Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 7

message: Discussion here. You are all invited to participate. --Angelo 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Detail level in football kits

message: The article for Italian club Napoli was recently changed from S.S.C. Napoli to Società Sportiva Calcio Napoli.  Is this a "valid" name change?  Are we planning on writing out all club names in long form? Bigdottawa 05:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no... Punkmorten 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Punkmorten. A shorter name like SSC Napoli would be best. Qwghlm 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it back to S.S.C. Napoli, since the new article denomination completely clashes with the standard for football club articles. --Angelo 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoli article name change 

message: I was tempted to edit this, but since I haven't been with Wikipedia for a while I'm unsure where to throw this information. Primarily; Referees are technically registered each year with their respective leagues and the governing body (i.e. Pembrokeshire League and West Wales Football Association) which, allows the governing bodies to allocate them games to be officiated. It's important to note that under this system the referee is considered a representive of the governing body which, reflects on their decisions in matches and so on. Lower level referees (regional leagues and lower) tend to get paid by the home club after each match (this is binding, non-payment will result in the club being fined) also, a referee neglecting his appointment may also be fined by their respective governing body. To my knowledge any referee who hasn't now been registered with their respective football governing body is no longer permitted or allocated matches under the control of the entire governing body so while it's entirely possible for people to be "Qualified" referees if they aren't registered they don't contribute towards the leagues/governing body in the way that registered officials do. ---
--Anyway I have quite a bit of information, just don't really know how to go about implementing it into the article, I can be fairly sure of the accuracy for my regional area though (I myself am qualified and registered ^_^) RBlowes 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar note but I'm also a ref (look at the user name who'd have thought it!), I'd also like to help improve mainly bits on refs and the Law section which I personally think lacks some coherence overall (maily because of the way they're scattered accross various pages rather than having a page or pages just for each law), especially considering how important/conroversial parts of it are. I'm not certain how to get started here so could someone help?Name | Talk 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: "Referee" football article 

message: I was just wondering what people thought about 
a) a category for unemployed football managers
:This might prove useful in finding out/remembering what mamagers are currently out of football. There are a number of potential problems re: who might be included though. Do you incude someone who has retired from football management i.e. Niall Quinn. Or people who were managers but are now employed a s coaches/assitant managers i.e. Ray Lewington.
b) a list of the managers in the Premiership and the Football League.
:Useful for browsing, I thought. A bit like List of European football managers. Columns in the table: Name, Club, league?, date of birth, date of appointment. I figured sorting it by the latter might be quite interesting, although in all honesty all the other columns who be a decent method of sorting. 
Anyway, thoughts? HornetMike 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly dislike the idea of "currently unemployed/unattached" categories - they are a pain to keep track of and the word "current" is meaningless to a reader unless it has an "as of" date added to it as well, and categories are a very poor way of keeping track. As for the list, well it could get enormous (every manager of every League club in its entire history?), and it's a bit crufty but I've given up discouraging people from writing more and more endless lists. A list of lists per club would be more manageable and usable, though. Qwghlm 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no I meant current managers and only those in the Football League. Thus 92 of them. HornetMike 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the sound of (b). So would Dario Gradi.   sʟυмɢυм • т • c  20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of a couple of manager things

message: If interested, please comment on a recent change made to national football team template on a new required item  -- Template talk:Infobox national football team.  Regards.  // Laughing Man 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: [[Template_talk:Infobox_National_football_team#home_stadium_terminology|Infobox national football team]] update 

message: Both should deleted. Matt86hk talk 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, both are created by the same user. Punkmorten 19:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you notified the people listed on the Italian Football page? Oldelpaso 19:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion:[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football Transfers]], [[Wikipedia:Italian Football]]

message: I want to help by editing the team stubs, can anyone please give me an assignment for this??
Reply to me when anyone finds one Rakuten06 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All football club stubs are listed in :Category:Football (soccer) club stubs. Oldelpaso 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask your opinion, which region is the best for me to edit the stubs?? Rakuten06 19:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what are you most familiar with? Do you speak another language? For example, our coverage of South American teams is comparatively weak, but most sources are in Spanish or Portuguese. Oldelpaso 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm writing English but I don't know another language except ASL (American Sign Language). Rakuten06 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The clubs on List of football (soccer) clubs and its daughters all play at the highest level in their country, many on that list are stubs. Or how about North American teams? Outside the MLS teams, a lot of articles contain little information, including several NASL clubs of historical importance e.g. Chicago Sting, Los Angeles Aztecs. Oldelpaso 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I can find stubs in the European region where I love to see the true matches between the teams like Rangers-Celtic (Celtic is my fav team) and also find club stubs for this too, What do you think??  Rakuten06 14:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should I do??

message: There was some discussion of this earlier, and I've followed up with a concrete proposal,  here.  Please add any comments and suggestions you might have.  Alai 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English football club stubs split, revisited 

message: Dunno how you guys do it, but most Wikiprojects like to recieve notification when an article within their scope is nominated to be featured. So, here it is: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/FIFA World Cup hat-tricks. Just delete this if it isn't common practice here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, just adding them to the FAC/FLC section of the WikiProject page (same goes for AfDs, TfDs) rather than the talk page will suffice - those of us who have this page on our watchlist will pick it up. On a related note, I have thought about possibly colour-coding the rows in the table to make the different types of article more distinct for casual readers to find current FACs/FLCs more easily - thoughts? Qwghlm 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly like the idea. I'll whip up an example in my sandbox. Daniel.Bryant 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat you to it. :) Suggestions welcome. Qwghlm 11:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly like that idea of colour coding for GA's/FA's/FAC's etc. compared to my pitiful segregation-by-colour. Daniel.Bryant 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have updated the project page with the coloured version now. Qwghlm 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FLC]] 

message: After the article improvement drive on the article for Boudewijn Zenden, I felt there was a real improvement, and so put it up for review as a good article. It failed, with the reviewer offering (generally reasonable) objections about the writing. I would like to see this article make to GA status it as a positive fruit of this wikiproject's article improvement drive. However, having done a substantial rewrite myself, I feel I am too involved, and was hoping that perhaps some other members of this project could have a go at addressing the objections and maybe preparing it for resubmission. Robotforaday 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a go, having made a few edits on the article before. I'll try to address each of the GA comments, but I will need some proper English grammar- and spellchecking (at least). Poulsen 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boudewijn Zenden

message: We've got four current AfDs, and very, very few comments or votes from project members. No matter if voting keep or delete, or just adding a comment, it is important that the football interrested community participate in deletion matters to form Wikipedia the way we want to form it. – Elisson • T • C • 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think I just stopped doing so. Part of the reason I think is "AfD fatigue" (we have had a lot recently) - I think many nominations could have been dealt with as speedies or prods first - I've added some instructions to the Nominations section spelling out alternatives to AfD for other editors. Hope it's useful. Qwghlm 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KInd of on this topic but I find the new table for AfD on the project page a little too much work.  Didn't see anything wrong with the other way.  Just a minor gripe, no doubt I'll get used to it.  Dodge 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have people stopped commenting on AfDs? 

message: A list of football clubs by city?
*YES and so...where??
*NO it would be useful...don't you think?
--necronudist 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries, the most developed lists of that type, list cities. Feel free to convert similar articles (such as List of football clubs in country X) to the same format, but its not the most glamourous of tasks. Oldelpaso 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just started a List of top-division football clubs in AFC countries article.  Seems like we should have one for each FIFA confederation. Jogurney 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! --necronudist 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there...? 

message: The only popular club page I watch is the Aston Villa F.C. page - is the recent level of vandalism there any more than other clubs? Superlinus 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The level of vandalism tends to be proportional to the profile of the club, and Villa look to be no exception. More vandalism than say Bolton, but less than Chelsea. Oldelpaso 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too bad, considering - it's certainly less than the vandalism of Arsenal (which has been unusually heavy of late) - I'd happily swap the workload for that page. Qwghlm 23:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of Vandalism on Aston Villa page 

message: I'm in something of a slow burning edit war with an anon regarding derogatory nicknames on City of Manchester Stadium. A couple of third party opinions at Talk:City of Manchester Stadium would be helpful, lest I get accused of breaking WP:OWN. Oldelpaso 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: A lot of national team articles are mediocre, often consisting of a recap of recent matches followed by several lists. On the AID, Kingfisherswift suggested a mass improvement of national team articles, which sounds like a good idea. One thing I think we are missing is an aspirational article - if someone wants to improve a club article, there are several FAs to take inspiration from, but this is not the case for national teams. What would the ideal national team article contain?
Things from the club article layout which could be used are the Stadium section (for nations which use a single national stadium), Colours where colours vary from the national flag (e.g. Netherlands) and perhaps a Rivalries section. A supporters section might not be very interesting in a lot of cases. I'm dubious about the inclusion of current squads due to their fluid nature.
Looking at various national team articles, Denmark national football team is perhaps the best (aside from the non-standard United Kingdom national football team). Maybe it would be worth staging a push to get that to FA or GA to serve as a role model for similar articles? Oldelpaso 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, we should try to avoid recentism. That means leaving out "current squad" and less focus on recent results. Punkmorten 14:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with removing the current squad. I mean, if we remove it shouldn't we remove all the current squads from domestic teams? Is that recentism too? HornetMike 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the situation is different at club level. The squad is largly static for each season and setup with their own numbers at the start of it. The national squad only exists for each match and can change rapidly. I equally don't agree with squad lists that note injuries and suspensions because these are also short term situations. josh (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. And also agree with Oldelpaso that something should be done to the national teams. Perhaps do something outside of the FAID, working together over a longer period on several of the more important national team articles. – Elisson • T • C • 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I like they way the squad is done for Northern Ireland national football team.  "The following players have all been called up to the Northern Ireland squad within the last 18 months." Dodge 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The technique used in England national football team is even better than that, I think. HornetMike 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I think that is ugly and takes up too much space (and also needs very regular updating). Player's DoBs do not need to be there, either. I don't think it is too unreasonable to just put the most recent squad in - yes, squads change, but they only change once a month at most and even then there are only a few changes from time to time. To put in every player from the last 18 months would make most pages enormous. Qwghlm 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Polyglots amongst you may wish to note that several national teams are featured in other languages: Austria in German, Italy in Italian, Germany in Swedish, Australia in Portugese and France in Polish. Oldelpaso 09:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Norway in Norwegian, but the same article translated to English failed a good article nomination here... Punkmorten 10:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the only of those articles that would stand a chance under en.wiki's FA process would be the Austrian national team article on de.wiki. – Elisson • T • C • 12:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National team articles

