Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 6

message: I nominated the lot of them. Please vote, it took a looooong time. Dont make me have wasted it. I know some have already been nominated, but I dont know which, so if you have already nominated one, if you could remove yours from the list, or merge your nomination into the main one, that would be great. Thank you all. Philc TECI 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archive of the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 11#All FIFA World Cup squad templates. --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote now or forever hold your peace. WC Templates 

message: While perusing many player articles, I have found a lot to be missing the Player infobox template. Is there any chance of people sticking it on the articles that need it, or alternatively listing the ones that need it here? I've done Watford players, about twenty or so, so there must be thousands that need it. Cheers! Kingfisherswift 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player infoboxes 

message: Hello, I an Brazilian user and like to join this project to edit Brazilian championships. Thanks. Antidermis2319 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New contributions 

message: The article at Match of the Day is (IMHO) a total mess; I have attempted a rewrite at User:Qwghlm/MoTD. Any UK-based Wikipedians who might be interested - please comment on Talk:Match of the Day (not here) if you think the rewrite is a good idea. Thanks. Qwghlm 14:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Match of the Day'' 

message: As mentioned here, there are competitions known as "(Insert country here) League Cup". Perhaps to avoid confusion League Cup should be moved to English League Cup, similar to the Scottish League Cup? - Pal 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions and the [[League Cup]] 

message: A minor edit skirmish is in place over at Liverpool F.C. Reserves. As there are only two of us involved, it's possible that it could reach an impasse quite easily. A fresh pair of eyes who might give some advice on compromise would be very useful. Thanks. Robotforaday 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't see the point of these reserve team articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that only first-team squad members are considered notable. Reserve players who have first-team squad numbers are already included n the main Liverpool F.C. article, and those that are not are not notable enough (yet) for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus the reserve squad list is effectively redundant. After that, what's left in the article is details of what league they play in and the ground they play, which could easily be incorporated as a paragraph in the main Liverpool F.C. article. Qwghlm 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think the reserve team itself is notable enough to have a article, and it allows one to remove a lot of clutter from the main page. The real notability question is whether each player in the reserve squad is notable enough to have their own article? aLii 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the main point in having the article was simply to remove clutter from the Liverpool F.C. article, which everybody agrees is too long and has too many lists. Robotforaday 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liverpool Reserves edit conflict 

message: I've been looking at FC Barcelona and I'm extremely surprised at the level of vandalism, I think this page really needs some sort of protection that doesn't allow some one without an account to edit.
Just my opinion, though. Concerned user, Abreuzinho 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: A vote is being held on the national football team infobox talk page about whether to delete or keep these:
*1st ranking date (date the team was first shown on FIFA rankings)
*FIFA max (highest FIFA ranking the team has reached)
*FIFA max date (date of the highest FIFA ranking)
*FIFA min (lowest FIFA ranking the team has reached)
*FIFA min date (date of the lowest FIFA ranking)
If you are interested, please vote there (not here). -- Wantok 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vote on FIFA ranking data in national team infobox 

message: I initiated a discussion on this earlier this summer, but it seems very few were interrested back then (or AWOL, what do I know?), so I'll try to start it up again by proposing the following:
#Move European Football Championship and all related pages/templates/categories to UEFA European Football Championship or corresponding names. This includes Under-XX tournaments and similar.
#Move Asian Cup to AFC Asian Cup (and related material as above).
#Move Oceania Nations Cup to OFC Nations Cup (and related material as above).
Comments? – Elisson • Talk 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked your link and I was the only one to comment then too! haha. Anyway, if you get no comments this time either then I'd say just go ahead and change them. The names you propose are more correct. aLii 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been bold and made the moves. – Elisson • Talk 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving European Football Championship to [[UEFA European Football Championship]] 

message: User:Djdannyp has been adding the manager (preceded by a break) to templates such as :Template:Blackburn Rovers F.C. Squad.  When the new format was devised we decided not to include managers (since they are not actually in the squad) but Djdannyp has cited the World Cup squads which do include the coach.  
I've created :Template:Football squad2 manager which can be used instead of :Template:Football squad2 lastplayer for the purpose of including the manager, but I'd actually prefer not to include the manager.  Can some sort of policy be devised before a lot of time is wasted adding managers or reverting the additions?  Slumgum T. C.   14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned I did this yesterday.  It seems valid enough as managers are as much a part of the squad as the player, and as also mentioned, they are included on world cup squad templates.  Furthermore it makes sense for editing purposes to have the manager at the bottom with the "lastplayer" tag, therefore not requiring anyone to edit that tag when adding/reorganising players.  If people would like to see this become standard then i can easily work through the divisions making these changes and i'm sure there'd be no shortage of people ready to help me.  Djdannyp 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly, I think it just looks untidy. At the very least, if they are to be there, I think they should be on the end of the player list, rather than on a separate line, as is the case with the national teams. ArtVandelay13 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Djdannyp's manager additions aren't aesthetically pleasing, but the manager is an important part of the team, so there's a good arguement to include them. How many pages have you edited in this way? aLii 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manager/Coach in squad 

message: The Football Article Improvement Drive has been rather quiet recently, with the last two having the lowest response yet. Given that the season has recently started or is about to start in a lot of countries, I hope this will be a temporary blip. The current AID is Pelé, which the Wikipedia:Core biographies people have deemed to be one of the 250 most important biographies for an encyclopedia, so lets get to work! (not sure I agree with some of the other core biography choices, but thats a discussion for another thread) Oldelpaso 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvement Drive

