's case I would have expected you (at the very least) to click through to
Wiltshire Premier Shield, where you would have seen that all their wins are sourced. From what I've seen you seem to be using a single source (one website) and if honours aren't listed there, deleting them. IMO, this is verging on disruptive editing. If you insist on sourcing every honour (which is not necessary) then you need to be using a wide range of sources.
Number5708:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
you can pick and choose a few cases where I happened to be wrong, because I didnt consider linking a wiki page to another wiki page, but that doesn't mean the vast majority ARENT sourced. What about all those clubs where sources do not exist like for Swindon?
Davefelmer (
talk)
15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
On every example I looked at you had removed something quite obvious (like Southern League wins). And again, not everything needs to be sourced – only stuff likely to be challenged.
Number5715:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Since CONCACAF themselves seem to consider the Gold Cup as a new tournament rather than a rebranding
[1], I think we should leave the two articles separated and remove any pre-1991 stats from the Gold Cup articles.
Luxic (
talk)
10:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A lot of English non-league clubs have "former players" sections with the inclusion criteria as follows:
1. Players that have played/managed in the Football League or any foreign equivalent to this level (i.e. fully professional league).
2. Players with full international caps.
3. Players that hold a club record.
With the exception of the last point, this basically duplicates the criteria for players to have a WP article, so is there any reason why the sections shouldn't simply be replaced with links to
Category:Example F.C. players, as any players who meet the above criteria (with the exception of the last one, which I suspect is barely used anyway) will most likely be listed there anyway? Apart from anything else, the sections have been very poorly populated - the one on
Stourbridge F.C. only includes one player, however
Category:Stourbridge F.C. players contains 80 articles! --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest not. It is preferable that the most notable players are discussed in sourced prose in the history section of the club article. I would caveat this by saying that it depends on the length of the list. If it is unwieldy I would remove those who do not fulfill criterion 3 (or all if it is unclear which criteria the players fulfill), if it is only a handful of players and is quite unobtrusive then I would let it stay simply to avoid any arguments.
Fenix down (
talk)
14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite follow - are you saying that notable players should be mentioned in the prose and a "former players" section not exist? I'd be happy with that. But if we are going to have a section that purports to include those players who meet criteria 1/2 then it surely should include all of them? To do otherwise gives a false impression that the club has far fewer such players than it actually does. And listing them all is merely duplicating the category...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
14:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear Chris. What I meant was that essentially I agree with you criteria 1 and 2 that you mentioned are in my view better served with a category link and that the most notable of players fulfilling those criteria should be discussed in the history section of the club. Having said that though some clubs, particularly I notice English non-league clubs, may only have produced a handful of players who have gone on to FPL or international status. If the list is not visually intrusive then I don't see that it does any harm for it to stay. In the instance you note above, I would say that section should be removed. To populate it fully would make it unwieldy and in its current form it is either woefully incomplete or, with reference to criterion 3 above, unsourced.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
A new idea
Hi, I've recently been planing on a series of articles that will include all CLUB career goals on famous footballers (examples are:
List of club goals scored by Lionel Messi), retired ones will be a good topic because the active ones will have to be updated each match or so... So anyone who supports my idea, just let me know at my talk page. I'm really looking forward to make articles like this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheSoccerBoy (
talk •
contribs)
I don't think this would be a good idea. Really top strikers with a career of a decent length can easily score well over 200 club goals.
Ferenc Puskás scored over 600. Messi (your example) is closing on 500 and, given that he's only 28, he could easily get well past 600. The lists would just be insanely long statistical overloads --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, it would actually be quite hard to find sources for every specific goal scored by players from previous decades. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about sourcing every individual goal scored by
Gary Lineker, for example, let alone a player from many decades ago like
Arthur Rowley.... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
08:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I think it is a sourcing nightmare. Additionally, scoring at club level simply isn't notable, so I am not sure how notable many of these lists would be and, as noted above, those that might be notable would be so lengthy as to be unwieldy. Inclusion criteria would be a nightmare too, you only have too look at cases like Romario to see how much nonsense even players generate around the goals they claim to score.
Fenix down (
talk)
10:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
A noble idea and I agree with
TheSoccerBoy's motivation, but per above reasoning it would be a souring nightmare and would probably violate
WP:NOTSTATBOOK. International goals tend to be more notable and in my opinion should be kept though. Happy editing
Inter&anthro (
talk)
23:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Joe Riley
Hi, recently Joe Riley made his debut for Manchester United and since there already was a "Joe Riley (footballer)" I created
Joe Riley (footballer, born 1996) and then also moved "Joe Riley (footballer)" to
Joe Riley (footballer, born 1991) to separate the two players (and none of them seemed like primary). My question now is what we should do with the redirect
Joe Riley (footballer)? Should we leave it as redirect to one of the footballers or should we somehow change the articles that links to it and then remove the redirect or redirect to disambiguation page
Joe Riley instead? Qed237(talk)13:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a dangerous edit, unless indeed you can edit all articles with old links... I would just leave it as it is now: Joe Riley (footballer) redirects to the article it originally hosted, and that's fine. Nobody should arrive on that link looking for the younger player anyway, they'll find him on the general DAB page and he is clearly mentioned at the "See also" of the older player. Better leave it this way than risk turning old working links into a DAB link, I'd say! –
Sygmoral (
talk)
21:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
We have had a prolific hoaxer who edits pages on well-known players, making up that they have Albanian origins. Even though he has now switched to
Turkish origin, his modus operandi of putting a reference to a book that never existed is still there. This user's other contributions relate to Albania so I would be amazed if it weren't him.
'''tAD''' (
talk)
04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, would you class
Marcus Rashford as stub or start from the way it appears presently? See
history for background. Just curious on what the opinion of others here is on stub -v- start. Thanks,
JMHamo (
talk)
10:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
How much information need there be in a player article before it ceases to be a stub? For example: are
Joe Riley (footballer, born 1996) or
Marcus Rashford stubs? There is no stub template on the articles themselves, but they were rated "stub class" on their talk pages. I changed them to "start class" but was quickly reverted. Any opinions?