message: I moved new Norwich manager Peter Grant from Peter Grant (football) to Peter Grant (footballer) as it's more standard. I've corrected all the double re-directs, apart from one at Peter Grant (Football). I presume it should be deleted, but something in the back of my head says something about deleting content completely and so forth.HornetMike 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the content & fixed the redirect. There was nothing in the Peter Grant (Football) page that wasn't already in Peter Grant (footballer) - the same anon user contributed to both   - so there wasn't anything to merge. I left a note in the edit summary explaining it, I think it should be fine. Qwghlm 13:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Qwglhm. HornetMike 14:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Grant

message: I have suggested the article Football (soccer) for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article suggestion 

message: I remember there was a similar discussion for basketball and we decided that (basketball) was "more standard" than others. I think this would be true for football too. By now you all write (footballer), but what if a footballer (= football player for most people) became a manager? Then it must be changed to (football manager), to avoid confusion, or something like. With (football) you can cover all the football world without disambiguation (many people ask me if footballer means "football player" or "someone who works in the football world", and so here is the confusion). --necronudist 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Football is a very ambiguous term. Punkmorten 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally a football manager will have also been a footballer - and some football managers are much more notable as players than managers (Tony Adams (footballer) for example), so I would just stick with footballer. WikiGull 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you are sayin' that using a "neutral" term like football is MORE ambigous than the various footballer, football manager, etc. because "generally a football manager has been a footballer" or "generally a football manager is more notable as player than manager"? LOL! I just don't understand why you don't want to resolve this problem... --necronudist 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's saying that Football doens't only apply to soccer. Dodge 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer "(footballer)" or "(football manager)" (depending on what they were primarily known as) as opposed to "(football)" as the former illustrates what the person's occupation was. Other articles in different fields tend to use occupation, e.g. Tony Adams (actor) not Tony Adams (drama) or Tony Adams (acting), so it remains consistent with the other articles. But to be honest, it's not a big an issue as you make out, and I won't object if you start moving all these articles to "(football)". Qwghlm 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all: Dodge, "football" only refers to Association football, others are AMERICAN football, GAELIC football etc... today it's a de facto standard (there was a discussion here that decided to abolish "football (soccer)" in favour of "football"). Second: it's also a consistency problem (maybe a minor problem, however): basketball players, manager etc are archived as (basketball) and football people are archived by football occupation. I think it would be more standard to write football as per basketball. In this way we can also eliminate the controversies I said above. --necronudist 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom Example (football)]] or [[Tom Example (footballer)]] ? 

message: I spent quite a bit of last night updating Watford's infobox stats, as whoever did them left out all FA Cup/League Cup/Johnstone whatever appearances and goals. Someone's reverted one of them saying League Cup appearances don't count. That's not the case, is it? If so, that's utterly ridiculous. HornetMike 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the rule that was drawn up (not sure who did), infoboxes are meant to contain domestic league appearances only, so no League Cup or FA Cup stats should be included. I also think that it's ridiculous - cup and European matches should be included in a player's stats - they are just as important in their career. Qwghlm 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree! All stats should be included in a players appearances, They're official club matches, so really should include F.A., League and European cup appearances, I haven't changed any to all appearances so far as the info box does state that its the players league appearances correct as of..... It is slightly confusing, especially for players such as Gary Kelly who has made over 500 professional appearances for the club but his info box states only 400-odd.  --Chappy84 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, who made the decision for the infoboxes to be this way? Surely we could reverse it with a good consensus? Daemonic Kangeroo has just posted a very helpful reply on my talk page saying it's something to do with cup games being difficult to confirm as oposed to League stats. I'm not realy sure how this is the case. I use Soccerbase as my stat source, and it catalogues cup games just as well as League games. I don't know what else people use. Club programmes? Surely they include cup games as well? HornetMike 13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect whoever wrote the original template way back deigned that rule. I think stats on appearances other than league are available in a lot of places - books as well as websites. For those players where we can't get info right now (players from way back in history) we could instead have maybe a supplementary template, e.g.  which would insert a footnote saying "League appearances only". Qwghlm 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I use the Sky Sports Football Yearbook for players stats, and that lists league appearances only, so keeping league appearances only in the template makes life easier for me. Only listing league appearances seems to be fairly standard in the world of football stats.  Gasheadsteve 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?! I've never encountered this method before. Anyway, IMO we shouldn't be looking at what's convenient we should be looking at what's comphrehensive. Personally, I'm alright. For Watford Trefor Jones covers all appearances up to 1996, after that Soccerbase kicks in. HornetMike 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy for ex-Leeds players, there's an incredibly comprehensive source at www.leedsfans.org.uk, they also have the stats for the player at other clubs during their career if they've been able to find them.  The simplest way to change the template  would probably be to have a tag at the end stating whether it's just league or league and cup stats, like Qwghlm suggested. I would agree with HornetMike in the fact that most stats I've ever seen include cup as well as league appearances. --Chappy84 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like more Sky revisionism here - with them having exclusive rights to the FA Premier League they always try to promote it at the expense of other competitions. My copy of Arsenal Who's Who (a pretty much canon list of players) lists stats for all competitions from the club's very beginnings. Although I can see that some statistics outside the league are hard to find, they are by no means totally lost. Qwghlm 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is NOT Sky Sports revisionism to say that generally only League appearances are kept in statistics.  As far as I can recall, the Rothmans annual (the sponsor before Sky) gave League appearances only and its generally regarded as the bible by statiticians in the UK.  I agree with only providing league appearances in the infobox as it is the only clear consistent figure.  Stats for league cup, Inter toto games, minor cups (Anglo-Italian Cup, Zenith Data Sytems Cup, Catalan Cup, etc) are very hard to come by.  League appearances generally aren't. Dodge 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statistics should be as complete as possible. For English clubs they aren't usually too hard to find (I own no less than three publications containing full data for Manchester City players, for example). It is places like Brazil where statistics get confusing, due to a labyrinthine structure that changes frequently (or if you are cynical, whenever a big club is on the brink of relegation). Oldelpaso 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if we can come to some agreed standard on what competitions should be included, then we don't have to worry about the problems that Seidodge outlines. Domestic leagues, cups and league cups are usually included in stats by professional statisticians, while minor competitions such as the Intertoto, Anglo-Italian or ZDS Cups generally aren't. Admittedly this is a Euro-centric view - I am no expert in the intricacies of e.g. Brazilian league football, but someone else here might be able to provide information. Qwghlm 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Qwghlm here, I believe all appearances with English/Scotland clubs are easy enough to find. It's outside of England/Scotland that it gets a bit tricky. Still we can differentiate with tags... HornetMike 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems more people than not think that we should include the FA, League and European stats if available, it's def a good idea to have a tag so that people know exactly whats included.  --Chappy84 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  So where are we going with this? I don't personally have the knowledge as to creating tags, but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for someone to do.HornetMike 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: League Cup stats in infoboxes

message: While browsing the :Category:2006-07 domestic football (soccer) leagues i noted there's no consistency re naming conventions. Danish Superliga 2006-07 uses "-" instead of "/" used in La Liga - 2006/2007 and a few others. Any suggestions or comments? -- Szvest 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have agreed a while ago on using "-" instead of "/" in article titles. – Elisson • T • C • 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was touched on in the Standardisation discussion section above. I prefer "-", definitely. Qwghlm 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And here earlier this year. – Elisson • T • C • 22:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of style 

message: Can a few of you add this to your watchlists? He is the current Hibs goalie, who had a stinker yesterday and his article is paying the price today. Thanks. --Guinnog 11:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Zbigniew Małkowski]]

message: If fail to delete, it will have many Euro TP. Matt86hk talk 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plesase vote for TFD for [[:Template:Romania Squad Euro 2000]]

message: The article Marcos Arelio Bognano definitely contains a lot of false information - the bit about a career at Arsenal and Liverpool certainly is. Can anyone confirm whether any of this article is true - if not I will send it to AfD as a hoax. Qwghlm 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 99,9% hoax --necronudist 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable hoax 

message: A known vandal has edited some information to Turkcell Super League, the article on the Turkish premier league. What he has added is probably nonsense, but some factchecking by someone who knows Turkish football is necessary. He has changed the name of the winner of last year's Turkish Manager of the Year title from Erik Gerets (Galatasaray) to Ertuğrul Sağlam (Kayserispor). Is this nonsense or not? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like nonsense, Gerets was Manager of the Year according to  (pdf) Oldelpaso 18:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Manager of the Year 

message: With the general move towards fb start and fb end templates coupled with the standard colour scheme, I'm after adjusting the following templates Template:National football (soccer) super cups, Template:National football (soccer) cups and Template:National football (soccer) league cups.  I've included the fb start and fb end bits within the templates.  Would it be better to do it the other way ? 
I would also like to say that all the football articles etc should move to a standard template system.  This colour template and style is already being used by English, Italian, French and International articles.  I just think that having each league use the same would be more please on the eye.Niall123 16:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've completely missed the point with fb start and fb end if you include them within the templates. :) The meaning of those two tags are to group several navigational templates together on articles, by placing them between the same tags in the article. By placing them in the template itself, they can't be grouped with other templates. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates for more information. If you don't understand it all, ask here and I'll answer as quick as possible. – Elisson • T • C • 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I've done both the Super Cup and League Cup templates properly.  Give me a while to do the Cup one.  There's a fair bit to be done there. Niall123 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work so far! – Elisson • T • C • 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all 3 done.  Just back to my original point.  These fb start and fb end are being used differently everywhere.  I used them in the Italian pages and I use them on the front of the page.  On the Premier League though they are being used as sub-templates with the fb start and fb end being used in the master template.  Added on to this, there are a lot of templates out there that don't match up to these standard templates.  From what I could see, they only work so far with Premier League, Serie A, Scotish Football, Portugese Football, Belgian Football and Swedish Football. Niall123 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football templates 

