Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 9

message: The article is currently rated as B class but I think that the article is much better than a B rating. It's about time we re-rated this. So what shall we give it now? Govvy 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm a Gooner feel free to take this with a pinch of salt - but I don't think it's beyond B-class right now. The quality scale says A-class demands "A fairly complete treatment of the subject" but there's not much detail about the stadium, crest or colours. And the history is a bit too recentist and lacking specific citations for it to reach GA status, in my opinion. Qwghlm 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, you are right, it does need need details on the stadium, crest and colours. I feel it needs more photo's in the article also. Maybe it's not the rating but the importance of the article that needs upgrading!! I shall bring it up on the talk page. cheers. Govvy 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the article has too few information about the 1950s and 1960s, compared with the other decades. And that the history section should be divided in more sub-sections. The current season takes too much space and the article needs more notes. It's a very good article, but not beyond B-class. Fregonassi 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I still feel this is a GA class article. The history has been improved, there is sub article on the stadium, got some info on the crest and kit in the history section. Care to have a vote on improving the rating to GA? Govvy 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Articles have their own assessment process: Good Article Candidates. However, as it is now a nomination of the article would most likely fail due to scarcity of inline citations - lots of books are listed, but it is not clear where any of them are used. This could be remedied by using the  template in appropriate places. If you want help or more feedback, drop a note on my talk page or perhaps start up a peer review. Oldelpaso 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tottenham Hotspur]] - Rating upgrade? 

message: Jus wanted someone to review, suggest ideas, check, etc {Santiago26 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Football (soccer) in New South Wales]] Review Wanted: 

message: I would be grateful if some kind soul would have a looksee at the Swindon article and give me a suggestion on layout and also possibly help improve the prose in the history section.
At the moment the layout is a bit haphazard, with prose here and there and the history section is a heavily snipped extract from the main History of Swindon Town F.C. article, and as such reads like someone hammering facts into your head.
Oh and if anyone wants to assess it as well, be my guest. Cheers - Foxhill 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats pretty good what you got so far, my suggestion would put the "Other teams" section in a new article titled "Swindon Town F.C. Reserves & Academy" Govvy 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I considered placing it for Peer Review but with areas of the article such as History, Colours, Supporters and others all needing major re-work; decided against it especially as the article is not in a stable state yet. I also considered WP:FEED but felt the subject matter would be too narrow for a response. This is why I placed the request here - Foxhill 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for feedback if not PR. Articles are meant to be readable by both experts and non-experts alike. Narrowness of field is not a big issue. Btw it's not too bad, needs a some tweaks and changes but the core of it is a decent enough article. Qwghlm 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left some comments on the talk page. Looks sufficiently well-developed to go on peer review. Oldelpaso 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Swindon Town F.C.]] 

message: Forwarding a question from Forbsey on Talk:Rangers F.C., are manager statistics on club articles, e.g. Rangers F.C.#Team managers, domestic league matches only? Archibald99  19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arsenal F.C.#Managers includes league, cup and European matches (inc. Charity Shield/Super Cup games) in the table. If the stats are available I don't see why they shouldn't. Qwghlm 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manager statistics, again 

message: The article listing the winners of the Norwegian Premier League is currently named Norwegian Soccer League Champions (Men). I want to move this page to something resembling the two Featured Articles we have, English football champions and Swedish football champions. The problem is that, unlike in England and Sweden and probably most other countries, it is not the winners of the league in Norway but the winners of the cup who are "Norwegian football champions" and so using this name for an article about the league winners would be misleading. I'm leaning towards Norwegian Premier League champions; the article could also be named Norwegian football league champions, although I think this name is too similar to "Norwegian football champions" and might cause some confusion. Any thoughts on this matter? --Léman 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest having Norwegian football champions as a disambiguation page, explaining the situation in Norway, and linking to Norwegian football league champions and Norwegian football cup champions. Good or bad? – Elisson • T • C • 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Norwegian Soccer League Champions (Men)]] 

message: I've put some work into the Football in London article in recent days, any assitance would be appreciated. I'm hoping to 'wikify' all the clubs linked to from this article, so as to include the standard information table, and the link box at the bottom of the page to other teams in the division. Please come along and help! Grunners 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football in London 

message: I was considering putting average league attendances for the 2006-7 season (calculated from Soccerbase) into an article (along with a percentage of the ground's capacity). Would you say there's enough value to make it worthwhile? If so, would you include it in the stadium article or the club article? (Preferably not both.) - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a worthwhile addition to a club's article when mentioning the fanbase/supporters to give figures, especially to show changing support over the years. I've found that the soccer-stats.com figures are quite useful in that respect as they go back to 1992-93 for the four English Divisions and the SPL, although you may find the capacity is mis-reported and so have to recalculate from their figures. In my opinion I'd keep it in the club article unless it's a record attendance for the stadium as a lot of stadiums hold other events such as concerts, rallies and even double as Speedway or greyhound tracks. - Foxhill 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. I'll bear in mind the possibly mis-reported capacities, though that site may have correctly stated Blackpool's as 9,612, whereas another source had it at 9,000 (and I find the chances of its being a round number unlikely). As such, I changed the stadium article accordingly. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average attendances 