92.26.170.136 (
talk)
10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have uncovered a lot of what look like footballer articles in userspace, with duplicates in article space, most of them are linked at
User:Huligan0/List of players FCB. I am unsure how to go about listing at MfD, but if anybody could advise if CSD is applicable, or if not, set a discussion, it would be appreciated. Thanks, C67900:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
FIFA presidential election articles need urgent work
Wikipedia:Notability doesn't mention categories as such. Do you know of any guideline or policy on it? As to the above situation, migrant football clubs in Germany, unlike any other country I'm aware of (except Australia, where all "soccer" clubs once upon a time seem to have been based on migrants), has a huge number of migrant worker clubs in the league system and some of them, like
SD Croatia Berlin,
Türkiyemspor Berlin and
Türk Gücü München, have played as high up as the third division, right below the
2. Bundesliga. So, if a notability criteria for categories does exist I think you would find its met.
Calistemon (
talk)
04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no mention in our article of children chin rubbing and saying variants of "Ooh, Jimmy Hill". As I posted on the article talk some time ago, this pre-internet meme is mentioned in RS. Do you think it's totally inappropriate to include it? --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!10:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Um what exactly are you trying to include? The
source you provided on the talk page doesn't mention this at all except for a small insert. My opinion doesn't matter much but the fact of children's chin rubbing hardly seem notable.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion matters, definitely. That's why I've posted here. I'm surprised I can't turn up much more. Perhaps it's not notable. Anyone got a biog of Hill? Does it mention it? --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find any RS that mention this other than the one linked above, and even in that one the mention is very cursory. Personally I don't think it's significant enough for inclusion (BTW, when I was at junior school in the early 80s, we used to do the action but didn't refer to Jimmy Hill, we used to say "chinny reck-ON" (sic)) --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
13:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not speak armenian or Russia so having hard time to understand some sources.
What I have seen is that their matches are listed as CANC (cancelled) at
Soccerway so I went to the other source for {{2015–16 Armenian Premier League table}} (
ffa.am (Football Federation of Armenia) which has given Ulisses FC a 3–0 loss in todays match. The only article I can find on that page is in armenian
here (did not find any in English and did not try Russian) and I used google translate which was not easy to understand but sounds like their license was revoked, but why?
Trying to use google resulted in
this claiming they dropped out due to cash shortage, while
this suggests matchfixing which is also what I think the article I found in Armenian is talking about.
Nevermind, I got some help. Looks like license was revoked due to both financial and non-financial shortcomings. It will now be interesting to see what UEFA does when Armenia does not have 8 teams for their first division. Qed237(talk)11:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Could find nothing in Google other than
this, which would suggest it is a fake. The usual sites (soccerway, worldfootball, even transfermarkt) show no match. C67901:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The user who created the article,
Vaskopejovic5 has a name that's pretty similar to that of the subject of the article, so I wouldn't be surprised if its a hoax or something.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
15:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The original version of the article had phone numbers and other contact details for his managers as references, so my guess is that it is a young bloke trying to get a game. The BLP PROD will expire tomorrow so I guess it will be deleted soon. Thanks for your responses.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I see an IP has changed the number in the lead of
Nigel Clough that read Clough is most notable for his time as a player at
Nottingham Forest, where he played over 400 times in two separate spells, to 300. Presumably the change was made to agree with the numbers in the infobox but those are domestic league only while if cups and other are included it is indeed over 400. Adding something like in league, cup and European matches would clarify but combined with in two separate spells is a bit clunky for the lead. Does the project have a view on whether to include cup and other appearances in text? --
Cavrdg (
talk)
20:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think to include all appearances is perfectly reasonable in a statement like that (I would find it a bit odd to exclude the league apps).
Number5720:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? I want to be sure before nominating since the article creator was not very polite against me (revisions even hidden). SO I would appreciate if someone took a look and perhaps even nominated it if they feel it should be deleted. Thank you. Qed237(talk)21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Joseph2302: Yes they where blocked after some "non-friendly" messages if you know what I mean. They where enough to land in an indef block right away. Would you mind nominating it, in case the creator would come back at me as an IP?. Qed237(talk)21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous Albanian editor with a floating IP persistently makes the same unsourced edit to the
1964 European Nations' Cup qualifying page, and either ignores or fails to see a
hidden comment I left to invite them to discuss the issue on the talk page. Shall I request page protection, or will some other measures be taken? --
Theurgist (
talk)
02:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Since this only affects one article, it is better to protect that article instead of blocking an entire range from editing. So i made a request at
WP:RFPP. Qed237(talk)10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an IP currently vandalising it, which I've reverted. Obviously an article expansion would be good, but that requires someone fluent in Spanish, I guess.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
23:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
And he doesn't appear to have an article on either Spanish Wikipedia or Guarani Wikipedia (the 2 languages of Paraguay).
Hi. I am reviewing
Gareth Bale, an article of "High" importance for this WikiProject, for GA status. But just now I found that the nominator
Cristianho19 has been away since September 2015. The article is very well-written with minor prose issues that I am pointing out in the review. Additional comments are welcome. I request some of the members to fix these issues so that the article does not have to be failed once again.
Sainsf<^>Talk all words04:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Listing the matches of knockout stages involving home and away legs
I also greatly prefer the second option, since I'm more concerned with the outcomes of the pairings than I am in the exact order the matches occurred. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s14:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I applied option 2 to the
1960 and
1964 UEFA Euro qualifying pages. If we agree that that option is better, we could start applying it elsewhere, both to existing and to upcoming articles.