message: ok, everything that could possibly be said on this subject has been said. Lets just start the vote that is obviously needed. Everyone vote please. aLii 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: – Elisson • Talk 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm French and although I think there shouldn't be any restriction for discussion on this subject, I agree that it seems a bit odd to allow people with so few contributions on the english wikipedia (including myself) to vote. I would call for my collegues to abstain, and if the vote doesn't go to their liking today, then fine, wikipedia can change later if needed. Fabwash 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is fine for now, and the discussion has got heated. Let's come back in a week or two, can we? --Guinnog 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * The "national" was simply to state that I understand that these are not nations (but are national teams).  I do not consider the French overseas departments differently.  As for the delete vote, if Bougainville had a real team that played internationals I would have voted to keep, it seems that they do not, however. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: is not that which is best or correct for any side or viewpoint from us, the editors, but that which is best for the reader that's what i've been trying to say thank you :D Fabwash 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Banning votes based on nationalitly is abhorrent I concur. However I do not see why french contributors that have no or very few contributions on the english wikipedia would have the right to vote. I'm not an admin on the french wikipedia but I believe that if users from the english wikipedia were to vote with less than 50 or 100 contributions depending on the vote they would be ignored. Once again i'm French, and I wouldn't even think about voting on the english wikipedia about this issue, but I think people have used their right of discussion and this is a good thing. I've also noticed a lot of translation/english speaking problems during this discussion (including mine) which may be taken the wrong way by english contributors. You have to take that into account too. Fabwash 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting you can give more weight to the votes of longer-established users, and less weight to those of newer or less respected users, without resorting to a crude all-or-nothing system of ignoring some and treating the rest equally regardless of the merit of their arguments.  Basically a variant of "Voting is evil": "crude voting is evil".  jnestorius(talk) 06:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Topically, the BBC are today reporting that Gibraltar wants to be admitted into UEFA . aLii 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: *All teams that are formed to play (predominently) international games, should therefore be named a "national" team. So Guadeloupe national football team would stay as it is.
::– Elisson • Talk 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2

message: *Remove the word "national" from all "national football team" articles.
# Yorkshire Phoenix 09:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 6

message: *Add the word "national" in all "football team" articles for state/land/departemnt and... like Texas men's national soccer team, Floride men's national soccer team, Alaska men's national soccer team,..., United States men's national soccer team. (same idea as France with Caledonia, Corsica and ...) :) .
# EDUCA33E 21:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 7

message: *polls are evil
#Oldelpaso 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 8

message: * I don't really know what I should say about votes cast by users that have either had very few contributions to the English Wikipedia, or users whose main contributions to the English Wikipedia are interwiki links. IMHO, such votes should be disregarded, just as such votes are disregarded in AfDs and RfAs. – Elisson • Talk 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm French and although I think there shouldn't be any restriction for discussion on this subject, I agree that it seems a bit odd to allow people with so few contributions on the english wikipedia (including myself) to vote. I would call for my collegues to abstain, and if the vote doesn't go to their liking today, then fine, wikipedia can change later if needed. Fabwash 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is fine for now, and the discussion has got heated. Let's come back in a week or two, can we? --Guinnog 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * The "national" was simply to state that I understand that these are not nations (but are national teams).  I do not consider the French overseas departments differently.  As for the delete vote, if Bougainville had a real team that played internationals I would have voted to keep, it seems that they do not, however. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: is not that which is best or correct for any side or viewpoint from us, the editors, but that which is best for the reader that's what i've been trying to say thank you :D Fabwash 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Banning votes based on nationalitly is abhorrent I concur. However I do not see why french contributors that have no or very few contributions on the english wikipedia would have the right to vote. I'm not an admin on the french wikipedia but I believe that if users from the english wikipedia were to vote with less than 50 or 100 contributions depending on the vote they would be ignored. Once again i'm French, and I wouldn't even think about voting on the english wikipedia about this issue, but I think people have used their right of discussion and this is a good thing. I've also noticed a lot of translation/english speaking problems during this discussion (including mine) which may be taken the wrong way by english contributors. You have to take that into account too. Fabwash 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting you can give more weight to the votes of longer-established users, and less weight to those of newer or less respected users, without resorting to a crude all-or-nothing system of ignoring some and treating the rest equally regardless of the merit of their arguments.  Basically a variant of "Voting is evil": "crude voting is evil".  jnestorius(talk) 06:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Topically, the BBC are today reporting that Gibraltar wants to be admitted into UEFA . aLii 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: There's a lot of pages to do with the FA Premier League springing up recently - pages dedicated to detailed statistics, such as...
*FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers
*FA Premier League 2005-06 goalscorers
And month-by-month fixtures:
*FA Premier League Results- August 2006
Also, results pages for September and October have been created but then speedily deleted as copyvios, but I bet they will be recreated when the time comes. I think these detailed pages are unencyclopaedic, probably contravene WP:NOT a news service, and are a waste of wiki and editors' time in maintaining it, especially when dedicated stats sites such as Soccerbase are already out there. What do others think? Qwghlm 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, let's get rid of them. HornetMike 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Monthly results seem a bit over the top. I think a record of goalscorer's is ok, but those pages have far too much detail. I don't see any good reason to expand it past the current FA Premier League 2005-06#Top goal scorers type articles. So I guess I agree, delete them. Unneeded. aLii 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not appear to be limited to Premier League articles, I just came across La Liga season 2006/2007. Oldelpaso 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these pages are unencyclopaedic and should be deleted. - Pal 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages like La Liga season 2006/2007 are completely acceptable in my opinion, there are corresponding articles about almost every other league anyway, Scottish Premier League 2006-07, for example. It's pages like FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and FA Premier League Results- August 2006 that are excessive. Most of the information is already included in FA Premier League 2006-07 anyway! Kanaye 14:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, its not having a La Liga season 2006/2007 article I object to, but using that article for current events in a manner more suited to Wikinews. Oldelpaso 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, get rid of the month-by-month articles but keep the season articles. See also Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006, Jupiler League results July 2006, August 2006, September 2006. Punkmorten 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and Jupiler League 2006-07 goalscorers, which I just created. Had no idea that more information could be bad :S Anwyay, if all these pages are to be deleted, then please hurry with it, since the 'virus' is spreading fast. See: Corgoň Liga Results - July 2006, August 2006, September 2006, October 2006, Danish Superliga Results - July 2006, August 2006, September 2006, Ligue 1 results August 2006, Serie A 2006-07/September and Serie A 2006-07/May. --Pelotastalk 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FA Premier League]] cruft 

message: I notice that the ones for last season are still hanging around and there might be some more now. Seeing as they're completely obsolete, shall we get rid of them? HornetMike 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like they can go to me. Have you got an example though? Cheers, aLii 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. This and this. HornetMike 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest subst and delete. Punkmorten 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Champions League/UEFA Cup templates