message: This WikiProject has recently been created, so it probably should be inserted into the navbox alongside the A-League and Non-league projects. I have to say, I'm not entirely sure of it's purpose - until the Premiership split in 1992-93 all there was to professional football was the football league, so I don't understand why we need seperate articles for it alongside the present season articles. HornetMike 15:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season]] 

message: The definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner has not been defined, let's discuss about it. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 17:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner 

message: My attention has been drawn to the large number of articles referring to A.F.C. Bournemouth that link to Bournemouth F.C. an amateur club based at Victoria Park who have never been a league club. I have fixed a whole bunch of league seasons records but it would be helpful if editors could keep an eye open for others that should go to A.F.C. Bournemouth. BlueValour 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know that I think I have now tracked down and edited all the links that point to Bournemouth F.C. rather than A.F.C. Bournemouth. The problem comes when using the   template which will automatically point to Bournemouth F.C.; using     gets round the problem, albeit via a re-direct.  Daemonic Kangaroo 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, people could just type A.F.C. Bournemouth, which is shorter then typing  :) Gasheadsteve 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: subst:fc is good for tables, and nice if you want a piped link. Punkmorten 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you just do what I do and ignore the templates for Bournemouth and use Bournemouth.. WikiGull 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFC Bournemouth 

message: What do people think? Listcruft? A genuinely useful list? I've done a bit of cleanup and although inclined weakly to nom for deletion I thought I'd ask the opinion of people here first. Qwghlm 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've sworn this had already been deleted following an AfD. Oldelpaso 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: near enough. ? Oldelpaso 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of football (soccer) teams sponsored by Nike]] 

message: What are the opinions on this article? I personally think it should be moved to 2003 UEFA Cup final and restructured to give a more universal view on the subject. Archibald99  20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Bhoys from Seville]] 

message: I want to bring up the decreasing activity at the football article improvement drive.  The earlier success of the collaborations of this drive led to many featured articles.  I encourage everyone to contribute to the current article, nominate articles, and vote on nominations in order to increase the activity and success of this article improvement drive back to its previous level. Timpcrk87 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the level of participation is poor. I admit I have ceased to vote and only recently worked on a collaboration, doing a bit of clean-up on Birmingham City. I wasn't really able to add new content, though. One problem is the sort of thing we're nominating. I have absolutely no clue how I could possibly contribute to Valdir Pereira (Didi) this week, other than to do clean-up. I see Liverpool and Coventry City are nominated at present - I could peer review them quite easily, but I'm not sure I could add much. HornetMike 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liverpool F.C. is the new selection, which is a drive for FA level - peer review type comments are just what are needed. It is no coincidence that the three former collaborations which have since gained FA status are broad topics with wide appeal. Biographies rarely gain much attention, unless it is someone truly iconic internationally such as Pele or Ferenc Puskás. This week the selected article got less edits all week than it took to update the AID with a new selection. Oldelpaso 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toulouse F.C. also had a poor level of participation. I think that the improvement drive should focus more on the international level articles, like major european clubs and famous players, because improvement drive is working fine for them. About the last week selected article, when I indicated Valdir Pereira (Didi) I thought some Fenerbahçe and Real Madrid fans would contribute more about his time playing/managing the clubs. About his carreer in Brazil, I think I can cover a good part of it (just need to have time and get my computer back to add some things I planned to add). Fregonassi 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive|Football article improvement drive]] 

message: I've created a category entitled People who died before the age of 50, and I think it would be useful in football-personnel articles. As I mentioned on the category's talk page, I perceive 50 as being a young age at which to pop your clogs, especially when, in the world of the beautiful game, some individuals (Stanley Matthews, for example) have played past that age. - Dudesleeper · Talk 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm up to Peter Dubovský in Footballers who died before retiring. There are still 46 others. - Dudesleeper · Talk 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category 

message: Really small (perhaps pointless?) thing, but some players (Cesc Fàbregas is a good example) who come from clubs such as Barcelona have Barça B/C under their youth section and in the main article, when of course they never actually played for the B team. 
So should under youth teams be either:
A general "FC Barcelona Youth System", the actual youth section they got to at the club (for Cesc: "FC Barcelona Cadete A"), or something like "La Masia". 
The same applies for the Barça B/C pages, under famous players they mention players who have never (or not yet) played for B/C, should there be a general Barcelona (and other teams) Youth section which goes (in Barcelona's case) from Infantil A/B to Barça B. Cheers, Fran 5 March 2007
:I'd say that if they did play for the B or C teams then leaving it as those would be fine. Otherwise simply stating "FC Barcelona" would make more sense. aLii 11:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youth Section concerning players from teams with B/C/youth teams 