Note that in option 1, the chronological order only applies within the respective section ("First legs", "Second legs", etc.). In reality, there have been occasions where some second legs actually took place before some first legs of the same stage, and even occasions where matches of a later (more advanced) stage took place before matches of an earlier stage of the same competition. See the
Euro 1960 qualifying for some examples. A true chronological order, like the one found at
UEFA's website, would list all matches by date, regardless of stage and leg. That would be an ever worse option than option 1. Option 1 is really a stage-wise and leg-wise option. --
Theurgist (
talk)
01:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd leave him there. I'm not sure when the Mexican off-season is exactly, but if reliable sources are still including him in the club's roster, what's the rush to remove him? –
PeeJay13:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Kind of ridiculous he played in the first place but yeah I agree he still listed on the roster of all those pages so he should still be listed. GoPurple'nGold2401:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Can I get help on doing the new
Sporting Kansas City kits? I'm not really sure how to do it, since none of the already made patterns seem to match it. Here's some links for what it looks like.
1,
2,
3, &
4.
Elisfkc (
talk)
22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
André Luís Alves Santos features two diacritical marks, but the talk page just one (just on Andre). The references presently at the page show no diacritical marks at all. What is the correct name (and most desirable title of the page?) Thanks, C67915:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The talk page issue was caused by
Footwiks doing a cut & paste move of the article but not moving the talk page (for which they need a good
WP:TROUTing). I have done a history merge.
Number5716:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The OFC U-20 schedule is not on either the OFC or the FIFA websites (though neither are exactly stellar at maintaining their websites), and I can't find anything else to verify the dates. This doesn't mean it's not true, just that it's not verified. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s11:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the quickest way to have someone make the edit you propose, is clicking
"Source" at the top of that template, and then clicking "Submit an edit request". The request will then show up in an inbox for template editors, and they will soon review your request and probably execute it. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Eyes needed
I came across
Shaun Anthony Harris, full of promotional material, puffery, etc. If he is notable for his playing career, the article needs gutting for aforementioned material. If not, possibly AfD. Thanks, C67921:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
All the red links of potential articles (none of which have been created yet however), for the U-15 teams are set up with the word "women's" included. Shouldn't it be "girl's?"
Savvyjack23 (
talk)
06:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think U-15 teams are notable. If they aren't, then they shouldn't exist. If they are notable, then redlinks are fine.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I also believe that U-15 teams are not presently notable – there is no FIFA competition for U-15 teams, FIFA and the IOC decided to replace football with futsal at the
2018 Summer Youth Olympics, the
2015 CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship was canceled with no reason provided, I see no evidence that CONCACAF has scheduled a future girls' U-15 competition, and CONMEBOL is the only other confederation with a U-15 competition. AFC has boys' and girls' U-16 championships which are used as qualifiers for the U-17 World Cups. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Savvyjack23,
Cloudz679,
GiantSnowman, and
Joseph2302: I find no evidence of girls' U-15 competition sanctioned by any confederation; AFC uses U-16 to qualify for the U-17 World Cups, but they call it the
AFC U-16 Women's Championship, not the Girls' Championship. At this point, I believe we have to conclude that national U-15 teams are not notable. Regardless, I wrote the code which would generate girls' instead of women's for U-15 teams at
User:Jkudlick/sandbox/Fbwu in the event they do become notable and FIFA calls them girls' teams. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s13:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages for project subpages: do they have value?
I started
a discussion back in August about retiring the talk pages for subpages of this WikiProject. The problem with them is that they do not get a lot of traffic, and so good ideas or important issues may get lost in time, while they would much faster get a response right here. People seemed enthiousiastic about the idea, but I did not feel as if I had the authority to actually make the changes, so they never happened. Until today: I just executed it, but an administrator believed I did not have enough community support to do this.
So I want to refresh this discussion now, and make it a little more specific: I would retire all talk pages of subpages, with just a few exceptions:
Portal talk:Association football (simply because it's not really a project subpage),
Assessment and
Fully professional leagues.
Please state whether you support centralizing all talk pages on this one. Also whether you believe more talk pages should be exceptions to this rule, or whether in fact you feel Assessment and Fully professional leagues should also be redirected here. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No, task forces are also left alone. To be exact, I just retired most talk pages for the page the are in the general navigation box (top right of this page). –
Sygmoral (
talk)
17:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem at all with leaving the fixtures. Even if the dates get shifted, the remaining opponents stay the same. And that's usually far more important than the date of the fixture.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite, and the dates can easily be edited. We have numerous future events on Wikipedia that are subject to potential date changes, but go with the information as correct at the time.
Number5715:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that we have all the facts, I have to agree. No obvious reason why we shouldn't list all fixtures. –
PeeJay15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@
EchetusXe: can you take a look at the text again, "before a successful though injury" – should that be "thigh injury"? And @
Number 57:, shouldn't the page move be done without leaving the redirect?
Jared Preston (
talk)
15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The club in this article,
Songkhla United F.C., may no longer excist. From 2013 to present day, it`s season-by-season record is the same as
Songkhla F.C.. That means that according to Wiki, the 2 clubs currently play in the same league and has done so since 2013, but there`s only been one club playing these years. Songkhla United is the name of the current club, but
Songkhla F.C. should, in my view, be renamed on Wiki to Songkhla United, and
Songkhla United F.C. should be edited to a club that no longer excist. In 2013 Wuachon United and
Songkhla F.C. joined together as Songkla United. Wuachon United was the new name of the club when Songkhla FC bought the lisence/rights from Buriram FC in 2012, and the club was moved from Buriram to Songkhla.
Others might have a different view than me, but I can`t see that both articles should continue to be edited the same way, and since they were 2 different clubs once (2009-2012), with different history, they can`t be merged into one article either.
SveinFalk (
talk)
16:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Change infobox / Career statistics for goalkeepers?