message: Can we please, please get rid of these things? They're popping up a fair bit and are complete un-enyclopedic. "Most likely" is a hugely ambigous phrase. How do we know what Watford's first choice eleven will be? This one appeared on Watford's page today and it has Bouazza on the left. He's come into the team and done well but I doubt he'll be our first choice left winger this year. But then again, maybe he might. We're not a prediction service. 
Some are based on most appearances last year, but then again those players might have played in a variety of positions. Some might not actually have played together at all and so forth. You get my point, I think. HornetMike 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one turned up on the Liverpool F.C. page I'd delete it. Can't say I watch every team, but yeah it's totally against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'd remove them without discussion to be honest. aLii 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed a "likely starting eleven" more than once for both domestic leagues and national games. I would like to see them removed. They are WP:POV and they fall foul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Alias Flood 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree these have no place in general articles.  Can only be of use for single game articles ( or for use on User pages like me.  Delete any on club or national team articles Dodge 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easily a violation of WP:NPOV. The coach picks the team, not Wikipedia. All instances of it should be wiped. Qwghlm 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we support the ones that are claiming to be the most commonly used line up from the most recent season? Or ones like FC Barcelonas has one of the champions league winning side, do these deserve places on the article? Or ones like rangers claiming to be the "05/06 season lineup" whatever that entails... Philc TECI 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't think any of them should be on club/national team articles Dodge 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most likely elevens

message: I deleted the transfer section on Rangers and Celtic, because we're not a news service and all the information there is freely available on loads of different sights. Just checking the consensus. I know someone reverted the Rangers one and I don't want to go back and start a potential edit war without knowing I'm in the right! HornetMike 10:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently deleted the Liverpool one, taking inspiration from the Arsenal article, where it was replaced by the sentence: "For recent transfers, see the "Transfer Deals" section of 2006-07 in English football." aLii 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, if you want to remove it from the articles there should be another place where it is organised by club. It is not nice to have to sift through hundreds of transfers to find one. Contrary to the statement about us not being a news service, this doesn't mean we may not include news in our articles, not the "in the news section" on the main page. I think they should remain unless they are organised in a sensible way, that duplicates the information somewhere else. Philc TECI 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but WP:NOT a news service means just that - you shouldn't be including news for news' sake. If you're going to include 2006-07 transfers, then why not include 2005-06, or 2004-05, or 1904-05 as well?  Articles about clubs are meant to be about the club as a whole, not what happened in the last few days. If you want to be a wiki journalist then go join Wikinews. Qwghlm 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont be a sarcy twat just because 100% of opinion isnt in your favour. The Wiki is not a news service rule is to avoid first hand reports of breking stories, as wikipedia recquires citation and verfiability for its facts, it is not a ban on the inclusion of recent news into articles. Maybe You should read policy before quoting it. It is quite obvious why they should be included, because the transfer market is an on-going event, and the squad is subject to heavy change during this time. And it makes it a lot easier to keep track of the squad and transfers. Philc TECI 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please calm down, and please refrain from making personal attacks. There is no misuse of policy in Qwghlm's statement, club articles are Team F.C., not Team F.C. in the last season or two, and sections which create a bias towards recent events should be avoided. Transfer news is just the sort of thing which falls under the remit of Wikinews. Oldelpaso 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reffering more to the fact that he quoted WP:NOT a news service, which if he had read is compltely irrelavent to this case. Philc TECI 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure he has read it, and I'm sure he understands it. My impression is that you are looking at a particular interpretation of the policy, and Qwghlm is looking at the spirit of it. Here I agree with Qwghlm, as a particular technical interpretation of a policy should not be put above the principle expressed by the policy. Oldelpaso 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how it was done on the pages above but I quite like the way its done on certain pages, like the FC Barcelona page Dodge 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More or less the same as that. Oldelpaso 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was in the same style on both the Liverpool and Arsenal articles. My personal wish is to get the Liverpool article up to Featured Article standard, which frowns upon lists of any kind. Firstly the list of notable players went, then other lists were turned into prose, the Reserve squad was removed, and lastly I started a discussion about transfers being removed. There was one dissenting voice wanting to keep the "transfers out", but everyone agreed that "transfers in" was a bit pointless. When I realised that all the summer's transfers were kept up-to-date on the seasons pages I just removed them both. There is perhaps an argument for a team specific Transfers article, that details notable transfer history at a club, but it certainly shouldn't be kept in the main article. aLii 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I remove transfer and other "news" sections at sight on the Swedish club articles, for the reasons given above. – Elisson • Talk 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer Sections

message: Various articles that I edit sometimes get "helpful" pronunciation advice added; mostly Xabi Alonso and Dirk Kuyt. This is useful information for the average English-speaking reader, and so probably does merit inclusion in the articles, however I am unsure as to how it should/could fit in. I always therefore remove said helpful advice.
Does anyone have any opinions on whether this information should stay? Is there a Wikipedia policy that I don't know about? (likely). cheers, aLii 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) recommends International Phonetic Alphabet.  Check out the Talk page for huge opposition to this. jnestorius(talk) 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct pronunciations?

message: The nav templates for UEFA 4- and 5-star stadiums do not seem to tally with the lists that I could find online - there are a few too many in the Wikipedia version. But I'm not sure how up-to-date the links I found were. If anyone could help me find a correct and accurate reference as to what stadiums are on the list, I'd be most grateful - please see the discussion at Template talk:UEFA4Star and Template talk:UEFA5Star. Thanks. Qwghlm 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA stadium templates 

message: Looking at the  template, I see that some of the articles linked there are about teams where there is basically no information in the article (like who, if anyone, the team has played against). The particular articles I have in mind are:
*Easter Island national football team
*Kurdistan national football team
*Marshall Islands national football team
Can anyone add any verifiable information to these articles? Or should they be submitted for deletion? --Metropolitan90 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurdistan, at least, attended the non-Fifa New Federation Board meeting in June, and should play at the VIVA World Cup in Cyprus in November  Superlinus 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-FIFA national football teams 

message: I've proposed a new format that includes hide for the . Please see its talk page. Mariano(t/c) 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football squad2 start 

message: I have noticed that many of the larger WikiProjects have started up Assessment departments, focuses on assessing the quality of the project's articles, to identify important articles needing work, and articles that already are of good quality. In the end the assessment may also play a role in the WP:1.0 program.
I think I have read enough to start up such a department for football related articles, but first I would like to see if there is any interrest in such a thing. Starting it up and then having very few to none of our members regularly tagging or assessing articles would be a waste of time and resources. So, is there any interrest? – Elisson • Talk 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that most players are being assessed by WikiProject Biography, and as such wouldn't need to be included. Just out of interest has anyone stumbled across a player that has been rated higher than B-class, other than the obvious Denis Law article? aLii 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at a few biographies, many of them seem to have several "assessment templates" on the talk page, so I think players should still be included, but it of course makes our job easier if another WikiProject already has assessed the player article. – Elisson • Talk 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: David Beckham is a GA article, but I haven't seen any A-class footballers. Poulsen 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Marc Pugh is a GA (and a great counterpoint to those who think journeyman players can't have decent artices). Bobby Charlton is a failed GA which would be A-class with a few more references and a copyedit. I think identifying important articles needing work, or those that could be A-Class with a small amount of work has more merit than general assessment. Several European Footballer of the Year winners only have stubs. Oldelpaso 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Started here. – Elisson • Talk 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a bot should be programmed to mark every article in the subcats of :Category:Football (soccer) players by country and :Category:Football (soccer) clubs? Poulsen 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am currently reading through the guidelines on WP:BOT and will file a request for a bot to do the task. Great minds think alike! – Elisson • Talk 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a bug in the list, but a bug in Wikipedia. The article hasn't been added to the category since the talk page has not yet been edited since I implemented the assessment system in the already existing . This will fix itself as soon as someone edits the talk page. – Elisson • Talk 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Assessment Department 