message: Is it part of the Project now? I've seen several anons and at least one user adding flags in players/managers templates. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - This matter has recently, albeit inconclusively, been discussed here.    Daemonic Kangaroo 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagicon in templates 

message: Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I imagine those involved with this project will be most aware if the topic has come up for discussion before. Is there any reason why starting a category for players who have won the Champions League would be a bad idea? Personally I'd find it useful, but thought I'd double check first. KeithD 10:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will lead to Category overcrowding. It would be far easier be handled as a list, which would also give additional information. Agathoclea 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I've made List of UEFA Champions League Winning Players KeithD 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is more appropriate for a category (as per your original suggestion) rather than a list, unless you can add more value than just a list of names? I'd expand to include those players who won the European Cup before it was renamed as well. - fchd 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I would include years won, club(s) won with, and number of wins, which it could also be grouped by. Adding European Cup winners is also essential. ArtVandelay13 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This list is not meant to include European Cup (pre-"Champions League") winners, correct? --ChaChaFut 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the European Cup winners. That either means that the article needs to be renamed, or the European Cup winners split off to another list. I'd say it's probably best as a single list. Beyond that, I'm not sure what the best way to organise it is. KeithD 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for, say, Champions League winner 

message: Hi, I just thought i'd bring up this minor problem with managerial statistics in managers articles. Should the format be "Games Won Lost Drawn" or "Games Won Drawn Lost". The argument for the GWLD layout is that soccerbase, the main provider of managerial stats, gives it out like this, so it is easier to update the stats. The argument for the GWDL layout is that it is the conventional way that is usually used. What do you guys think? -- Mattythewhite 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GWDL for me. I'm a traditionalist at heart! HornetMike 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GWDL, always. I've never understood how people reasoned when they created the GWLD layout. – Elisson • T • C • 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure many other sports commonly use WLD (usually T, not D, though). Lexicon (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  American Football and Baseball both use WLT because ties are so rare. Every league table I've ever seend has used WDL. Tompw (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In tables I've seen from before WW2, Pld-W-L-D-F-A-Pts seems to be the norm, but since then I haven't seen that used (at least in England) at all. As it's what I've grown up with, Pts as the last column always seems right to me as well. - fchd 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Should be W-D-L . I've only seen the other way in U.S. reports, but i'm curious, Where did you see those early tables, Richard? --ChaChaFut 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly where the AFS Annuals reprinted tables from long-gone days, but I've just opened the Sunday Chronicle Football Annual for 1949-50, and all the league tables shown there (League, non-league & Scottish) go Pld-W-L-D-GF-GA-Pts. It's the same in the same publication for the following season, but the FA Yearbook for 50-51 uses what would now be the familiar format. - fchd 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GWDL, simply because of the mass of information I've seen which places the information in that order, anything else just seems somewhat perverse to my head! Robotforaday 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWLD or GWDL? 

message: A contributor to Liverpool F.C. recently added bold to the names of those players who have international caps in the squad list. My personal opinion is that the information is not particularly relevant, and that it makes the squad list look a mess, but it was suggested on the talk page maybe it could be taken here for discussion - I'd be interested in other people's opinions: perhaps this really is a desirable introduction into football team articles, communicating an important piece of information succinctly? Robotforaday 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did it on Watford's page a while back. I think it's alright, and isn't especially ugly. HornetMike 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how important the information is, but it's certainly somewhat interesting. aLii 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the correlation between a domestic squad and its national-team representatives. An Internationals section, with a notation and footnote such as Current Liverpool player, would make more sense to me. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd lean towards not including the information, but don't feel particularly strongly about it. For instance Robbie Fowler, while an international, hasn't been capped for five years. Bolding makes it look like it is of significant importance to the makeup of the squad. If it is to be included I'd rather it was something less in-your-face, such as an asterisk. Oldelpaso 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And an editor added those beautiful flags to every name instead of just the nation heading. Always loved that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm... a LOT of Liverpool players, past and present, have represented their country. We're talking a very long list... not sure how workable that is going to be at a time when the article is being made more streamline. Besides, the article is about Liverpool F.C., not about the international teams. Details about individual player's Liverpool careers are included on their player bios. Robotforaday 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding players with international caps in the squad list 