Hello,
In most cases, the goalkeepers rarely scores goals in football matches. If they do, they're likely to do so in the penalty shootout. However those penalty goals doesn't, and shouldn't count, in either the infobox nor the career statistics section under goals. How many goals a keeper scores is a pretty uninteresting fact, so therefore I want to propose having another version of the infobox and career statistics for goalkeepers, where the goal column is changed to the amount of clean sheets the keepers have had instead of goals. To see 25/25 0's in the goal columns for goalkeeper's career statistics is just a waste of space in my opinion.
//
Psemmler (
talk)
01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This has come up many times before and has been shot down every time, on the basis that it is impossible to source clean sheets data for anything other than keepers from a small handful of leagues and then only from the last few years, so 99% of keepers would not have this data available anyway. --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
08:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're over exaggerate pretty much by 99%, but I see the problem. However shouldn't this be available for career statistics in case you have the numbers for a goalkeeper? I understand that it isn't worthy enough of having a different infobox, but rather some clean sheets numbers in career statistics than a bunch of 0's //
Psemmler (
talk)
09:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, clean sheet records are not something that is commonly produced for goalkeepers (I certainly have never seen it in any of the various football annuals I own). I'm not really sure it's of much interest either.
Number5709:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I know, the most common individual stats for a league is: top goalscorer, top assist maker, most clean sheets, most yellow/red cards. I find amount of clean sheets for goalkeepers far more interesting than the amount of goals. //
Psemmler (
talk)
10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Psemmler: Many top levels don't have these kinds of stats (i.e. clean sheets and assists), so how will we find some
reliable sources to back up these stats when there are none? Some goalkeepers do score a goal in their professional career,
José Luis Chilavert and
Rogério Ceni are some clear examples of why the table should remain the current way.
MYS77✉12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
My only issue with them was copyright, and apparently the copyright issues ceased to exist years ago. Other football & other sports articles have them, so why should the league articles be any different?
Joseph2302 (
talk)
16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that the previous rationale (copyright violation) is no longer valid, there is no reason to deny readers useful information. The rationale that they shouldn't be added because fixtures are moved doesn't really make any sense as the article can be edited to amend the date if this happens (other websites quite happily list fixtures as they stand). Also, the below comments by Qed seem like an attempt at
selectively bringing previous opponents to the discussion (the editors that supported inclusion in that discussion are not pinged).
Number5716:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
TV scheduling may screw with Premier League scheduling somewhat but if someone has correctly listed the fixtures on a season article than I cannot see the logic in removing them.--
EchetusXe17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Future fixtures should be included, regardless of potential for them to be changed. While the information is correct, there's not overly an issue. When it's not, it gets changed. For me, it's like arguing the point as to whether a table should be updated, as that can change throughout a season, too. Also, future fixtures have been included in
non Premier League articles for as long as I can remember, anyway. -
J man708 (
talk)
21:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My only argument against them was the copyright one, which I didn't realise was no longer an issue. With that gone I don't see any reason why they should be removed if they're already in the article --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As long as they are reliably sourced I see no reason why not. It is the responsibility of the editors of the page to ensure that things are kept up to date. Given that season articles are only appropriate for top clubs, it seems unlikely that much would go unnoticed and uncorrected for very long if games were rearranged.
Fenix down (
talk)
17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If the fixtures information comes from an official source (association or club website), then definitely it should be included. Matchday changes can be edited and explained by also adding sufficient reference easily.
MbahGondrong (
talk)
00:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Per everyone above. A list of upcoming fixtures definitely contributes to an article's informativeness and completeness, while the lack of one makes the article imperfect and incomplete. I myself did once or twice open
2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season to check whom and when Leicester still have to play till the end of the season, and I was disappointed not to find that information there. Wikipedia does already have plenty of sourced schedules of upcoming events, sports-related and otherwise. If schedules change, Wikipedia changes too. It's as simple as that. --
Theurgist (
talk)
01:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Most official discussions on Wikipedia should last a week, so I guess we should let this one run until 20 March before (re)adding fixture lists.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also according to
WP:BRDC the future fixture list should already be included in the article until this discussion concludes otherwise, so does somebody want to reinstate it immediately?
Dingowasher (
talk)
22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Dingowasher: The future fixtures are already there, but they are commented out. Previous consensus was that they should not be included, so the proper course is to keep the future fixtures hidden pending the outcome of this discussion. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s15:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I would say that anyone who played in the FA Cup Final is definitely notable, particulary as the Football League didn't exist then so it was basically the pinnacle of English football. And yes, Soccerbase is a reliable source, although its content on anyone from that era is basically nil --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS I have a copy of the book "The Early FA Cup finals and the Southern amateurs" by Keith Worsop, which has a biography of Leach in --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
19:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to connect
[4] and
[5]- unfortunately I then realised the DoBs don't match.
Hi - is anyone willing to help a relative wiki-noob with a bit of image related editing? I've racked up a fair few edits, but none of them to do with uploading images or licensing.
The club badge on
Rotherham United F.C.] -
[6] is incorrect. It's the pre-2005 rebranding badge, although to the occasional viewer it's not exactly obvious. I'm happy to fix this, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so. Could you point me in the right direction please? Cheers,
Gricehead (
talk)
11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Gricehead: You need to get a copy of the new club badge, save it somewhere on your computer as a .png file, then go to
the logo page and click on "Upload a new version of this file". Hopefully it's straightforward after that. Cheers,
Number5711:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Theurgist: As far as I am aware there is no current possibility to link match notes with team notes. I will have to take a closer look tomorrow unless someone has beaten me to it by then. Qed237(talk)01:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Some more investigations shows that "note_id" in row 419 in
Module:Sports table has not been set, which might lead to this issue. Or at least I think that is the problem, but as I should be asleep at the moment I can not be sure. Fresh eyes needed, so I will look at an other time. Qed237(talk)01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Qed237: There must be such a possibility, because that's exactly what is done at {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I}}, where the same note is applied to |note_ALB=, |note_SRB=, and |match_SRB_ALB_note=.