message: Just wondering about the renaming of a few Italian football clubs that have articles on wiki.  First is Piacenza F.C., which should be Piacenza Calcio.  Also, is there some kind of rule/guideline for which clubs have the years in them?  Bologna is named Bologna F.C. 1909, while Modena F.C. does not have the 1912 in it.  There are a few more examples where the year the club was founded is in the full name of the club, but not used as the article name.  Is it worth renaming any of these?  Bigdottawa 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could decide whether to include the dates or not then rename for consistency.   While we're at it we could lose those clumsy dots after F and C!  Yorkshire Phoenix   07:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the dates are in the official name of the club, then they should be included. Clubs that don't have dates in their name should not have their formation year included just for consistency. The consistency should be adhering to official names, surely? Similarly, if they use calcio instead of football, that, too, should be amended. Superlinus 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead with the move of Piacenza F.C. to Piacenza Calcio for now.  Bigdottawa 14:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's what I meant: consistency with the official names (and no full stops).  Yorkshire Phoenix   08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Italian teams 

message: Bit new to this, but I've uploaded an image for the VIVA World Cup and I'm not sure how to properly include the copyright info. I thought I'd cracked it, but the OrphanBot is on my case. Damn you, OrphanBot! Any help? Superlinus 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added an appropriate tag, should be sorted now. Qwghlm 08:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, sir! Superlinus 09:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Help 

message: Just created :Category:Football League of Ireland players  Its similar to the FA Premier League or La Liga categories.  Grateful if you could help populate it as you come across players who have played league football in the Republic Of Ireland.  Any doubts/queries, don't hesitate to contact me Dodge 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Category; Football League of Ireland players

message: Discussion can be found here. Controversy exists on whether to continue displaying results on the main page. Feedback is welcome. - Pal 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger - CL Group stage results 

message: I have spent some time removing formations from Chelsea F.C., Middlesbrough F.C., A.C. Milan, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. I have also noticed a most likely elevens post on here.
Chelsea was a trouble as a mini-edit war started with the person who put it up. He said I was the only one to have a problem with it. This being the case I wanted to have a vote about formations so if it happens again I can link to it here which should help solve disputes. Please Agree or Disagree adding any relevant points...
Formations should not be included in Wikipedia football club articles as they are non-factual and therefore not encyclopedic. Formations change every game so creating them is pure guess work so they have no place in Wikipedia. Exceptions are greatest ever teams but only when referenced (ones voted for by supporters)
* Agree As per above SenorKristobbal 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel that even "Champions League winning" formation diagrams should not be on a club's main page. If the game was that notable it should have it's own article written, and within that is where they should go. aLii 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if the club is a very successful one (which final would you choose?) But I don't see why not, if it was a club's only ever major trophy or if it is widely accepted that it was the club's most successful season. Perhaps in most larger club articles it would be better in the relevant "History of..." article, though. Qwghlm 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a discussion with Poulsen re:this (sorry I didn't reply to you, by the way). I removed the "most common line-up 2005/06" picture on Brondy's page. I said POV as the reason, which is probably the wrong phrase. The way I see it, these are somewhat deceptive. Whilst you can base them on appearances, the line-up shown might not actually have appeared on the pitch for Bronby more than a dozen times. Furthermore, the page is about the team as a whole, not the team last year. If you're going to have one picture you might justify having pictures for every time Bronby (or whoever) have been in existence. HornetMike 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small correction - Brøndby IF's most common lineup is taken from the Double winning 2004-05 season, which is the last time the club won a title, so it has a small relevance when placed in the achivements section. I can see your point that it seems a little arbitrary and might not represent who actually played on the pitch together. I'll do some research as to their starting line-ups in individual games and respond here a little later. Poulsen 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As you suspected, the lineup wasn't exactly what it purported to be. It only started in 6 games, while all players were present at the same match a further 12 times. So in all, 18 of 33 matches had all players present, which doesn't sound like a "starting line-up" at all. I've changed the descrpitions to reflect what information the image actually gives. But I still think that an image of the team of their last trophy winning season has some merrit in the achievements section. Poulsen 05:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice one. With that caption I don't have any problem with it. HornetMike 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formations VOTE 