message: Someone has submitted a page on 'The West London Derby'. It focuses on this derby being contested by Chelsea and Fulham. Does anyone else find this a bit fantasical? I'd say historically there's no such thing as The West London Derby, only west London derbies contested variously by Chelsea, Fulham and QPR. I've added a discussion to the actual page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.78.138 (talk • contribs) 19:12, October 20, 2006.
:My trusty friend in London informs me that Chelsea and Fulham is correct. Their stadiums are only a couple of miles apart. - Dudesleeper 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact both stadiums are in Fulham (even Stamford Bridge).  Doesn't mean that this is a valid football rivalry, especially considering the lenght of time Fulham were out of the top flight. Niall123 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a particularly strong rivalry between the two teams. Matches between the two may be mentioned in passing as a west London derby in the same way that any match between two London teams might be termed a London derby, but its not really "The West London Derby", there isn't the intense buildup and high passion associated with a derby match. That the article itself describes it as one of the lesser known local derbies is telling. Oldelpaso 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a rivalry between Fulham and Chelsea, perhaps more of it perceived on the Fulham side of the divide, and not as passionate as the rivalry between Arsenal and Spurs, but there still is one - after Fulham beat Chelsea for the first time in 20 years, there was a pitch invasion - that doesn't happen that often these days. Qwghlm 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Derbies 

message: Something needs to be done about this article.  Every tom dick and harry are going into it, adding more and more transfer speculation.  In fact, just about anything said in the British tabloids has been added to the list.  I cut away about half the waffle 2 months ago and summarised it, but now its just as bad as ever. Such speculation (especially from British tabloids) has no place in such an article Niall123 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fernando Torres]] 

message: I've removed the Contents from this article as it had a link to every year, and added links to decades, if anyone feels this is incorrect please feel free to revert it.  I simply felt a Contents over 100 lines long before you got to the article was a bit ridiculous.  Chappy84 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timeline of English football]] 

message: The above proposed deletion may require further agreement or not by people before any action is taken on this : 
--Chappy84 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Original Premier League clubs]] 

message: I'm about to nominate Mickaël Le Mener, Delis Ahou, Alexandre Rosay, Julien Sourice, Emmanuel Bourgaud, Guy Moussi, Mahamat Saleh, Julien Sola, Abdoulaye Soumaré, Carlos Madiokoka and Jamel Zahiri for deletion as footballers who have never played in a fully professional league (as required by our biography guidelines). Last time I nominated French third tier players (see here) I received some objections, since this was a "significant enough league" (!). But this time let the sensible voices be heard - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickaël Le Mener. Punkmorten 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also can we have sensible voices on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Sahar, before they close it. It's hanging on because of a few idiots who seem to pop up on a few Afds at the minute and keep regardless of WP:BIO. HornetMike 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created an AFD for Mark Wilberforce as even though he was at Leeds, he never played in the first team in any league or cup matches and is now in the Conference North for Scarborough which is obviously not a fully professional league. See here for the nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wilberforce. --Chappy84 09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask people stop adding AfDs on the talk page? Just add it to the table in the main page - that's what it's there for. No point cluttering this talk page as well. Thanks. Qwghlm 11:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imminent AFD 

message: : I've created an AFD for Mark Wilberforce as even though he was at Leeds, he never played in the first team in any league or cup matches and is now in the Conference North for Scarborough which is obviously not a fully professional league. See here for the nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wilberforce. --Chappy84 09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask people stop adding AfDs on the talk page? Just add it to the table in the main page - that's what it's there for. No point cluttering this talk page as well. Thanks. Qwghlm 11:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wilberforce]]

message: Could someone have a look at Scott Sinclair. A user has added "and had formed a prolific strike partnership with Lilly Clare in Bristol Rovers Youth Team.", which I'm 99.999% sure is nonsense - especially as the same IP vandalised Roman Abramovich and Bristol Rovers F.C. - but I thought I'd better get a second opinion before reverting just in case. Gasheadsteve 12:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Punkmorten has reverted it now. Thanks for that. Gasheadsteve 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Probable vandalism

message: Should the entry entitled League of Wales be changed to Welsh Premiership as that is the official name of the top division in the Principality? Blogdroed 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: League of Wales

message: I propose that the professional clubs section be changed to senior clubs to allow info boxes to be included in articles about footballers who were still amateurs throughout most of their career. This applies, for example, to Spain where football did not go professional until the late 1920s. Djln--Djln 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this. Also useful for some Irish players who started off as Amateur or Semi Pro Dodge 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a sensible idea and I agree with it. Qwghlm 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sensible suggestion WikiGull 12:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to Infoboxes

message: Hi.  I'm having a debate with another user about the best way to use Categories in relation to the somewhat unusual history of the Ireland international football teams teams (main articles Ireland national football team (IFA), Northern Ireland national football team and Republic of Ireland national football team).  Discussion is at Category talk:Football in Ireland#IFA and FAI international teams if anyone cares to read and/or contribute.  Thanks. jnestorius(talk) 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFA and FAI international football  teams 

message: Just wondering what is the standard on such.  For instance, the San Siro is officially the Giuseppe Meazza and the article is named as such.  But the Nou Camp is actually called "Estadi del Futbol Club Barcelona" and yet it's articles name is the Nou Camp.  Just wondering but shouldn't we be doing it one or the other.  My personal preference would be to use the most used name. Niall123 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a problem with this. Some stadia are named after the surrounding areas, e.g. the Boleyn Ground and Arsenal Stadium are more usually known as "Upton Park" and "Highbury", but there already exist articles with those titles, about the geographic areas. I would generally go with the rule that the common name should be used, but if it clashes with the name of another place or structure, then using some form of the official name is an acceptable alternative. Qwghlm 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object of the moving of Stadio Giuseppe Meazza to San Siro, Stadio Luigi Ferraris to Marassi and Stadio Renzo Barbera to La Favorita on the basis that these are the commonly used names for these stadiums on the president of the Nou Camp article ?  Niall123 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Football Stadiums 

message: created! Check it if you can. --necronudist 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps using a table would look nice? Punkmorten 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally dumb with tables...sorry. --necronudist 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oriundo]]... 

message: As far as I can see, there hasn't been any mention of squad restrictions (i.e., the number of substitutes/substitutions permitted, non-EU players permitted, etc.) throughout the different leagues and cup competitions of the world. I'm not that familiar with these rules myself, so I was wondering if anyone would be willing to provide the necessary information? - Dudesleeper 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad restrictions 

message: I noticed that Greek Football seasons before 2005 is not created yet, and 2005-06 and 2006-07 seasons need to be cleaned up, I only wished that Greek Football seasons will look like English football seasons, so I need help on creating new articles of pre-2005 greek football seasons. Rakuten06 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek Football Seasons

message: An IP user is continuously adding a link to a Google-automated English translation of an Italian fans' website into the Torino FC article. I don't think it could be notable in any sort, but I'm not going to revert it since I would break the three revert rule. Tell me what to do. --Angelo 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Break it. If you are scared in making good actions the problem isn't yours. --necronudist 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Errr? That's a very bad advice. I've already reverted the addition, BTW. – Elisson • T • C • 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Stick to WP:3RR even though I think using it in cases like this is overzealous. With any luck, you can wait a week and the anon user will have forgotten all about it and you can remove the link then with little extra trouble. You might also want to raise the issue on Talk:Torino F.C. and gain consensus there, to give your reversions a reasonable foundation. Qwghlm 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The 3RR, NN, NPOV are bad ideas. Not the vandalism revertion. This is one of the n problems of Jimbopedia. --necronudist 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? NN and NPOV are bad ideas? We are building an encyclopedia here, and not a playground. – Elisson • T • C • 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the standard spam templates (,  etc) usually gets the message across. Oldelpaso 18:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links on [[Torino F.C.]]

message: International squad templates are simply getting out of hand. World Cup templates I could live with, but now theres Asia Cup, European Championship, Confederation Cup.. simply over the top. Player articles are becoming swallowed up by them.. I think something should be deicded here on the wikiproject. -- Mattythewhite 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eureka! --necronudist 11:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've !voted delete in each of the TfDs so far (and would do so again), but if they end up being kept, this looks infinitely preferable. Oldelpaso 11:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That template looks fine but you'll have to fine tune each template so that you have the correct squads for each player. Niall123 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We could even merge them completely with the other templates using  and . This makes the templates narrower and thus "higher", but on the other hand we could add one of those flashy [hide] / [show] thingies and make the hidden position the default. – Elisson • T • C • 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a collapsable template for previous squads already but a lot of people didn't like the idea.  In fact I had changed all the Italy templates to the format below.  I personally like them as they use up so little space.
 