@
Theurgist: Unfortunately I have to be away from computer a few hours now, but I promise it is top priority. I was not aware of the Euro situation that seems to be working. The difference is that in World cup table, the first matchnote comes on the first row when the team note is not yet defined (it is on second row) while in your Euro example the note_ALB has been defined first (read it row by row, that is how information is printed). If we remove the first match note (match_KOR_KUW_note) it is working because for the rest not_KUW is defined. As I said I will look more ASAP. Qed237(talk)12:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Theurgist: I have made correction in
Module:Sports table/sandbox tested in
User:Qed237/sandbox5. Is that okay? I will do some more testing before "going live" so it does not brake anything else. It was as I thought that note_id parameter had not been set so the reference tried to call an old note with unknown note_id and the second and third match notes called the most previous called notes (old note id) which was note in results column. I am bad at explaining so if you want a better explanation just let me know. Qed237(talk)15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Qed237: Many thanks, the template works wonderfully now, and your explanation makes sense to me. While testing with the template, I did notice that it sometimes mixed up match notes (|match_KUW_LAO_note=) with result notes (|note_res_2nd=), but I had no idea why.
Are now all potential combinations of notes possible? There are team notes (|note_KUW=), match notes (|match_KUW_LAO_note=), result notes (|note_res_2nd=), which appear in the result column, and head-to-head notes (|hth_KUW=), which appear in the points column. Can any number and any combination of these notes be merged into a single note? --
Theurgist (
talk)
21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Theurgist: I dont think they are all possible by looking at the code, but I could be wrong (I did not create module, just helped but have some programming experience). The hth notes are done separately in the submodules (or rather sub to the subs) as all versions of the tables dont have head-to-head. The result notes looks separate as well with different note id but they could probably combined with team notes and match notes with some work in the code (not a quick fix). Qed237(talk)22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Theurgist: I have to agree with that. When the module was created I also argued for the head-to-head notes to be in the position-column or the team-column instead of the points, and then we could have deduction notes in points column. However, that was not the consensus, but a new discussion could always be opened. Qed237(talk)23:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Some dublicates
Hi! Maybe somebody would like to take a look and merge these bios? I'm pretty sure, they're about the same person. Yes, I know, how to tag articles for merging, but maybe somedy wants to do that without tagging:
They all have the same ID for National Football teams, the same BOD. If you spot pair from this list, that aren't dublicates, then please say. --Edgars2007 (
talk/
contribs)
16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Honours
Following the discussion from
Talk:Andreas Vaikla...
Vaikla were part of the IFK Norrköping squad that won Allsvenskan 2015 and
Svenska Supercupen (Swedish Community Shield) 2015. Although he didn't play a single game in 2015, but as a second keeper he was featured as a subsitute on the bench on 11 games, since he arrived during mid season. In the only game of Supercupen 2015, he was an uun used substitute for that game aswell. He was part of Norrköping's squad that won both titles, which would be an argument for that he deserves to get an honour title on his Wiki page, but one might also argument that he didn't contribute anything on the pitch. What do we go on? //
Psemmler (
talk)
21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
My opinion would be that it would depend if the player received a winners medal. Cup and league competitions tend to differ: The whole bench in a cup final, including unused substitutes, will get winners medals, whilst in a league competition there is usually some appearance criteria that defines whether you get a medal or not. So I guess it probably depends on the rules of the competitions in question. Cheers,
Gricehead (
talk)
21:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Per Gricehead, if he got a medal then he gets the honour. However he was, correctly, still a winner of both competitions even if he didn't take part so there would be no harm in his article saying "Vaikla was part of the IFK Norrkoping team that won the Allsvenskan and Supercupen in 2015" without also including the same information under "honours. However, usually where explicit criteria are introduced we err on not noting it as an honour.
Koncorde (
talk)
21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good system to base this about given medals, since the criteria, as mentioned, is so different depending on competetion or country. In some league, the clubs are free to give medals to whoever player they want. I want better guidelines. //
Psemmler (
talk)
22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. We don't put flags in club career stats tables, and haven;t done for many years. So would I be correct in believing that we don't put them in managerial stats tables either? cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Repeated addition of Honours against MOS to Rotherham United F.C.
Hi,
There is a user and IP repeatedly edit warring to add an inappropriate (according to MOS) honour to
Rotherham United F.C.. I have given (what I believe) are appropriate edit summaries on my reverts, and also posted to the Users (but not the IPs) talk pages. I'm at 3RR now (I think), but the material is still being re-added. Can anyone lend a hand? Cheers,
Gricehead (
talk)
22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The user now seems to have stopped trying to claim that finishing third in the old Division Two (at a time when only two got promoted) is an "honour" and is now repeatedly adding "They`ve never played in the top flight but have played in the second tier 28 times in total, making them one of the best to have not." I can't see how 28 failures to win promotion makes them one of the best non-top flight teams ever, but maybe that's just me........... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
18:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Several IPs changing Inter Milan players' appearances without updating time-stamp
So several IPs have been making changes to a vast majority of Inter Milan players' stats without updating the time-stamp for a few weeks now. It can be seen most recently by
These additions for example on
Éder's page as well as many others by taking a look at this
IPs contributions Every week the IP changes slightly, but the same unchanged time-stamp additions. It wouldn't be as problematic if it was only one player, one time, but this is an ongoing issue on multiple pages. In the first couple weeks when this happened I gave a few warnings on their talk pages about updating the time stamp, but since the IP changes every week, they seem not to listen... Is there any way to stop this kind of vandalism without page protecting all the pages, or is that the only option? (It may seem rather small, but for an ongoing issue on a mass amount of pages can cause much confusion between editors).
@
Vaselineeeeeeee: I think you can. If I remember correctly I did that with same situation on greek footballers. Just make sure that you show what edits from the range is disruptive (diffs from different IPs) and explain why you think a rangeblock is required. Qed237(talk)11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Bringing back "NFT Player Tables: notes about players (INJ, RET, SUS, ...)"