message: Wait - there are two separate types of such formations. One is formations of the "X's most likely formation 2006-07" or "Y's best team during 2005-06" - which breach WP:NOT a crystal ball and WP:NPOV/WP:V respectively and should be deleted. But, you could also have "A's Champions League final-winning side" or even "B's most frequent lineup during 2005-06". If such formations can be cited with suitable references to the statistical record, then I have no problem with them.
In my view, there is no need for a new rule or a vote - there is already an existing and well-defined policy on not including speculative, subjective or unverifiable information. Anything that does not qualify under that rule can and should be deleted. Qwghlm 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel that even "Champions League winning" formation diagrams should not be on a club's main page. If the game was that notable it should have it's own article written, and within that is where they should go. aLii 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if the club is a very successful one (which final would you choose?) But I don't see why not, if it was a club's only ever major trophy or if it is widely accepted that it was the club's most successful season. Perhaps in most larger club articles it would be better in the relevant "History of..." article, though. Qwghlm 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a discussion with Poulsen re:this (sorry I didn't reply to you, by the way). I removed the "most common line-up 2005/06" picture on Brondy's page. I said POV as the reason, which is probably the wrong phrase. The way I see it, these are somewhat deceptive. Whilst you can base them on appearances, the line-up shown might not actually have appeared on the pitch for Bronby more than a dozen times. Furthermore, the page is about the team as a whole, not the team last year. If you're going to have one picture you might justify having pictures for every time Bronby (or whoever) have been in existence. HornetMike 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small correction - Brøndby IF's most common lineup is taken from the Double winning 2004-05 season, which is the last time the club won a title, so it has a small relevance when placed in the achivements section. I can see your point that it seems a little arbitrary and might not represent who actually played on the pitch together. I'll do some research as to their starting line-ups in individual games and respond here a little later. Poulsen 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As you suspected, the lineup wasn't exactly what it purported to be. It only started in 6 games, while all players were present at the same match a further 12 times. So in all, 18 of 33 matches had all players present, which doesn't sound like a "starting line-up" at all. I've changed the descrpitions to reflect what information the image actually gives. But I still think that an image of the team of their last trophy winning season has some merrit in the achievements section. Poulsen 05:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice one. With that caption I don't have any problem with it. HornetMike 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: What about creatin' Lists of foreign players for the most important European domestic leagues (e.g.: Serie A, La Liga, FA Premier League, Ligue 1) like the List of foreign MLS players? I think it would be useful, and I would collaborate for the Serie A part of the "project". Let me know what you think. I think it isn't hard as it seems. --necronudist 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a big fan of list articles in general.  Would you try for a list of foreigners who've played in those leagues all time, like the MLS one?  Wouldn't some of them be way to long? --Bigdottawa 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not a big fan of lists either, and I can't see the importance to have this kind of list. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the top European leagues, foreign players make up such a large proportion of players that a list is likely to become unmanagable, as it will include thousands of players. Oldelpaso 09:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I've started to fill in the Serie A foreigner, if nobody is interested I will judge this idea definitively dead. --necronudist 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes guys, you are right. But: first of all, there are lists longer than this could be, and however lenght isn't a good reason to be against a list, I think (I don't know the thousands of Wikipedia policies about how you piss and how you must properly eat...). Second: foreign players are a very important portion of the quality of top european leagues. Without'em championships will be poorer: Serie A was considered the best league in the world when foreign players where more or less at the top ever. And now La Liga has even more foreign players than Serie A and is considered even better than Serie A (Aimar, Riquelme, Saviola, Ronaldinho, Rafa Marquez etc... all players than 10 years ago would have been acquired by italian teams; and now Aguero or Zigic go to Spain, and we manage to resume from the grave Ronaldo... is casual that Barcelona won the Champions League, and the runner-up Arsenal has a squad almost totally foreigner?), you can agree or not on this list, but you must consider the importance of foreign players in european top leagues. Then, we can talk. --necronudist 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The points you make are interesting and valid, but are not necessarily obvious from a list. I think there would be scope for an article called Globalisation of football (soccer) or something of that nature. The subject is probably a little to specific for History of football (soccer) (though could be mentioned there), but other than a mention in the Players section of FA Premier League, I don't think it is mentioned anywhere else. Oldelpaso 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of an article on Globalisation of football (soccer), but it'd require contribution by the whole project. That could be arranged couldn't it?--Tiresais 11:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any idea how many players will need to go onto a comprehensive Italian list?! The reason that it can be done relatively easily for the MLS league is that it's such a young league, and there is a relatively low percentage of foreign players. A quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculation (20 teams x ~10 foreign players each) gives a total of around 200 foreign players currently in the EPL, nevermind historically. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea, I just don't see as being easily achieved or easily kept up-to-date. aLii 11:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if foreign players are an integral part of leagues, it doesnt mean you have to list them, I cant see that this list would have any redeeming value. And I personally do think it is coincedence that these succesful teams have a lot of foreign players, as they were bought because they were good, not because they were foreign. Since the nationality of a player has absolutely no meaning within the sport, it is pointless to try and make one. Should we have a list of Professional Footballers with dark hair? because a lot of the greats had dark hair, and by your logic, people with dark hair are therefore integral to football. Philc TECI 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Philc, you are demonstrating yourself more stupid than aLii... cheers! However, I appreciate your idea Oldelpaso, it could be done. P.S.: my list of foreign Serie A/B/C players updated to 1997-98 counts 1495 entries, limited to the Serie A it could be of about 1000. I'm not saying they aren't many (too many maybe), but simply that, seen the historical importance of foreign players in the development of a domestic league and the increment of "competitivness" (what a bad bad english!) of minor national football teams (another important aspect), we could think about a listing-project like that. Or maybe the Oldelpaso's idea... However, we can't ignore this phenomenon --necronudist 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly managed to further you own demise in this project of yours, by personally attacking several members of the wikiproject you so desperately need help from. Well done. Philc TECI 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's listcruft and not particularly useful, to be honest. Qwghlm 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya ya NN, D and so on... something at wikitruth.info will laugh for this...However...like you want. --necronudist 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No because the incresed flux of foreign players into the game was a result of the coincedental globalisation at the same time, countries with more developed footballing economies were more attractive to players of foreign countries, and had more financial weight in the market place, so in short, better leagues buy more foreign players, not foreign players make better leaugues. Statastic does not define cause, my jibe about the dark hair thing, was just an equally pathetic attempt as yours to convince that the statistic defines the cause, which it doesnt. If you really are as intallectually superior to me as you enjoy announcing you should have considered this. Philc TECI 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, your questions are all bullshits, obviously I considered those. First of all, your bold sentence is totally arbitrarly, I can say the opposite and you can't disagree. So, who's right? Second: I never said to have any statistics about what I say, I just say what I see. Sorry that my theory have 0 google hits =_='. For me, this discussion ends here. I keep hopin' that someone is interested. --necronudist 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This an encyclopedia not a collection of crackpot theories and flights of fancies of random contributors. The bold sentence is not total abritrary, its a summary of the preceeding point, I thought you would need summary for you to get your head round it, but it seems you have still failed to comprehend much of anything. Philc TECI 12:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. Stop it. Damned wikizealots. --necronudist 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign players

message: The article is a mess, and its main content is a completely unreferenced list of firms. There is currently a discussion on the talk page, where I have proposed to blank the whole list and only allow referenced information. Please take a look at it and give some input, and maybe some of you may even own some of the books about hooliganism that has been written. Those could be helpful to reference the article. – Elisson • Talk 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large cleanup on [[Football firm]] 