Niall123 14:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a massive fan of the collapsible boxes, for usability and accessiblity reasons. I think a merge with  and  is a good idea, though. Qwghlm 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of fb start and fb end, here is the collapsable template using  and 
User:Niall123
On the comment above about "winning squads only" - I think it depends a lot on the nation.  For Australia, neither the squad in 1974 or 2006 came anywhere near winning, but both squads are hugely notable - they are the only two times Australia has qualified.  The same goes for other nations whose teams have only qualified once or twice - so it would need to be a per country decision.. -- Chuq 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International squad templates 

message: Recently User:Rossoneri3 add club logo to all Serie A tp, and the tp became higher. And the image not applied to fair use . Matt86hk tc 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of reverting them and have left a message on his talk page. You can revert them too you know ;-) Oldelpaso 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaagh they're everywhere! Just removed logos from all the templates for Scottish Premier League clubs. Oldelpaso 12:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Club squad Template

message: === F.C. to FC ===
Did anyone get anywhere with the admin/bot request to move all football clubs from Example F.C./Example A.F.C to Example FC/Example AFC?  Yorkshire Phoenix   13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bumping this. I for one am tired of the dots in Norwegian club names. Punkmorten 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a consistent naming scheme. For what it's worth, I think disambiguation by city rather than country is definitely the way forward, as the Libyan examples show, as it is precise and consistent with existing articles. Qwghlm 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an additional note, there is a similar city-level disambiguation already in place for Liverpool FC (Montevideo). Qwghlm 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the input.  I've been adding disambiguation pages and hope to get them finished soon. Jogurney 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My view is that FC and CF should be avoided. The only exception should be when it is uses to disambigute, e.g Barcelona and FC Barcelona. Otherwise adding adding CF is pointless. Club is most commonly referred to as as Real Madrid. Check the what links here section for the number of links. Djln--Djln 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The club's official names include these FC's and such-forth, therefore the articles should use the official name.  Look at the Real Madrid official badge, and many many other football club badges (see FC Barcelona, Chelsea or Liverpool's badge), they all include FC, AFC, CF or whatever the appendix for that club is on their badge as it's part of their name.  I think they should be included,  The Galatasaray article was recently moved to Galatasaray S.K. as that's it's full name.  I think the articles should include them as they're part of the clubs name. --Chappy84 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think looking at the logo is a perfect solution; Arsenal and Man Utd don't have any suffix on their badge, Atlético Madrid and Wolves don't even have the club name.  I should point out that User:Everton has been changing a lot of Spanish club article titles recently, so it seems most do now have the full name. When non-English-named clubs are involved it becomes difficult. Personally I can't decide between full ceremonial name and just the plain common name that an Anglophone would use. e.g. Espérance Sportive Troyes Aube Champagne and Association Sportive Nancy-Lorraine seem right but they're not as practical as Troyes AC and AS Nancy for remembering or (speaking as an editor) wikilinking. A reader may find that seeing the full club name is a lot more practical, although this should be included in the club infobox regardless of the article name.   sʟυмɢυм • т • c  23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with slumgum. --necronudist 08:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, don't think my point came across correctly, I was trying to say that they should include the suffix, e.g. FC (or CF in real madrid's case) but obviously writing say Leeds United Association Football Club is a bit too much,  I was trying to say it should be something like Leeds United AFC instead of just Leeds United and so forth, so in the case of AS Nancy I would think it should be AS Nancy-Lorraine.  Although obviously having other versions of the name forward to the correct page is a good idea. That's just my opinion anyway. --Chappy84 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Slumgum misses the point. We should use abbreviations like FC, CF, FK, PFC and so on in all cases. Troyes should be ES Troyes AC, obviously. Punkmorten 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Worse thing in lower FIFA ranking countries likes :Category:South African football clubs. Matt86hk talk 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but most of the "standards" found at uefa.com can be applied to other countries as well. A quick look at the SA clubs tells me that most, if not all of them should have an "FC" in the article name. South Africa is no problem really, it is much worse with other African and many of the Asian clubs, as info on them are very hard to find, and if found, generally in a language you do not understand. – Elisson • T • C • 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: on short form, i think use FC, AC, AS, CD, CF is better, the Template:Fc is useful. Matt86hk talk 14:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entry for Porthamdog has them as Porthmadog FC but the official name of the club is C.P.D. Porthmadog i.e. it's in Welsh, the club doen't have an official title in English. Blogdroed 11:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree with Matthew_hk on using FC as initials, else article titles get very long very quickly. As for Porthmadog, perhaps the article should be moved to the Welsh title and Porthmadog F.C. becomes a redirect?
=== AFC vs A.F.C. ===
Hi. I don't know much about the history of this debate, but I've been helping out with page moves.  We recently moved Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, with people citing consensus from this project.  Others noted that there were still such articles as Sunderland A.F.C. and Workington A.F.C., so I went ahead and moved both of those to "AFC" titles.  Both were moved back, with the reverters citing "no consensus" as the reason.  Is there, or isn't there, a consensus to be consistent about AFC vs A.F.C.? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, AFC (and FC, CF, CD etc) looks much neater, and is easier on the linkage. So consensus here Superlinus 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if consensus has been reached on this issue, but seeing as the official Sunderland site spells it Sunderland AFC, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't. As SuperLinus says, it looks neater and is easier, but that doesn't mean it is always right. Fore example the official F.C. Copenhagen site spells that club name with full stops, so that would seem appropriate in their specific case. Poulsen 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better to follow each club's preferred format, or to follow a consistent format in all our AFC articles? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be consistent. For starters, clubs can change the full stops as and when they please - would it mean we have to rename them every time they change them? What if a club is inconsistent in how they use full stops? Qwghlm 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most clubs have PR and merchandise departments who are in charge of streamlining their image, and the name of the club is a part of that. I think it's safe to assume that official papers of a club bear the same club name. You can always imagine individual inconsistencies and typos, but as far as a homepage goes, I would imagine the static content has been proofread. It isn't always possible to find the exact club naming conventions on the home pages, but I wouldn't mind if the article naming was in accordance with the official line of the club, whether it be with or without full stops. Poulsen 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might apply for the likes of Manchester United but not for the hundreds of smaller clubs who cannot afford it. We should not put such faith in club's copywriters and instead rely on Wikipedia's own conventions for initialisms (look at how articles such as BBC, NASA or indeed FIFA all do not use full stops in them). Qwghlm 08:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to be "the likes of Manchester United" in the PR department, to spell your club name properly on your official homepage. The club's own copywriters/webmasters are the ones closest to the club and is much more authoritative than any band of random people passing judgement on Wikipedia. But I can see how a common Wikipedia standard might be a good thing for further editing efforts. That BBC, NASA and FIFA all are without full stops is irrelevant as I see it, as these entities spell their names without full stops themselves. Poulsen 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases the producers of a website are not those closest to a club - for example many English clubs subcontract their websites out to Premium TV (e.g.) rather than produce it in-house. This is a minor question of style, not verifiablity or NPOV, so we do not need to defer to a club's particular preference. Qwghlm 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase it then - they are closer to the club than us random people at Wikipedia, and as I said, much more authoritative (than us). I like the argument for a common naming standard as the nicest and easiest way to go in view of future editing, but saying we at Wikipedia should defer from the official spelling because the clubs might or might not be inconsistent in naming themselves, is pretty speculative. Poulsen 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that UEFA's official page on FCK uses no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UEFA is a secondary source. FCK is the primary source of information on FCK. Poulsen 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to think about WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." Punkmorten 12:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but please look at the entire paragraph in WP:RS. The sources are listed according to (potential) reliability and thereby authority; primary, secondary, and tertiary. "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher [...] and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims", which is why we unpublished people should use secondary sources in general. However, a name is a descriptive claim, so the primary source has authority. As I see it, we standardize the naming convention on full stops for our own editing pleasure, and citing "UEFA's (or BBC's, or ...) authoritative claim on full stops" seems a tacked-on excuse to me. Poulsen 14:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then apply WP:NCA sentence There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK). The preferred usage, as far as I can tell from looking at the most popular Danish newspapers, the Swedish newspapers, as well as BBC and Uefa, is to use no periods. I haven't found one single news source that uses periods. Searching on google for "F.C. København" and going through the first 100 or so results, return a large majority of hits without periods. – Elisson • T • C • 14:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can throw quite a few WP guidelines around, each one more bendable than the other. Fore example WP:GOOGLE; "the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness." Searching through secondary sources still doesn't say so much, compared to the primary source(s). I would still claim that when the official team, kit sponsor, and stadium home pages spell it with full stops, then that is the official line of the club. The media have just standardized their way of referring to the club to the easiest way, just like I hope we will. Poulsen 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe.  If you make a request at WP:BOTREQ, someone might pick it up, but they might want to see evidence of consensus first.  How many Norwegian clubs are we talking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all of them, I've never seen any Norwegian club use dots. Some like Alta IF might use dots in their badge, but not elsewhere . I have no idea why the dots were put there in the first place. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about this issue, simply because no-one seems to care. I have tried to address the issue in this forum and at the Norwegian notice-board before, to no avail. Punkmorten 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solution is to go through, one country at a time, take all the clubs for that country to WP:RM at once, let the discussion happen in one place, and then do the moves, with or without bot assistance.  I'm pretty familiar with WP:RM, and far less so with football.  Shall we list the Norwegian clubs as a batch move there? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all the clubs at once. I don't see the point in wasting time by doing it by nationality. Qwghlm 08:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is why I suggested doing it by nationality. If we can get consensus to do the same thing with all of them, I'm certainly for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of consistency across the whole of Wikipedia I think to do all at once is best. Qwghlm 09:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so all football clubs move from titles with full stops to titles without?  If that gets listed at WP:RM, where should the accompanying survey be?  Here?  With links on the talk page of every article that's subject to move? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand... why should we remove all full stops? I know this is an English wikipedia but you know, in Italy we use full stops (nobody will ever write AC Milan) in Spain don't. FC Barcelona is correct, A.C. Milan is correct, why should we create (invent?) a standard...? Standards exists and they are: in Italy use dots, in Spain don't use etc... It's like sayin' "ok, every name should be write in English standard, no-more Michelangelo or Raffaello". It sounds a little fascist...like Louis Armstrong who became "Luigi Fortebraccio". FC Barcelona is correct, F.C. Barcelona is wrong, A.C. Milan is correct, AC Milan is wrong. Simple. Or not? --necronudist 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that UEFA's official page on Milan uses no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Necronudist, your point is erroneous - we're talking about punctuation, not actually rewording the title to the English translation. It's not as if we're proposing change the Milan article to FC Milan. Also, if you're going to get worked up about this, you should also get worked up about the articles for Chinese, Japanese, Israeli etc. clubs whose articles are all titled using the Roman alphabet rather than their native script. Qwghlm 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UEFA uses no slavic accents, so let's remove'em on the players' pages. However, I'm just sayin' that AC Milan is an error as in Italy we use dots and has no sense to create a standard ad-hoc as there are many different standards accepted in each country. Another Italian example: SPAL is usually written without dots but its official name is S.P.A.L. (Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor) and it's definitively an error to write SPAL or Spal (as in Italian wikipedia) also if you don't wanna use dots. However, it's not important/vital for me... I'm just sayin' my opinion. I will not destroy wikipedia servers if you'll decide to remove dots :-) --necronudist 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That point is erroneous as well, necronudist. It is not like UEFA has left out the dots for the same reason they left out some of the more complicated Slavic accents. And I don't see your other point about SPAL? You say it is an error to write SPAL or Spal, while the actual website of the club shows (1) a club badge with text "SPAL", (2) a site header with text "Spal", and (3) a contact address with text "SPAL". Besides that, the actual article on the Italian Wikipedia is at "SPAL", so I guess at least some Italians prefers no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: necronudist, if "A.C. Milan" is more common in Italy, then the article should be at "A.C. Milan".  However in England, "FC" and "AFC" are far more common so for English clubs only the pages should be kept at "<clubname> FC" or "AFC <clubname>".  I would be in favour of a country by country approach. -- MLD · T · C · @:  17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly oppose a country by country approach. It will only make things even more complicated. What if the usage differs between the clubs of the country? As seen above, in Denmark, FCK prefers "F.C." on their website while for example Brøndby prefers plain "IF" on theirs. How to do then? Club by club approach? Won't be possible to do for the tens of thousands of football club articles we have. I say, move everything to titles without any punctuation. If it is good enough for UEFA, it is good enough for Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerely I don't care about the UEFA site on this matters. UEFA has adopted his own standard, like you wanna do now here. Maybe dots were difficult to manage in their databases like the slavic accents... I don't know, however there isn't an European standard. I don't care neither about the SPAL site, SPAL is an acronym (hope it's the right word) and so it must be written as S.P.A.L. also if it's commonly used SPAL, even in the logo (many Italian football teams don't have dots in their logos..but this doesn't mean anything, we're not emblem-fanatics as in England, unfortunately). I think that a country by country decision is the only (and the best) solution. Otherwise you can blind your eyes and shoot. You'll do things quickly but wrong --necronudist 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so I strongly oppose the creation of a standard for clubs naming. Instead, I'm in favour of a country-by-country approach. --necronudist 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument for that being what? As I've already said, a country by country approach is not possible as standards differ inside each country as well. – Elisson • T • C • 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is that there can't be a unique standard as I said above, but I think at the end we'll do what Elisson want, as always. Hail to the King. --necronudist 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Civility isn't your cup of tea, is it? I will just ignore what you say until stop being sarcastic. I guess you would rather see a Wikipedia without a Football WikiProject at all. – Elisson • T • C • 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everytime with those Wikipedia policies.. There's a life out there, man. A life that doesn't follow ridicolous wikipedia policies. And stop hiding behind those policies, man, be serious sometimes. You and your friends. I'm just a contributor who don't care about ridicolous wikipedia policies and simply work hard in creating valid (hope) articles. You're nothing more than a lawyer. Hope you'll ban me one day, 'cause here who works hard is smashed and lawyers are glorified. --necronudist 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would hope that if there was one place Wikipedia policies would be followed, it's Wikipedia. The policies are there for a reason - to stop everybody going off and doing their own thing, leading to edit wars and public confusion. If you can't contribute in a civil manner, and cry every time you don't get your own way, I suggest you stop bothering Superlinus 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You understood everything uh? How sick. I don't need your "you don't like nazism? Go away!" wise words. How boring, man. --necronudist 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Necronudist, please stop being incivil to other users, or I will have to report your behaviour on WP:AN/I. I don't want that so could you please start acting civil? – Elisson • T • C • 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I won't. Take care of your nazipedia, men. Bye. --necronudist 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case you still read, the report on you is found here. – Elisson • T • C • 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The life outside of here doesn't have to follow Wikipedia policy, you're completely correct there. But while you're here, you are supposed to, just like you are supposed to follow rules and guidelines for whatever place (real or on the internet) you spend your time at/in. If you do not follow policies here at Wikipedia, you'll sooner or later find yourself in a position where you will have to choose between following policies, or get banned for not following them. I will not ban you as long as I am involved in any sort of discussion with you, but there are other admins who might. Consider Wikipedia a workplace (unpaid...), and the policies the rules of the workplace. Even if you are doing your job, you might find yourself fired because of your bad behaviour. Works the same way both IRL and here. – Elisson • T • C • 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer doing good jobs instead of following stupid wikipedia policies, I'm just one of the few that remember what wikipedia SHOULD be. However, I appreciate your wise words. P.S.: I don't have bad behaviours, I've never called asshole or motherfucker anyone. I'm not a stupid MTV generation teenager. --necronudist 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see the conflict between making good edits to Wikipedia and being civil at the same time. And I can't see this discussion leading to something more. Just follow policies and try to follow guidelines. That's all. – Elisson • T • C • 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with aLii. Let's simply see this as an editorial step towards a common standard for all football articles. Just like this WikiProject proposes to do. Poulsen 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (a) Voting is evil and (b) We haven't finished discussing yet, so let's hold off for now, shall we? Qwghlm 09:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be no exception for "very notable comon name". Why on earth? Who decides what is a common name? Punkmorten 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there should be expceptions for common names, infact it is wikipedia policy to use the most common name. As for who decides such things, well it's you, us, the media, society. There's no need to get pedantic, it's only a few article names. aLii 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Policy of Club's article