Hello! On 22 February,
Sygmoral started a discussion regarding the 'selectability' of "Recent players" as he/she put it. No one answered and it became archived (see it
here). But I think it's a very important topic of discussion and we need a solution. // Mattias321(talk)11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Mattias321, thanks for bringing that back up. I guess my post was too long to draw attention! So in short: my main issue is with the INJ notes next to Recent Players because they no doubt violate
WP:RECENT on many articles. That's because a lot of them still mean currently injured, which has no place in an encyclopedia. After much consideration, my personal conclusion is that:
INJ notes should never mean "currently injured", so let's remove those from all articles.
INJ notes should not be put next to the player to avoid confusion about its meaning, but should instead be put next to the most recent selection. In fact, the note should not be "INJ" (which intuitively means "injured"), but something that means "had to leave this selection" or "did not make current selection [due to injury]". I've seen WD (withdrew) in the past on some articles, which clearly means the former. Could be up for debate whether we actually need a note for the latter.
In other words: the INJ note should be removed in favor of a less ambigious note. Thoughts, improvements, ideas? –
Sygmoral (
talk)
00:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, no problem! I agree with you and I solved it like this in
Sweden article. RET for retired players and WD for withdrawn players. If the reason for the withdraw is clear, like injury och personal reason, I might add it. // Mattias321(talk)16:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The only remaining issue is for players who were not even selected at all, due to injury. The reasoning is that readers may want to know that a certain core player is in the "Recent players" list not because they weren't good enough or fell out of favor, but because they were injured at the time of the most recent selection. It is debatable however whether that actually needs a note. I feel like it is interesting information, and it does not violate
WP:RECENT more than the whole "Recent players" table does, but the issue is probably with notability and sourcing. I guess a manager would explicitly have to state that a player was not selected due to injury, otherwise it's a bit
WP:OR. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you,
Sygmoral! It's pretty tricky to use a INJ. It's not always clear if a currently injured player would be part of the squad if the player wasn't injured. For example,
Oscar Wendt hasn't been a part of the national team squad even though many fans want him to be that. His competitors on the left-back haven't played so much lately, so it wasn't hard to believe that Wendt would be called up. Unfortunately, Wendt got himself injured some weeks before the selection. How should we handle situations like that? Something like "Add the note if the player was in the two latest squads" or "Add it if the player has 20+ caps".
I think it's hard to rely on managers telling which players who would have been included. For example, how should we handle situations like this: "A player who has never been called up before is injured. The manager says in a press conference that this player would have been included if he wasn't injured"? // Mattias321(talk)11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you certainly have good points. Perhaps they should be done away with, because they only talk about temporary/recent stuff anyway. They ARE in the "Recent" list after all, so people can assume they may be called up again a next time, especially if they have a considerable amount of caps.
I remember suggesting a few years ago that "Recent players" should perhaps be replaced by "Core players" or something - to give an indication, regardless of the "current situation" (injuries, scheduling conflicts, whatever), or who could reasonably be considered to usually be found in the team. Something that's not limited to only the "most recent selection", because that is such temporary information. It would be based on a bunch of criteria: how often they have been selected in total, how often in just the past year, how long ago their most recent selection was, whether they are retired, ... But it's too difficult to maintain and is probably too much
WP:OR anyway. So I suppose I just have to live with the fact that the selection of National Football Teams is volatile information, and the only way we can report it is in a volatile way :) (even though that makes it
WP:RECENT!) –
Sygmoral (
talk)
21:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The user only ever made 4 edits last August, then seemed to have disappeared. The age of the edits makes it (nearly) impossible for a CheckUser to verify they are the same person. I might keep an eye to see if Historylover090 starts editing again, but you're looking at something that occurred over 7 months ago and was reverted by
Qed237. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Jkudlick you are certainly right that the amount and time of the user's edits is an issue. There is the possibility it was a sleeper account or just an editor who started editing and abruptly stopped. Is it okay for me to remove the information he/she added to the
Wesley Sneijder article? The information claiming Albanian heritage is still up there. Thanks
Inter&anthro (
talk)
02:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears as though "Foot-ball Club" is the correct name, per the
history page of the successor club:
En 1905, con la entrada de nuevos socios, la sociedad con sede en Bouzas aprobará y presentará el 10 de septiembre sus Estatutos ante el Gobierno Civil siendo aprobados el 11 con el nombre ya de Fortuna Foot-ball Club, constando su primera junta directiva la formada por Roberto Pérez en la presidencia, Francisco Lago en la vicepresidencia, Luciano Vázquez como secretario y Paulino Iglesias en la tesorería, mientras vocales resultan Adolfo Ferrer, Raúl López y Francisco Estévez. (emphasis original)
How should inclusion of players who are not listen as first team players by their clubs be handled? As an example,
Andreas Skovgaard has started the last two matches for his club, but he is not listen as a first team player by
FC Nordsjælland. Should he and other players not listed as first team players be included, using other reputable sources (in this case, I'd use danskfodbold.com, maintained by the official statisticians of the
Danish Football Association), or should they be omitted? I'm in favor of including them, as it shows which players are actually playing for the club. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.211.208.242 (
talk)
18:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems a bit of an odd question, if the player exists, and plays for the team then of course he should be listed. The clubs own website, league statistics sites or similar are all legitimate sources (and may already be at the foot of the page). This is particularly true if a club number is allocated (in which case the primary source is likely your only source).
Koncorde (
talk)
20:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, however I've had a small edit war with a different user about another squad over this exact issue. Since I haven't been able to find anything through the search (a discussion somewhere, but the consensus reached seemed a bit questionable), and no clear guideline, I'd rahter be safe than sorry and bring it up here
2001:878:200:1053:D18:FFF3:A0F7:F729 (
talk)
13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Same guy, different IP
Looking at the reverts with Kahala over at F.C. Copenhagen, the issue is the concept of a "reserve" team vs a first team. Generally speaking there is no difference between the two unless both teams play within the same competition, or actual registration of the player is owned by the reserve team (such as
Real Madrid Castilla) would there be a distinction made. To be quite clear - I don't see how
F.C. Copenhagen Reserves and Youth Team is particularly notable for instance. So if this discussion is anything like related, then you can take it from me that reserve players on professional contracts with senior teams can be included in "squads" even if they havent made an appearance.