message: I've uploaded a Excel file to :Image:Example league position.xls. I've also written a brief explanation of what it contains there. I have been using it to create a graph of a club's historical league position such as :Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.PNG :Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.png. To adapt it to your club simply update the league positions in one of the club columns (F and G). Then cut and paste the relevent chart to your favourite image editor and save. josh (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, and you well represented the changing division sizes, though it seems a bit asthetically non-pleasing, and the legend, doesnt correctly show for anyone that doesnt understand the system that division4 = league 2 and division1 = the premiership etc... Philc TECI 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps. I put up an old copy (didn't realise it was still on the server). The one i'm using is at :Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.png. Got rid of the legend because its illegable on the page any way and changed the colour scheme slightly. josh (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like the idea, but the gradient-shaded bars are horrible. Infact the whole plot could do with being re-coloured. Make the background all white, any axes or writing all black, and make the various bars solid colours. Perhaps use all pastel colours or something similarly unobtrusive. aLii 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical league position 

message: Working on a Serie B 2006-07 article.  Want to include a results grid.  Made a template to fit results for 22 teams, but I can't get everything working.  Can anyone figure what I did wrong here? Bigdottawa 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got them into the right boxes, by evening out the number of bar thingys, but now there outlined in blue dashes, and I dont know why. Philc TECI 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, i had a go earlier and reached the same situation, sorry i didn't have anymore time to devote to it. I notice that you actually made the template Template:Football (soccer) table results 22 teams too, doh! I was going to suggest simply copying from an article that used it correctly. Poulsen's recent edit to your page has made it better again though.. aLii 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help.  Not sure why those last two rows are bigger than the rest.  I'll use that for now. Bigdottawa 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The irregularities of Template:Football (soccer) table results 22 teams seems to have been solved now. Poulsen 10:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help... 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is getting very long. I would suggest splitting off the lost of participants and the list of stub templates to separate subpages. Do others agree? Qwghlm 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. – Elisson • Talk 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, sounds fair. aLii 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Didn't think there'd be much disagreement. Qwghlm 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - I might have gone a bit carried away and started rearranging sections. Sorry - if anyone disagrees and wishes to revert my changes feel free, I won't take offence. Qwghlm 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the inactive participants list into the main participants page, seeing as its original purpose of cutting down the size of the main project page is now irrelevant. I'll list the inactive page on MfD Oldelpaso 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might as well make it a redirect and save the bother. Qwghlm 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice table, please do! – Elisson • Talk 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's far superior to the current format. Nice work! - Pal 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, updated it. Qwghlm 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page getting too long 

message: The list of featured articles, former FACs, peer reviews etc. is getting too long, and I've always found it annoying that the FAC and PR pages for a particular article are in separate lists. So I have put together a redesigned list in my sandbox which is table-based, and puts all the relevant pages for a single article together on one line. What do people think? Should I replace the current list with my new design? Qwghlm 09:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice table, please do! – Elisson • Talk 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's far superior to the current format. Nice work! - Pal 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, updated it. Qwghlm 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed FA/PR/GA list

message: I removed the last result and next fixture from the Newcastle United history section, which has led to a complaint on my talk page so i was wondering what you thoughts on it were. Nufc2006 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT a newspaper. You did the right thing. I do the same all the time. – Elisson • Talk 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right to remove them - it goes against Wikipedia is not a news service, and as the information dates so quickly it will look out-of-place in any hard copy versions such as Wikipedia 1.0. Leaving them out makes for more stable articles and stops wasting other editors' time in maintaining them. Pages such as Newcastle United F.C. are meant to be encyclopaedia articles about the club in general, not what has happened in the past few days; there are many other more appropriate outlets for recording latest news, including FA Premier League 2006-07 (and its month-by-month subpages) and WikiNews. Qwghlm 11:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Deleted the previous/next match sections from Bolton's page. Kingfisherswift 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest result in club history 

message: As you may be aware, clubs are allowed to sign non-contracted players after the transfer window has closed. I've added a section to the transfer dealings on the 2006-07 in English football page. Everyone okay with this, and the format I've used? Superlinus 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, I think its better to have there old clubs, rather just saying unattached, just so the whole article looks the same. But apart from that I see no problem Gran2 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that is, technically, it's factually incorrect. These players are unattached and the clubs no longer hold their registration.  How about including their last club in parenthesis? Superlinus 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting in the notes field sounds good to me. You're right about it being factually incorrect, that was my mistake. Gran2 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Many players signed in the summer are unattached for a short time, between being released and picked up again, it's standard practice, on here and in the media, to put their last club as the "from" club and their next club under "to". You only use unattached untill the player has found a club, or if the player has been unattached for more than six months or so. To me, the note "Players without a club can be signed outside of the transfer window." explains the situation sufficiently, so for example "Didier Agathe to Aston Villa (previous club: Celtic)" should be enough. ArtVandelay13 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Transfer Window Signings 

message: It's only a small thing really, but I was wondering, is there an available template for users participating in WikiProject Football to put on their Use Pages, as there is for other projects? Not that it's that important, but I thought I'd ask nonetheless... NaLaochra 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's the . Enjoy :D Poulsen 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  participation template 

message: Just wondering if people thought this might be a useful list?  If you include Fairs Cup and Intertoto I'd guess it'd be a fairly select group.  I'd break it down by Country.  Any thoughts? Dodge 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I initially misread you and thought you meant every club that had ever played in UEFA competition, which might be useful but very long list (basically, a wiki version of this). As for what I think you mean - a list of only the clubs that have played Champs League, UEFA, CWC, Fairs and Intertoto - I think that's a bit too esoteric - it's borderline trivia amd I'm not even sure there's that many clubs that have done so (maybe Newcastle United?). Also it could be deemed OR, unless there is a citable source anywhere that lists them? Qwghlm 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it'd be considered original research as its just collating information rather than anything else.  Take your point though.  I actually think your idea of complete list of european competitors might be a better idea.  Do it on the basis of Country>Club>Competetion>Years entered and we'd have a very useful list IMO Dodge 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be too long. Besides, note that the RSSSF list was last updated 28 October 1999. Punkmorten 11:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, useful, like this, but nobody cares. "too long, shut up" =_= that's the wikipedia way. However, I support this idea. --necronudist 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said might be useful, and to be honest I'm not mad keen for it - as others say, it'll be too long and take a lot of effort to maintain, just like a list of foreign players. But it's not as if I will AfD either list if someone wants to create them, I just happen to believe our collective time might be better spent on articles rather than endless lists. Qwghlm 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it'd be particularly useful and is basically trivia. However I'm an inclusionist, so I wouldn't have any real problem with the list being created. Qwghlm - I don't think you can argue that it could be original research unless some conclusion was drawn from the list. The list itself is just information, whether there is a source for "clubs who have played in every UEFA competition" or whether you collate the information from multiple sources. aLii 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I'm just mindful of that Pele argument from a couple of months back that different people have different ideas of what constitutes OR. On reflection, neither list proposed is really OR, I suppose since the ever-useful RSSSF can always be cited. Qwghlm 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutral user intervened in the Pele argument and dismissed the claims of original research. It's not like the information was just being "made-up" :)   aLii 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not a big supporter of these kinds of lists, and I agree wholeheartedly in what Qwghlm says above, that "our collective time might be better spent on articles rather than endless lists". – Elisson • Talk 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of clubs who have played in every UEFA competition