message: Did anyone get anywhere with the admin/bot request to move all football clubs from Example F.C./Example A.F.C to Example FC/Example AFC?  Yorkshire Phoenix   13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bumping this. I for one am tired of the dots in Norwegian club names. Punkmorten 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F.C. to FC 

message: Is there a standard methodology for naming articles with frequently used football club names such as Al-Ahli, Al-Jaish and Al-Hilal?  I have seen a few methods in use such as adding the city name (e.g., Al-Ahli Doha) and adding the nation name (e.g., Al-Ahli (UAE)), but none are used universally.  Given that Libya has at least two clubs named Al-Ahli (Al Ahly Benghazi and Al Ahly Tripoli), maybe use of the nation name is insufficient?
I think it would be helpful to develop a standard methodology if there isn't one already in place.  There are already 7 articles for clubs named Al-Ahli, 3 for Al-Hilal, and several others for clubs that share names like Al-Qadisia, Al-Jaish and Al-Shorta.
Thank you. Jogurney 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a consistent naming scheme. For what it's worth, I think disambiguation by city rather than country is definitely the way forward, as the Libyan examples show, as it is precise and consistent with existing articles. Qwghlm 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an additional note, there is a similar city-level disambiguation already in place for Liverpool FC (Montevideo). Qwghlm 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the input.  I've been adding disambiguation pages and hope to get them finished soon. Jogurney 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper naming of commonly named football clubs 