Koncorde (
talk)
14:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Two new article proposals for former BHA footballers
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on two former professional footballers, who currently do not have a wikipedia article. The players in question are
Draft: Danny Simmonds and
Draft:John Westcott (footballer) - both of whom played for Brighton and Hove Albion in the old Division 2 and 3 (corresponding to modern day Leagues One and Two), respectively. I tried creating these two articles but there seems to be lack of clarity on what makes a subject notable. I think that these two players, having played in the leagues mentioned, would meet the criteria (Point 2 of the notability guidelines for Association Football). If that is the case, can these articles be created? I believe I have referenced thoroughly with reliable sources giving proof of their appearances for Brighton and Hove, but would be grateful for any feedback.
BoroFan89 (
talk)
15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I note that the user who moved Simmonds' article to the draftspace noted "Article doesn't clearly meet association football notability guidelines. Clarify that he played in a first-tier league and resubmit". This user clearly isn't well versed on the notability guidelines for sportspeople..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
List of biggest wins in association football history
Agreed. Any list of records that requires sources for each individual line is questionable in my book. The information may be accurate, but the fact that there's no overarching source for the whole thing suggests that the list is incomplete and may never be complete. –
PeeJay14:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Why "professional"? What is the threshold for inclusion? Why not a wiki page for "games with most goals" (likely the same content) etc.
Koncorde (
talk)
14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a huge problem. The creator did put a "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" tag on the top of the article, so I assume it still isn't complete.
List of most expensive association football transfers has references for every line, so again I don't see a huge problem. This editor likes to create articles which he starts incomplete and puts off for other editors. The same can be seen at
List of international goals scored by Luigi Riva where he started it but then I finished it. My only complaint would be, if you start an article, you should finish it off to a certain extent. But Wiki is collaborative after all. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Vaselineeeeeeee (
talk)
14:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
In principle, I, too, think this list is not a bad idea. But even if it stays, there indeed are problems with it. First, it needs criteria for inclusion. FIFA excludes certain matches from its statistics if these matches were contested by Olympic teams, "B" teams, etc, or if a team made too many substitutions or fielded an ineligible player, or if there was evidence of match fixing being involved, or for some other reasons, while other sources do recognize these matches and thus disagree with FIFA. We must decide what source to stick to and if and how to reflect what other sources report. And second, the list as it is now is very incomplete. It even omits Copa América matches (such as
Argentina 12–0 Ecuador, 1942) and World Cup qualifiers (such as
Maldives 0–17 Iran, 1998 qualification), let alone less important games. I think this should be dealt with, if the article is to stay. --
Theurgist (
talk)
22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Like most lists, it needs clear in/out criteria - otherwise people will constantly argue about whether result X should be in it or not.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And maybe we should set a threshold higher than 10 goals for the winning margin. At the
World Cup qualifications alone, there have so far been over 40 matches where a team won by 10 or more goals. Put in all matches from all other major and minor international tournaments and all international friendlies that meet the 10+ goals criterion, and you get a huge and ever growing list.
Moreover, the article's creator has meanwhile added a separate section of "non-FIFA" matches, which currently only consists of the three notorious losses of the
Micronesia U-23 team of
last year. Expand that list to make it exhaustive too, and you get a much huger and faster growing article. Not to mention that the article becomes less notable if it includes "non-FIFA" games. I think these should be removed completely.
Besides, the title of the article does not specify clearly that it only deals with international football (and not with club football), so I think it should be renamed.
First of all, I'd like to thank all the editors who've shown their interest in this list of biggest wins. I only want to convey my message to you people that the list is incomplete by a long way and I'd be thankful if anyone amongst you set a consensus regarding the margin of victory and help me complete the list. Thank you.
CR7 (
talk)
15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Galway United Merger
I propose that
Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and
Galway United F.C. should be merged. If we start a new article every time a club temporarily drops out of a league or changes ownership it would get ridiculous. Clubs own website has a combined history and does not seem to recognize two separate clubs.
DjlnDjln (
talk)
20:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just trying to get others' opinions on this. What is the appropriate way to order continental qualifiers in infoboxes for a particular season? If 4 teams from the Cthulhu Premier League qualify for the Plutonian Champions League each year, and those berths are numbered 1 through 4, is it better to list the qualifiers numerically (Team 1, Team 2, Team 3, Team 4) or chronologically (in the order in which they earned qualification)? If one spot is earned via a season-ending playoff, does that change things?
For instance I edited
2015 Major League Soccer season to reflect the numerical order for that season - Portland Timbers, New York Red Bulls, FC Dallas, Sporting Kansas City, since it was listed numerically for the
2014 season. That was reverted to what I was told is the chronological order - New York, Dallas, SKC, Portland. This isn't actually the chronological order, which is in fact SKC (Sept 30), Dallas (Oct 17), New York (Oct 18), Portland (Dec 6). I see that some other leagues list teams numerically (see
2014–15 Premier League,
2014–15 Bundesliga, and
2014–15 La Liga) but I was told that this is "BS" because no other leagues use a playoff. But Liga MX uses playoffs to crown its champions, and
2014–15 Liga MX lists it numerically too. So which way is better?
Bmf 051 (
talk)
13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I do believe it should change things. In large European leagues there are only two ways to qualify: the in order which they finished in the table and in the national cup. MLS also offers a third way: winning the playoffs. The argument was that the playoff winner should be placed first for some reason. It's BS that they way they do it in MLS "is how it is done in other leagues". Playoff winners were announced last and won last so they should be last. They are not seeded higher (is that what you mean by numerically?) they are all placed in different pots. And
http://www.concacaf.com/category/champions-league/teams lists the teams alphabetically. Did I mention that Bmf 051 is a Portland fan?