message: Im  not suggensting to change the naming convention, just the way in which headings are written.
For all other forms of football we use names like American football, and Australian Rules Football, and Gaelic football. However when writing articles about soccer we tend to write Football (soccer) in the headings. 
The use of this is extremely confusing to people reading about articles with more than one code. The use of Football (soccer) seems informal when compared the Association Football (soccer) which seems more scientific. By doing this change on headings within articles it makes Wiki seems alot more scientific and organised. We then can go on and talk about football within that heading without refering to soccer at all. ==
--61.69.219.237 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association Football (soccer)            Football (soccer) 

message: Hi WikiProject people,
After looking through the pages on the Premiership seasons (especially the early years of the competition) I was shocked at the amount of NPOV violations and lack of sources, as well as the inconsistencies between the pages for each season. I've re-written, cleaned-up and de-junked the FA Premier League 1992-93, it can be found in my sandbox. I would appreciate any comments or criticisms of this re-write and any help with improving it would be greatly appreciated. If nobody is violently opposed I propose replacing the current page with my re-write at some point over the weekend. If my views on the style of these pages is not unpopular I intend to go to work on the rest of the pages in a similar fashion. Thanks, QmunkE 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, it looks fine. I suspect the article's current state is the work of  but I gave up trying to convince him of what NPOV or encyclopaedic meant a long time ago, since he never listens. Qwghlm 10:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now replaced the FA Premier League 1992-93 page with the re-write and I am now starting on bringing the other seasons into line. QmunkE 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Premier League seasons 

message: Can someone add the current roster to Avispa Fukuoka so we can delete Avispa Fukuoka 2005 Roster? Punkmorten 09:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've converted the roster article into a redirect; deleting it would destroy the edit history and is not recommended, and besides, redirects are cheap. Qwghlm 11:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the roster up to date? Punkmorten 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrgh. Missed out on that. OK, found a 2006 roster and have updated. Qwghlm 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Avispa Fukuoka]] 

message: Having just done some major cleanups on the first two articles on Premiership seasons, I thought that the articles could do with an infobox, so I had a go at designing a simple one from Template:Infobox. The result can be found here and can be seen in an article here. Anyone think this would be a good case to use a template, or should I just have the raw infobox code on each page? Any comments on the layout/fields of the box? Cheers. (PS I did see the templates sub page but thought it more likely that someone would see this here.) QmunkE 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, attempted to clarify the above point. Also forced column widths to remain constant. Is this less confusing? QmunkE 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah thats better SenorKristobbal 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for Premiership seasons 

message: Out now! --necronudist 08:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really misses any kind of sources, as well as an update date. Else, impressive effort. Poulsen 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Al-Saadi Qadhafi hasn't made an appearance in Seria A.  Also I think Paddy Sloane might be a Northern Irish international.  I'll check that out for you.  Fair play though.  Will be interesting to see if other country lists appear Dodge 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are Italian magazine "Calcio 2000", this site, and many "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio Italiano" by Panini. It is updated after every game (I can update it the day after a game) like the MLS list, and has no update date like the MLS list. Qadhafi played two games, one with Perugia and one with Udinese (nothin' much that 20 mins, however). Sources are trustful, obviously there can be some minor errors (mine or by the sources). I haven't made all this stuff, 2 months of work with some untrustful source (e.g. Wikipedia, Google)... be sure. :) Trying to destroy wikipedia in this way would be crazy... It's been hard (over 1200 players...) (and I'm also working on a List of foreign La Liga players)... However, I'll be glad of your collaboration to update and mantain it. --necronudist 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, add the sources to the article then. You can't expect people to come to this page to find the sources. It doesn't matter what the MLS article looks like (have never seen it, and don't know its name) - if that article lacks a minimum of sources, then it is unverifiable, and should not be emulated. The shortcomings of that article don't excuse the shortcomings of List of foreign Serie A players. Poulsen 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the consensus was that this list would be irrelavent, and should therefore not be made. Philc TECI 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wanna delete it? Do it! I don't care...I made this for me, 'cause I needed it, 'cause I'm a football researcher (hobby, obviously) and then I thought it would be interesting for others, so I published it. But if a Jimbo asslicker wanna delete it 'cause "it's irrelevant -.-" ...Do it. You only damage wikipedia this way. Maybe a Pilota player is irrelevant for you, but not for me. Do what you like, I'll keep on updating it, since it exists. --necronudist 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but thats not how wikipedia works, you cant just make what you want as long as you can botherd to, or because you want too, or because its your hobby. But the article carries the assertion that there is some sort of relevance to the fact that the players are foreign, which their isn't. Please stop being rude to me (WP:CIVIL). I'm not here to lick anyones arse, I just want this place to be a decent place, not a collection of arbitrary stuff. Philc TECI 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and this is why wikipedia basically sucks. However, I repeat, foreign players have been very important for the developement of Italian football, and they increase the competitivness of a league (like the Spanish League today, as I said). Many (almost ALL) Italian football teams have been founded by foreigners and the very first lineups (not part of the list, however) were made mainly (where not "only") by foreigners. We've had Maradona, van Basten, Shevchenko, Batistuta, Angelillo, Crespo, Gullit... and if in a certain period Serie A was considered the best in the world (and now, how curious, it is considered La Liga) is thanx to them. If you don't see the relevance of this...well, it's your problem, not mine. And if you wanna know, I'm sure that the wikigods will vote for delete this page...so, if you wanna, do it. And stay away from me, please. --necronudist 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats your POV, another one of wikipedias little taboo thingys, unfortunately what any single contributor thinks, doesnt stand up to anything here. The reason there are limitations is what makes wikipedia work, not suck, if you just what to post random miscellania you can do it to your hearts content at geocities or something. Philc TECI 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, add the article to the AfD and let me rest in peace. PLEASE! --necronudist 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll Wait and see what the consensus is first. Philc TECI 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the list TBH.  Doesn't matter if a consensus of a small amount of editors here don't want to get involved in it.  Its a decent list (as per above I'd like sources or external links) and has way more relevence than 100s of other football related articles here.  There's no way this list should be deleted as I don't see see any way in which it fails to meet criteria.  Dodge 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is a particularly good reason to delete this list. It's not my cup of tea, but it's kinda interesting. aLii 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of foreign Serie A players]]... 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: Hi there
Being a Brazilian, it's very weird for me to see clubs represented by state flag figures in competitions. Clubs have nothing to do with the state, and there are actually many clubs per state - there are state competitions!
So, in the article about Copa dos Campeoes, I naively edited the figures to show club logos instead, but someone edited it back claiming this WikiProject's rules. However, I wasn't able to find any explicit references about this in here. Could someone please help me?
Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.215.102.91 (talk • contribs) 22:05, September 21, 2006 (UTC).
:The reason is not to do with this WikiProject, but because club logos are only includable in Wikipedia under fair use, which means they can only be used in articles about the clubs themselves, and not as decoration of other articles, under Wikipedia's fair use rules. However, I totally agree that articles not be using the state flag either, since no club represents its own state alone (as a corollary, Arsenal do not claim to represent Greater London as a whole, nor do Leeds United represent Yorkshire, etc). So, I would recommend just deleting the state flag entirely from these articles and leaving them as text - it makes them look boring, I agree, but it makes sure Wikipedia respects copyrights properly. Qwghlm 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State flags 