message: Hi. I don't know much about the history of this debate, but I've been helping out with page moves.  We recently moved Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, with people citing consensus from this project.  Others noted that there were still such articles as Sunderland A.F.C. and Workington A.F.C., so I went ahead and moved both of those to "AFC" titles.  Both were moved back, with the reverters citing "no consensus" as the reason.  Is there, or isn't there, a consensus to be consistent about AFC vs A.F.C.? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, AFC (and FC, CF, CD etc) looks much neater, and is easier on the linkage. So consensus here Superlinus 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if consensus has been reached on this issue, but seeing as the official Sunderland site spells it Sunderland AFC, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't. As SuperLinus says, it looks neater and is easier, but that doesn't mean it is always right. Fore example the official F.C. Copenhagen site spells that club name with full stops, so that would seem appropriate in their specific case. Poulsen 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better to follow each club's preferred format, or to follow a consistent format in all our AFC articles? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be consistent. For starters, clubs can change the full stops as and when they please - would it mean we have to rename them every time they change them? What if a club is inconsistent in how they use full stops? Qwghlm 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most clubs have PR and merchandise departments who are in charge of streamlining their image, and the name of the club is a part of that. I think it's safe to assume that official papers of a club bear the same club name. You can always imagine individual inconsistencies and typos, but as far as a homepage goes, I would imagine the static content has been proofread. It isn't always possible to find the exact club naming conventions on the home pages, but I wouldn't mind if the article naming was in accordance with the official line of the club, whether it be with or without full stops. Poulsen 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might apply for the likes of Manchester United but not for the hundreds of smaller clubs who cannot afford it. We should not put such faith in club's copywriters and instead rely on Wikipedia's own conventions for initialisms (look at how articles such as BBC, NASA or indeed FIFA all do not use full stops in them). Qwghlm 08:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to be "the likes of Manchester United" in the PR department, to spell your club name properly on your official homepage. The club's own copywriters/webmasters are the ones closest to the club and is much more authoritative than any band of random people passing judgement on Wikipedia. But I can see how a common Wikipedia standard might be a good thing for further editing efforts. That BBC, NASA and FIFA all are without full stops is irrelevant as I see it, as these entities spell their names without full stops themselves. Poulsen 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases the producers of a website are not those closest to a club - for example many English clubs subcontract their websites out to Premium TV (e.g.) rather than produce it in-house. This is a minor question of style, not verifiablity or NPOV, so we do not need to defer to a club's particular preference. Qwghlm 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase it then - they are closer to the club than us random people at Wikipedia, and as I said, much more authoritative (than us). I like the argument for a common naming standard as the nicest and easiest way to go in view of future editing, but saying we at Wikipedia should defer from the official spelling because the clubs might or might not be inconsistent in naming themselves, is pretty speculative. Poulsen 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that UEFA's official page on FCK uses no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UEFA is a secondary source. FCK is the primary source of information on FCK. Poulsen 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to think about WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." Punkmorten 12:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but please look at the entire paragraph in WP:RS. The sources are listed according to (potential) reliability and thereby authority; primary, secondary, and tertiary. "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher [...] and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims", which is why we unpublished people should use secondary sources in general. However, a name is a descriptive claim, so the primary source has authority. As I see it, we standardize the naming convention on full stops for our own editing pleasure, and citing "UEFA's (or BBC's, or ...) authoritative claim on full stops" seems a tacked-on excuse to me. Poulsen 14:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then apply WP:NCA sentence There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK). The preferred usage, as far as I can tell from looking at the most popular Danish newspapers, the Swedish newspapers, as well as BBC and Uefa, is to use no periods. I haven't found one single news source that uses periods. Searching on google for "F.C. København" and going through the first 100 or so results, return a large majority of hits without periods. – Elisson • T • C • 14:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can throw quite a few WP guidelines around, each one more bendable than the other. Fore example WP:GOOGLE; "the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness." Searching through secondary sources still doesn't say so much, compared to the primary source(s). I would still claim that when the official team, kit sponsor, and stadium home pages spell it with full stops, then that is the official line of the club. The media have just standardized their way of referring to the club to the easiest way, just like I hope we will. Poulsen 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe.  If you make a request at WP:BOTREQ, someone might pick it up, but they might want to see evidence of consensus first.  How many Norwegian clubs are we talking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all of them, I've never seen any Norwegian club use dots. Some like Alta IF might use dots in their badge, but not elsewhere . I have no idea why the dots were put there in the first place. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about this issue, simply because no-one seems to care. I have tried to address the issue in this forum and at the Norwegian notice-board before, to no avail. Punkmorten 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solution is to go through, one country at a time, take all the clubs for that country to WP:RM at once, let the discussion happen in one place, and then do the moves, with or without bot assistance.  I'm pretty familiar with WP:RM, and far less so with football.  Shall we list the Norwegian clubs as a batch move there? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do all the clubs at once. I don't see the point in wasting time by doing it by nationality. Qwghlm 08:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is why I suggested doing it by nationality. If we can get consensus to do the same thing with all of them, I'm certainly for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of consistency across the whole of Wikipedia I think to do all at once is best. Qwghlm 09:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so all football clubs move from titles with full stops to titles without?  If that gets listed at WP:RM, where should the accompanying survey be?  Here?  With links on the talk page of every article that's subject to move? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand... why should we remove all full stops? I know this is an English wikipedia but you know, in Italy we use full stops (nobody will ever write AC Milan) in Spain don't. FC Barcelona is correct, A.C. Milan is correct, why should we create (invent?) a standard...? Standards exists and they are: in Italy use dots, in Spain don't use etc... It's like sayin' "ok, every name should be write in English standard, no-more Michelangelo or Raffaello". It sounds a little fascist...like Louis Armstrong who became "Luigi Fortebraccio". FC Barcelona is correct, F.C. Barcelona is wrong, A.C. Milan is correct, AC Milan is wrong. Simple. Or not? --necronudist 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that UEFA's official page on Milan uses no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Necronudist, your point is erroneous - we're talking about punctuation, not actually rewording the title to the English translation. It's not as if we're proposing change the Milan article to FC Milan. Also, if you're going to get worked up about this, you should also get worked up about the articles for Chinese, Japanese, Israeli etc. clubs whose articles are all titled using the Roman alphabet rather than their native script. Qwghlm 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UEFA uses no slavic accents, so let's remove'em on the players' pages. However, I'm just sayin' that AC Milan is an error as in Italy we use dots and has no sense to create a standard ad-hoc as there are many different standards accepted in each country. Another Italian example: SPAL is usually written without dots but its official name is S.P.A.L. (Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor) and it's definitively an error to write SPAL or Spal (as in Italian wikipedia) also if you don't wanna use dots. However, it's not important/vital for me... I'm just sayin' my opinion. I will not destroy wikipedia servers if you'll decide to remove dots :-) --necronudist 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That point is erroneous as well, necronudist. It is not like UEFA has left out the dots for the same reason they left out some of the more complicated Slavic accents. And I don't see your other point about SPAL? You say it is an error to write SPAL or Spal, while the actual website of the club shows (1) a club badge with text "SPAL", (2) a site header with text "Spal", and (3) a contact address with text "SPAL". Besides that, the actual article on the Italian Wikipedia is at "SPAL", so I guess at least some Italians prefers no dots. – Elisson • T • C • 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: necronudist, if "A.C. Milan" is more common in Italy, then the article should be at "A.C. Milan".  However in England, "FC" and "AFC" are far more common so for English clubs only the pages should be kept at "<clubname> FC" or "AFC <clubname>".  I would be in favour of a country by country approach. -- MLD · T · C · @:  17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly oppose a country by country approach. It will only make things even more complicated. What if the usage differs between the clubs of the country? As seen above, in Denmark, FCK prefers "F.C." on their website while for example Brøndby prefers plain "IF" on theirs. How to do then? Club by club approach? Won't be possible to do for the tens of thousands of football club articles we have. I say, move everything to titles without any punctuation. If it is good enough for UEFA, it is good enough for Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerely I don't care about the UEFA site on this matters. UEFA has adopted his own standard, like you wanna do now here. Maybe dots were difficult to manage in their databases like the slavic accents... I don't know, however there isn't an European standard. I don't care neither about the SPAL site, SPAL is an acronym (hope it's the right word) and so it must be written as S.P.A.L. also if it's commonly used SPAL, even in the logo (many Italian football teams don't have dots in their logos..but this doesn't mean anything, we're not emblem-fanatics as in England, unfortunately). I think that a country by country decision is the only (and the best) solution. Otherwise you can blind your eyes and shoot. You'll do things quickly but wrong --necronudist 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so I strongly oppose the creation of a standard for clubs naming. Instead, I'm in favour of a country-by-country approach. --necronudist 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument for that being what? As I've already said, a country by country approach is not possible as standards differ inside each country as well. – Elisson • T • C • 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is that there can't be a unique standard as I said above, but I think at the end we'll do what Elisson want, as always. Hail to the King. --necronudist 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Civility isn't your cup of tea, is it? I will just ignore what you say until stop being sarcastic. I guess you would rather see a Wikipedia without a Football WikiProject at all. – Elisson • T • C • 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everytime with those Wikipedia policies.. There's a life out there, man. A life that doesn't follow ridicolous wikipedia policies. And stop hiding behind those policies, man, be serious sometimes. You and your friends. I'm just a contributor who don't care about ridicolous wikipedia policies and simply work hard in creating valid (hope) articles. You're nothing more than a lawyer. Hope you'll ban me one day, 'cause here who works hard is smashed and lawyers are glorified. --necronudist 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would hope that if there was one place Wikipedia policies would be followed, it's Wikipedia. The policies are there for a reason - to stop everybody going off and doing their own thing, leading to edit wars and public confusion. If you can't contribute in a civil manner, and cry every time you don't get your own way, I suggest you stop bothering Superlinus 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You understood everything uh? How sick. I don't need your "you don't like nazism? Go away!" wise words. How boring, man. --necronudist 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Necronudist, please stop being incivil to other users, or I will have to report your behaviour on WP:AN/I. I don't want that so could you please start acting civil? – Elisson • T • C • 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I won't. Take care of your nazipedia, men. Bye. --necronudist 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case you still read, the report on you is found here. – Elisson • T • C • 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The life outside of here doesn't have to follow Wikipedia policy, you're completely correct there. But while you're here, you are supposed to, just like you are supposed to follow rules and guidelines for whatever place (real or on the internet) you spend your time at/in. If you do not follow policies here at Wikipedia, you'll sooner or later find yourself in a position where you will have to choose between following policies, or get banned for not following them. I will not ban you as long as I am involved in any sort of discussion with you, but there are other admins who might. Consider Wikipedia a workplace (unpaid...), and the policies the rules of the workplace. Even if you are doing your job, you might find yourself fired because of your bad behaviour. Works the same way both IRL and here. – Elisson • T • C • 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer doing good jobs instead of following stupid wikipedia policies, I'm just one of the few that remember what wikipedia SHOULD be. However, I appreciate your wise words. P.S.: I don't have bad behaviours, I've never called asshole or motherfucker anyone. I'm not a stupid MTV generation teenager. --necronudist 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see the conflict between making good edits to Wikipedia and being civil at the same time. And I can't see this discussion leading to something more. Just follow policies and try to follow guidelines. That's all. – Elisson • T • C • 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with aLii. Let's simply see this as an editorial step towards a common standard for all football articles. Just like this WikiProject proposes to do. Poulsen 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFC vs A.F.C. 

message: Using fullname is too long, likes Association de la Jeunesse Auxerroise, most people would against that. Only the abbreviation is worth to discuss. Likes:
*AC = Associazione Calcio
*AFC = Athletics and Football Club
*AS = Associazione Sportiva
*CA = Club Atlético
*CD = Club Deportivo
*CF = Club de Fútbol
*FC = Football Club
*RCD = Real Club Deportivo
*SSC = Società Sportiva Calcio
*US/UC =  Unione Sportiva/Unione Calcio
Except very notable comon name Likes Real Madrid, Deportivo La Coruña, Celta Vigo And consideration of disambiguation, normally i suggest have CF/FC and no dots. The Template:Fc can easily to change and the move can using bots.  - Matthew_hk tc 08:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) Voting is evil and (b) We haven't finished discussing yet, so let's hold off for now, shall we? Qwghlm 09:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be no exception for "very notable comon name". Why on earth? Who decides what is a common name? Punkmorten 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there should be expceptions for common names, infact it is wikipedia policy to use the most common name. As for who decides such things, well it's you, us, the media, society. There's no need to get pedantic, it's only a few article names. aLii 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting?