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
When I edit the
USL standings, I put the teams in alphabetical order instead of display or standings order. I just change the number next to their name to reflect their position on the table.
GrouchoPython (
talk)
17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not thought about this before, but I would say alphabetically is the way to go. The position (i.e. how they qualified) is not important when listing the teams and neither is when they qualified. It is just a list of teams that qualified, so I would go alphabetically. Qed237(talk)18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with alphabetical too. My larger point was that we should (generally) keep it consistent across leagues. I chose to list them as USA 1, USA 2, etc., because that was consistent with what most other league articles seemed to be doing already, not necessarily because I though it was the best way to do it. Alphabetical order would hopefully remove any ambiguity. But whatever way we go with, it should be a broad solution for football leagues in general and not a narrow one that applies to just one league. MLS is not the only league that uses a playoff: many in CONCACAF leagues use it to crown their champions, and many others around the world use it for continental qualification. So I don't buy into Walter's idea that we need to do it differently for MLS because they use a playoff.
Bmf 051 (
talk)
22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I most certainly am not a Portland fan. Not that it matters, but I support Columbus. So I consider that a
personal attack (not really). I think it's pretty clear what I mean by numerically, as most leagues order continental tournament bids in some way, as MLS does (see
here). And that ordering has some importance in most leagues, as it did when U.S. teams qualified for different pots in the CCL. But that certainly makes more sense than your chronological (but not really chronological) method. Why not list the U.S. Open Cup champion first if we're doing it chronologically? Why not list Dallas before New York, since they clinched their spot a day before NYRB? Your way is the "BS" way of ordering them if you ask me: an ordering that has no basis in anything.
Bmf 051 (
talk)
19:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me as if Mr Ward's date of birth was once listed as 11 Dec 1991, see the
March 2010 version of his Bolton Wanderers profile, but later that year it was corrected, or at least changed, to the 9 Dec 1990 date, as per the
August 2010 version of the same page. For what it's worth, birth records for Daniel Carl Ward born in Bradford are consistent with the 1990 date. Stats databases are less likely to keep up with corrections. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Time for some footy trivia:
User:Josepolivares changed this player's position from defensive midfielder to central midfielder. I believe it should be the former, as this player is definitely not box-to-box, and he scores 99,99999999999% of his goals from long-distance shots/free kicks.
I did not change anything subsequently, only contacted the aforementioned user for some technical discussion, received nothing in reply. Maybe if we discuss it here we can reach some conclusion (or not, maybe the majority thinks the current position is correct and I will abide by it of course).
In my mind, "midfielder" is enough. Especially when disputed. There are to much editing back and forth about position and if a player is "central" or "defensive" is not really a big difference. The player might even play "defensive" one match and "central" the next match. One could argue "winger" and "midfielder" should be separate, but no need for detail. But that is just my opinion. Qed237(talk)13:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I think "central midfielder" is fine, since defensive midfielders are rarely anything but central (one who plays on the wings is usually called a wing-back). If this was a problem regarding left/right/centre, then I would go for just "midfielder", but when it's a distinction between "defensive" and "central", I think just "central" is perfectly acceptable. –
PeeJay20:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As said, a defensive midfielder is a central midfielder. You can specify what kind of central midfielder he may be, but if disputed I'd go with central midfielder. You don't have to be a box to box player, or take shots inside the box to be in a defensive midfielder position nontheless. //
Psemmler (
talk)
20:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Change infobox / Career statistics for goalkeepers?
Hello,
In most cases, the goalkeepers rarely scores goals in football matches. If they do, they're likely to do so in the penalty shootout. However those penalty goals doesn't, and shouldn't count, in either the infobox nor the career statistics section under goals. How many goals a keeper scores is a pretty uninteresting fact, so therefore I want to propose having another version of the infobox and career statistics for goalkeepers, where the goal column is changed to the amount of clean sheets the keepers have had instead of goals. To see 25/25 0's in the goal columns for goalkeeper's career statistics is just a waste of space in my opinion.
//
Psemmler (
talk)
01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This has come up many times before and has been shot down every time, on the basis that it is impossible to source clean sheets data for anything other than keepers from a small handful of leagues and then only from the last few years, so 99% of keepers would not have this data available anyway. --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
08:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're over exaggerate pretty much by 99%, but I see the problem. However shouldn't this be available for career statistics in case you have the numbers for a goalkeeper? I understand that it isn't worthy enough of having a different infobox, but rather some clean sheets numbers in career statistics than a bunch of 0's //
Psemmler (
talk)
09:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, clean sheet records are not something that is commonly produced for goalkeepers (I certainly have never seen it in any of the various football annuals I own). I'm not really sure it's of much interest either.
Number5709:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I know, the most common individual stats for a league is: top goalscorer, top assist maker, most clean sheets, most yellow/red cards. I find amount of clean sheets for goalkeepers far more interesting than the amount of goals. //
Psemmler (
talk)
10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Psemmler: Many top levels don't have these kinds of stats (i.e. clean sheets and assists), so how will we find some
reliable sources to back up these stats when there are none? Some goalkeepers do score a goal in their professional career,
José Luis Chilavert and
Rogério Ceni are some clear examples of why the table should remain the current way.
MYS77✉12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It might be if the clean sheet stats were sourced, but as far as I can see neither of the refs in that section contain any details of clean sheets stats, reinforcing my comments above about the lack of sources for such things........... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
20:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Swedish FA is always keeping stats and tables for Clean Sheets. If I have it well sourced for Swedish GKs in our league, would that be okay to add as Career Statistics? //
Psemmler (
talk)
21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not in infoboxes, as this is not a standard statistic, as mentioned by multiple users above. Thanks, C67906:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)