message: One of the areas of Wikipedia I'm trying to beef up are the entries for non-FIFA footballing nations, principally those under the banner of the NF-Board. However, the standard Football National Teams infobox contains much that is not applicable and can look untidy and unwiledy when used for non-FIFA nations. Is there, perhaps, some way that a new infobox can be created? It would differ in several ways, which I could detail if necessary for you guys!  Superlinus 09:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just created Template:NF-Board football association, using Template:National football association as a base. What other information do you want in the infobox? Oldelpaso 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant the team infobox, not the association. Punkmorten 11:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, both would be nice. The Association box should include LOGO, NAME IN OWN LANGUAGE (neither have to be titled categories), FOUNDED, AFFILIATION(S) (which, for most, would be NF-Board, though in the case of Zanzibar, for example, CAF, too), PRESIDENT, HEADQUARTERS (some NF-Board HQs are outside the state that the "nation" lies in). The team box should ideally include LOGO, NAME IN OWN LANGUAGE, NICKNAME, ASSOCIATION(S), CONFEDERATION(S), HEAD COACH/TEAM MANAGER, CAPTAIN, MOST CAPS, MOST GOALS, KITS, FIRST INTERNATIONAL, BIGGEST WIN, WORST DEFEAT. Is this too much? Superlinus 18:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an edit to Template:NF-Board football association - is that going to work? Superlinus 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-FIFA Infoboxes 

message: An issue relevant to all clubs has recently come up on the Chelsea F.C. page over the use of nicknames in the infobox, namely Chelski. It seems to be standard practice to include only "official" club nicknames, or ones that the club's own fans use, and to leave out pejorative or abusive ones (this can also apply to player infoboxes), but it was suggested on the talk page that both types should be included. Any thoughts? SteveO 11:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Include only nicknames "accepted" by the own fans. – Elisson • Talk 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose having perojative nicknames in infoboxes, because they reflect a negative POV. In the infobox of the Microsoft article, should I add that Microsoft is commonly referred to as "Micro$oft"? Obviously not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, in the Jimbo-Kingdom you can't. However, is (e.g.) Juventus' "vecchia signora" (old lady) pejorative? It's a commonly used name, sometimes by Juventus fans too...but in fact in Italian sounds like a pejorative. Juventus fans can say "uhhh a beautiful, charming old lady", others can say "an old, rubbish bitch". It isn't so simple. I'm to keep all the nicknames. Yes, even Micro$oft, if Jimbo's bank account agrees. --necronudist 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see your point. "Vecchia signora" is used by the own fans. Not pejorative. Should be included. Chelski is not used by Chelsea fans. Pejorative. Should not be included. Simple as that. – Elisson • Talk 13:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that claims that a nickname is a "common" nickname (pejorative or otherwise) then it can be included if it contributes to the article. But in the infobox? Probably not the best place. QmunkE 13:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Non-pejorative nicknames accepted by the clubs' own fans, obviously, else you could justify just about every club with a major rival being labelled "The Wankers" or "The Scum" in their infobox. PS Hildanknight, please read WP:POINT before making disruptive edits to other clubs' articles in order to prove your point. Qwghlm 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: When writing player articles, I am always tempted to use the word 'fans' without citing a source. For example, "some fans criticised him for being inconsistent", and "His lack of composure on the ball attracts a lot of criticism and frustration from fans" etc. While these statements may be true, I'm not sure if they have a place on Wikipedia without a reference. It is tricky to get a reference for this kind of statement, since large groups of fans don't usually document their opinions, they just scream them at the television or shout it while at the stadium.
I think fans opinions are often a big part of a players career, and thus should be mentioned on Wikipedia - but I'd say that 99% of the time, they cannot be referenced. Does this mean that unsourced fans opinions should be stripped from all player articles? Or can I cite fan blogs/forums as a reference? Or can they just stay there unsourced?
My question is specifically about the Gilberto Silva article which I am trying to improve to GA-status. Any comments or suggestion about this problem will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -GilbertoSilvaFan 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually blogs and forums don't qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. With the Gilberto Silva article in particular, the few references to fans might be something you could alter to allow it to be sourced, by finding sports reports about him, for example the Charlie Nicholas article from Sky Sports that is already referenced. However if the entries are inherently unverifiable I think they should be removed. QmunkE 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're always but a general rule of thumb should be that a claim about what fans think should only be cited if it can be proven a large group of them think so, not just one individual, else it's just weasel words. For instance, I use a reference from an incorporated Arsenal supporters' group in the Arsenal F.C. article to back up the claim the new club crest was unpopular with fans, which I think is OK as it is the official view of a representative body. Polls (but not web polls, which are very easy to rig) could be referenced as another way of gauging opinion. But yes, I would steer clear of individual bloggers. Qwghlm 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, where do we stand on references to fan's feelings in books. I.e. in club histories the writer saying "fans were unhappy at the sale of so-and-so" HornetMike 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the book is a reliable source, that's ok, though phrasing it more precisely or giving more explanation would be advisable where possible. If you are unsure, make an attribution to the book clear. Oldelpaso 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced references to "fans" 

message: I reverted vandalism on Dinamo Stadium (Bucharest) Maldebaran 09:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Stuff! Philc TECI 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism reverted