message: I know we have a "Current sport event" template, but have been musing whether Wiki needs a "This team are currently participating in Competition X, Y, Z" - for example the FA Cup, Leage Cup, European cups etc. A kind of "status board" at the top of each article. Does such a thing exist; or should it? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not - it's borderline cruft, and Wikipedia is not a news service. It would also create yet more workload for us, as would have to continually maintain it. The thought of putting it at the top particularly fills me with dread - it would be ugly and a semi-permanent feature: the  template is only intended to be used temporarily - most football teams compete nine months of the year, every year, on the other hand. Qwghlm 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Qwghlm except for the "cruft" term, too nerdy and ridicolous. --necronudist 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine - that's as certain an answer as I was going to get =). And there is nothing wrong with "cruft" as a term in any context; I'm starting to use it in everyday speech :) doktorb wordsdeeds 13:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Part In... 

message: Could someone who knows please inject some facts into the Josh Moor article please? There is a dispute over whether he exists and/or is notable. Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the dispute? All I can see is editing against each other in the article space. Try discussing it on the talk page of the article, and you should quickly realize it is a hoax article. Poulsen 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Moor 

message: Keep an eye on User:Resp.  He has defaced the Club Deportivo Olimpia Òpage on three occasions.  I happened to come across the vandalism by accident.  Just letting you know.  Patken4 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Resp]] and [[Club Deportivo Olimpia]]

message: This user has defaced the Welsh national team, Cardiff City, FAW and Manchester United pages in the last two  months. Blogdroed 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Gavincmbll]]

message: User:SndrAndrss, who has a history of not reading, or not giving a damn, what people write to him on his talk page, has been adding parameters to the above linked template during the last 24 hours. As there, judging by previous discussions, is a broad consensus that the infobox is good as it is and that no more parameters should be added, I've reverted his additions telling him to discuss them on the talk page instead, before adding them. As he seems to not care about that, re-adding the parameters over and over, I've used all my three reverts and would like some help with this, also, I'd advice members of the project to add a few of the most important and most commonly used templates to their watchlist, to help spot problems the moment they arrive, and not when they are seen in an article. – Elisson • T • C • 10:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to my watchlist temporarily. If the user continues to do it they should be blocked under WP:3RR and for not engaging in discussion. Qwghlm 13:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. I warned him earlier that he may be blocked for breaking 3RR as well as for failing to answer comments. – Elisson • T • C • 14:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change on [[Template:Infobox Football club]] 

message: Can i perform the sub-article of FIFA U-17 World Cup like other football tournament, add scorer using "footballbox" and some cleanup? I'm not very sure about this, can someone give answer? --Aleenf1 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIFA U-17 World Cup 

message: Someone recently created Graham Simpson (chairman). I just wondered what people thought about notability on him. What hasn't been included in the article there is the fact that Simpson founded the travel company Simply Travel (which he sold for large profit) and now owns Simpson Travel. He was also an actor, appearing in Blakes Seven amongst other things. HornetMike 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chairmanship of a Premier League club is definitely notable in itself IMHO though others might disagree; his other exploits would make him definitely cross the threshold no matter what your POV, add them in! Qwghlm 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although perhaps Graham Simpson (businessman) would be a more accurate title, as his occupation rather than his hierarchical position. Qwghlm 13:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Qwghlm.  Chairmen of football club regularly change and although the sole purpose of hiim being here may be his football connections, I think the article needs to talk about him as a whole Dodge 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, move Graham Simpson to Graham Simpson (musician) (most of the incoming links are thanks to that Roxy Music template) and then turn it into a disambiguation page. Qwghlm 13:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, that's all done. What I don't understand though is how to check for double re-directs. Are there any? HornetMike 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "What links here" page is your friend.  In this case there are none; I have already edited  (which got rid of most of them), but there are some others left to fix... Qwghlm 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha, I see. Working on it.HornetMike 00:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: I have found some categories for players who have played in 4th flight football teams in England (and have not moved higher). Seeing as the guideline is for top flight football, does anybody mind if I went and speedied them? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what you mean. What guideline are you talking about? And what do you propose speedying - the players or the categories? Qwghlm 07:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that sports players should be in the top flight to get inclusion. It seems we have lots of people who are 4-5th flight and fall well below the bar. So, yeah, the player bios. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability rule actually states they have to play in "a fully professional league" - Football League Two (the 4th flight in England) is a fully professional league, so under the rules as they stand, they should stay. I personally think someone who only played a couple of times for a 4th-flight side doesn't really meet any sort of level of notability, and may well agree with many of your proposed deletions, but they don't fit under the rules as they stand. Qwghlm 08:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles definitely shouldn't be speedied - they aren't CSD A7 candidates. AfD would most likely result in a variety of opinions, some take Wikipedia:Notability (people) to mean one appearance makes a player notable, whereas my personal opinion is that it infers that players should be kept if they have had a significant career as a professional i.e. regular first team football for a number of seasons. Of course, WP:BIO is a guideline rather than a rule or policy, the main question is whether an article of any substance can be written using credible sources - and if the work of User:Kingjamie and User:Englishrose in taking Adam Boyd from cleanup to GA is anything to go by, it can definitely be done for a player who has played mainly in the lower leagues. Oldelpaso 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th flight footballers 

message: With the current WP:BIO guidelines, it's important to know which football leagues are fully professional. I therefore request a list or category called "Fully professional football (soccer) leagues". Anyone interested in creating it? Punkmorten 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm correctly interpreting why you want this, you'd also need to know which clubs were in these leagues at certain times (for example, the numerous clubs in the mostly professional Conference National who were until recently Football League clubs). WikiGull 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's quite tricky. But with the current guidelines we have to know it. Punkmorten 12:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do you propose to use it if you don't have the complete information? I can't see how that can work. WikiGull 12:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a pdf on the UEFA site  which lists the number of professional players in each UEFA country, which can be used as a very rough approximation of how far down the pyramid professionalism goes. Oldelpaso 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Albania has 660 professionals? And a top league of 10 teams? Let's say each squad has 25 players, that would make 26 full squads of professionals. In other words, well into the Albanian Third Division. And I don't even dare to calculate this for Armenia, with 1,337 professionals and a top league of 9 teams. Punkmorten 11:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the definitions in that pdf are very clear. The wording "non-amateurs" could mean semi-professionals as well as fully professionals, right? And I wonder if the number of non-amateurs is calculated for all players in the national leagues, no matter nationality, or if they are calculated for all players of that nationality, no matter which country they play in. Some more info on the matter would be delightful before jumping to any conclusions. Poulsen 10:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional leagues 

message: There has been much debate on the Wales national football team pages re. the flags used next to squad players' clubs. Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham currently have English flags yet these are Welsh clubs. They are members of the Football Association of WALES - any disciplinary matters eg yellow or red cards (even when they occur in the Football League or FA Cup) are dealt with by the Football Association of WALES.
The argument put forward is that they play in the English league, but this is irrelevant to me - it's called the Football League not the English Football League.
FC Vaduz who play in the Swiss Leagues, AC San Marino who play in the Italian lower leagues or Derry City who play in the Irish Republic are not displayed with flags from other counties so why should the Welsh clubs?
I STRONGLY OBJECT to having an English flag next to these proud WELSH clubs. Blogdroed 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm English and I strongly agree! WikiGull 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree as well, but please try to keep a neutral POV, writing "to these proud WELSH clubs" doesn't give any more strength to your argument, but rather makes you look like a POV pusher. Just a tip. – Elisson • T • C • 13:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any compelling need to use flags in this case anyway as they don't add that much information (see Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags). If this does not get settled I suggest just removing them completely. Qwghlm 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If the teams are currently members of Football Associate of Wales, then the flag should definitely be the flag of Wales. // Laughing Man 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Qwghlm, remove the flags. They're not needed. HornetMike 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think there is a good argument for displaying the English flag. It's not like they can represent Wales in European competition, or they'd qualify every year. They would have to represent the English league and can only qualify through English competitions. Unless perhaps they can't qualify for European competitions at all? While it is obvious that they are Welsh clubs, it is equally obvious that they are much more heavily tied to the English game. Being members of the Welsh FA is a strange anomaly. Of course removing all the flags removes the problem ;) aLii 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: cheers for the tip Elisson, although if I didn't have a point of view, surely I wouldn't have raised the subject ;) aLii - these clubs couldn't represent England in Europe as they are Welsh clubs - this is the reasoning behind a recent move to appeal to Uefa to be let back into the Welsh Cup - whilst playing in the football league, these three clubs are the only clubs in Europe not allowed a route into Uefa competition! Yes I know they could always join the Welsh Premiership, but that's another argument for another thread ;) Blogdroed 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I'm sure that if Cardiff managed to finish in the top four in the Premiership the situation would come to a head. As it stands I guess it doesn't matter either way whether the Welsh clubs can qualify for Europe or not... aLii 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In this years UEFA cup article, Derry City had a ROI flag with a note to explain they were a Norn Iron team. I'd do the same for Wrexham, Cardiff etc. - an English flag but with a Welsh flag in a note. They play in the English League system - it does not matter that they are Welsh as they are not representing the Welsh Leagues. Berwick would be the same logic - Scottish flag as they represent the Scottish Leagues. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but Wrexham Cardiff and Swansea aren't 'representing' anyone ... they are Welsh clubs, in fact the FA have made it jknow that they would not nominate a Welsh club to represent them in Europe should the unlikely happen and either of the three win the FA Cup or finish high enough in the Premier League Blogdroed 12:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: Anyone here know much about the structure of football in the Republic of Ireland? A user has created Siemens Rebels F.C., but the league they play in, the Cork Nite Leagues has no wiki article (as I write) and no article links to that club (apart from itself). Alas I'm no expert on Irish club football, so before I  nominate it for deletion on grounds of non-notability, can someone clarify? Qwghlm 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the website linked to, it looks like a Sunday League sort of thing. ArtVandelay13 16:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. A Google search brings up 2 results, neither of which relate to the team, and there's no mention of them on the FAI website, which suggests they do not compete at any sort of senior level. I think that's enough to go to AfD on. Qwghlm 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and speedied the team and two players under WP:CSD criteria A7, "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". – Elisson • T • C • 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to delete the duplicate Siemens Rebels F.C (without the second full stop) as well... Qwghlm 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish football expertise needed 

message: Is there an American football wikiproject/ task force?
:Depends on who's asking. - Dudesleeper 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't appear to be. I'm sure there would be some interest in the idea if you were to put it forward in the relevant talk channels. - Dudesleeper 03:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, which might be helpful. Err, disregard that as I suppose you mean a project on football (soccer) in USA, and not a project on American football? – Elisson • T • C • 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American football 

message: The USL (United Soccer Leagues) needs expansion. I suggest incorporating it in this project.XYZ CrVo 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  to the talk page so it adds the article to the appropriate categories.  You can also add the appropriate template to the article page as well to get some more attention, as well posting about it here.  You should be bold and start expanding the article yourself though if you can! // Laughing Man 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USL 

message: FIFA's rules (p43) for the Olympic Football Tournament say that only players who played during the tournament are eligible for a medal; non-playing squad members in medal-winning teams only receiive a diploma. Should we be removing the medal boxes from these players where the info can be found? (And updating other honours lists). I think we should, or at the very least there should be a note. ArtVandelay13 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic Medals 

message: There is an issue with the English football seasons template. If surrounding the years where the league was cancelled for the world wars then there are still links to the seasons that never happened. I thought maybe a page could be made about war cancellations and the links could re-direct to this. Would people agree or have other ideas? At the moment it looks like the seasons actually happened but no-one has made an article about them. SenorKristobbal 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Football certainly did happen during the World Wars, with competitions like the Football League War Cup. Even those these matches are not classified as official, it would be wrong to give the impression no football took place. I think these seasons should have their own pages and details of the results of these competitions (a good source might be RSSSF). Could be quite fun making these pages, actually. I don't mind giving them a start (after all I was the one who filled in all the league tables and competition winners for most English seasons in the period 1889-1975). Qwghlm 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was just thinking of it as official competition but your idea sounds good. SenorKristobbal 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the seasons for World War I (1915-1919) last night, will get cracking with the WW2 season in due course. Qwghlm 12:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Cancellation 

message: The TPs were spreading, and someone directly add the squad into article, likes Jorge Andrade, Rahim Zafer Matthew_hk tc 15:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As  did. Matthew_hk tc 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Ergün Penbe , Ömer Çatkıç,   Nihat Kahveci,  and Volkan Arslan  Matthew_hk tc 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-World Cup squad TP

message: I would like to invite all interested editors to have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and offer improvements or suggestions on the talk page.  Please do not comment about it on this page - I am hoping to centralise discussion in one place! -- Chuq 10:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football in Australia - naming conventions 

message: Just to make sure before I make the moves, shouldn't :Category:Lists of footballers by national teams be at :Category:Lists of footballers by national team? Note the s after "team". – Elisson • T • C • 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had noticed this too. Nominate it as speedy, it isn't worth a whole CfR. Qwghlm 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved and deleted. – Elisson • T • C • 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I forget you are an administrator. :) Qwghlm 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar question 

message: Watford's Ashley Young is currently located at Ashley Young (footballer). The reason being, Ashley Young is one of numerous aliases of American porn star Kitty Yung. What does everyone think about moving Young's page onto Ashley Young and stop it being a disam page? Looking at Yung's page it doesn't suggest she's used "Ashley Young" particularly often. HornetMike 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a move to Ashley Young makes sense rather than this disimbig page Kingjamie 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Take it to WP:RM and I think you'll gain support. Qwghlm 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have (here) Kingjamie 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good-o. I forgot about this! HornetMike 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashley Young

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I and Daniel.Bryant started an IRC channel on Freenode, #wikipedia-wpf, for discussion and collaboration regarding football. If you haven't used IRC before or just haven't been on any Wikipedia channels before, help is available at Wikipedia:IRC channels. The channel is not supposed to replace this talk page in any way, but is only to serve as a place to quickly find a Wikipedian interrested in football that is online, or to just chat about stuff that should not clutter this talk page. Feel free to join! – Elisson • T • C • 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC channel started 

message: I have been thinking about creating a new set of categories, in order to make a convenient and comprehensive source of information on Argentine footballers to have played in particular countries.
I am thinking of structuring it something like this:
*Cat:Argentine football (soccer) players in Europe
**Cat:Argentine football (soccer) players in England
**Cat:Argentine football (soccer) players in Italy
**Cat:Argentine football (soccer) players in Spain
etc 
Alternatively if anyone is really opposed to the idea of creating more categories, it could be done as a series of lists. I think categories would make the information much more accessible rather than putting a see also and a (or several) link(s) on every player page. Im sure the Argentines in Italy and in Spain categories would contain at least 50 players if not 100. 
If nobody is opposed to the idea I'll get started on setting it up and categorising the existing Argentine footballers.
I think there is scope for the same kind of thing for Brazilian footballers too, since Argentina and Brazil seem to export more top class footballers than any other country.
King of the North East 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose as if we do that with Argentine players we will have to do it with potentially every combination of nationality and league in the world. A similar category for Hungarian footballers in Spain was deleted. Many footballers have over 10 categories as it is and adding another means of taxonomy on top would make things worse. Qwghlm 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Qwghlm. It opens a door to far too many categories, although I do understand the reasons for you wanting to do this. HornetMike 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose from me as well. Think 200 nationalities. In the worst case (each nation has had at least one player in all other nations), that means 200*200=40000 new categories. And realistically speaking, we would probably still get more than 3000 new categories (200 nationalities that has had players in an average of perhaps 15 nations each). Not maintainable, and we really do not need more "player" categories of various kinds. – Elisson • T • C • 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose as well. And let's get rid of :Category:Non-German football players in Germany while we're at it - although it "only" creates potential for 200 unnecessary categories. Punkmorten 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think creating something likes List of Portuguese footballers abroad. Matthew_hk tc 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was a pretty indiscriminate list. Punkmorten 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it looks like an indescriminate list that is why I think that categories are the most practical and discriminating solution, but there is a hefty amount of opposition to creating new categories. Maybe a caveat that whoever wants to create an X footballers in Y category, must first find at least 50 individuals to populate it before it can be set up. This would prevent the forseen glut of Ecuadorian footballers in Russia type categories.King of the North East 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argentine footballers in Europe

message: I know Heskey is a popular figure of ridicule amonst fans. But some of the vandalism is getting behind the joke some of it clearly unfunny and racist. It also happens too often with people changing nearly enough the full article to this dribble. Please can we have some protection on this page to at least prevent unregistered users from editing it? Unsy770 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask at requests for protection although to be honest the volume of blatant vandalism (1-2 incidents this past week) is not as high enough to warrant protection, IMO. What it does need, however, is a rigorous removal of the weasel words, POV and original research. Qwghlm 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emile Heskey]] 

message: I've been doing a fair bit of work on the page for [Carshalton Athletic] over the last few days and it has brought to mind a problem for some of the non league clubs that, whilst having long histories, there are difficulties in providing hard enough sources for these histories. Recent history is coverable via local press reporting but older history is far more likely to be produced by either the club concerned (either website or book) or a supporter's fan site. If we accept levels 1-10 of the NLS as inherently notable does it make it acceptable to use less hard sources to verify older information as this is unlikely to be contentious? Vicard 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I replied to this already, but I must have closed the tab before saving... Anyway, club's official histories and fansites are, in my view, acceptable as references, at least for coverage of non-controversial events. For controversial events... well it differs from case to case, but I would perhaps (a) mention and maybe even quote the source used in the text itself (allowing the reader to make up their mind about the veracity of the claim) or (b) seek out the alternative POV and cite that as well, to provide balance. But it depends on the event and how well-researched or (un)biased the reference is. If there any specific issues in Carshalton Athletic (which looks a well-written article, lack of wikilinks apart) then feel free to ask about them here. Qwghlm 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histories of non league clubs 

message: Hi, I am not a member of this project, but the article I linked to needs some serious help, quickly. Thanks! J Milburn 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, well it needs to be deleted. HornetMike 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the fact I couldn't even find it at FCHD suggests a severe lack of notability. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Qwghlm 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Norton Athletic F.C]] 

message: Someone want to rewrite S.L. Benfica, but whole section of football squad etc. remove (temp?), Would someone help to rewrite it or fix it? Matthew_hk tc 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied some of the wikified content from the history of the Benfica article, which at least has wikilinks, a bit better grammar, and images. I've also restructured it a bit. Poulsen 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[S.L. Benfica]] 

message: It seems like the South African team Bush Bucks has become liquidated.  Does this mean they have become defunct? I would be thankful if someone could update the article to reflect this. Punkmorten 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bush Bucks]] 

message: I have been trying to cleanup some sneaky vandalism in KFC Uerdingen 05 where like in Bayer Leverkusen random names get included (usually by an IP starting 217.230.xxx.xxx). But the contributions of  appear to be more complex as he has included names of real footballers and changed their articles as well. It will need someone with a more detailed knowledge to unravel truth from vandalism. Can I leave that in the capable hands of your WikiProject.  Agathoclea 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup KFC Uerdingen 05 

message: Input regarding the addition of new parameters to  is wanted on the template's talk page. – Elisson • T • C • 14:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input is wanted regarding {{tl|Infobox Football club}} 

message: Is there an established guideline regarding naming articles on Brazilian footballers, or is it a case-by-case basis? I ask because Blgeoverlord (talk • contribs) has recently moved a number of articles on players from their playing names to their full names (e.g., Robinho to Robson de Souza, Zé Roberto to José Roberto da Silva Junior, etc. - see logs). --Muchness 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no policy I'm aware of. Bit dubious about it being at their full names, seeing as absolutely no-one knows Robinho as Robson de Souza. It's like moving George Orwell to Eric Blair. HornetMike 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) advises using the name by which someone is most commonly known i.e. Robinho etc in this situation. Oldelpaso 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that using full names for Brazilian footballers is useful in the cases where more than one player is commonly known by the same name for example: Serginho, Serginho and Serginho. I dont really see the point in changing to full names unless there are other notable players sharing the same nickname.King of the North East 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian footballer names