message: The article on Tinsley Lindley states "he scored 15 international goals in just 13 games" which is supported by his profile at www.englandfootballonline.com 
His profile at www.englandfc.com credits him with 14 goals in 13 appearances.
Finally, TheFA.com gives his record as 13 goals from 13 games.
Can anyone supply a definitive answer? 
I have raised a similar query on the talk page for the article 1885-86 in English football about one of the "missing goals"  Daemonic Kangaroo 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cris Freddi's "England Football Fact Book" from 1991, gives him 14 goals from the 13 games, but implies there is some doubt in his goalscoring record with the statement "He scored in 7 England matches without a break (probably not the 9 usually credited)". Several "facts" from individual games in the 19th century were reported differently in various publications of time with the result that, again quoting Cris, "The bottom line is that in the absence of film, there are times when we'll never know for sure" - fchd 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinsley Lindley 

message: I have one question for you, as you are my fellow WikiProject colleagues :), shouldn't "USSR national football team" and related FIFA World Cup templates be renamed to "Soviet Union" form? We already use United States instead of U.S. or USA. I have alredy contacted native Russian users and they are rather in favour of "Soviet Union" form. Thank you. - Darwinek 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union/USSR 

message: This morning the article was moved to association football, along with a few related articles, claiming "majority concensus". While I am involved in the conflict wanting the article to stay, I have failed to see any such consensus, and I moved those articles back just now. Either way, this needs much broader input from experienced football editors, so please, give your opinion on the matter at Talk:Football (soccer). – Elisson • T • C • 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Move war" imminent at [[Football (soccer)]] 

message: Hello all.  Having successfully driven three articles over at Wikiproject:Cricket to featured status over the past couple of months, Dweller and I are turning our attentions to our home clubs, starting with Ipswich Town F.C. and then onto Norwich City F.C..
Naturally, we don't own the pages so we'd like to encourage as many people as possible who have a passing interest in pushing an article to WP:FA or in the clubs themselves to get involved.  Typically, this process will start with me slapping a few dozen  tags on all uncited "facts".  It will make the article appear unsightly in the interim, but it is a very useful way of picking off original research.
While I realise there is a Article Improvement Drive already in play here in the project, I'd still like to encourage others to join in on this mini-version.
Please feel free to contact me or Dweller if you'd like to contribute to the drive or, better still, just get in there.  The Rambling Man 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA drive 

message: There’s a degree of disagreement—nothing like an edit war: only reasonable editors are involved!—here over how much credence to give to to the theory that the root cause was diamond smuggling. The theory seems plausible but also surprising and surprisingly single-sourced and undebated elsewhere. All knowledgable contributions welcomed. (And I will be very happy to leave the debate to people better versed in football history!) —Ian Spackman 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superga air disaster]] 

message: Could people please give their thoughts on whether the hide option should be added to Template:National squad. There's been a lot of discussion on whether these cause clutter, particularly given that they're likely to increase (e.g. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_8#All_national_team_Squad_TP_other_than_World_Cup), and someone suggested the idea of adding the hide option. I had a go User:ArtVandelay13/squadstest which seems to work fairly well, it won't break the existing templates were it changed over, and the only visual changes are pretty minor. No-one objected when I mentioned it on the Tfd page, but when I tried to change it it was reverted and locked, so I'm putting it to the wider community. Any ideas? 
Comparison:
ArtVandelay13 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to change the font colour of the show/hide on the France squad to white? I'm pretty clueless on that sort of thing. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear that you can, unfortunately. ArtVandelay13 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't they default to hide, with a "show" option? Otherwise there seems little point having the functionality... aLii 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do if there are multiple templates. ArtVandelay13 12:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National squad template 

message: This is rather process-wonkish of me, but can an admin move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C. over the redirect? Thanks. Oldelpaso 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Elisson • T • C • 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And beat me to listing it on the project page too. Oldelpaso 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin request 

message: I realize that he isn't the biggest star of English football, but he is the current leading scorer in the Conference National, and his rise to the level he is at is quite remarkable.  However, it's difficult for me to find much information regarding his career before Dagenham & Redbridge, and I can't find any biographical information either.  If anyone could assist in making this article more complete, it would be appreciated. Che84 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a warning - if this player hasn't played a game at Football League Two level or above, he'd be a likely candidate to be nominated for AfD - fchd 20:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he remains on Dagenham & Redbridge, he'll be in League Two very shortly, defeating the purpose of deleting it. Che84 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I'd recommend copying his article (from its edit page) into a text file in case the motion is to give it the chop at this moment in time. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Deleted in the past in fact - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson. I just had a few of the players from that AFd speedied as they had been re-created. Whilst policy tells me to go for Benson as well, as Che84 says, with Dagenham all but up I'm not sure there's much point. HornetMike 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Benson]] 

message: Today, User:SndrAndrss10 added 2000 and 2004 Euro Championship squad templates for Boudewijn Zenden. Now, I'm sure I remember there being consensus to get rid of these things- are am I just being hopelessly optimistic? Robotforaday 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That user has done the same for several England players. There's a couple of TfD discussions going on at the moment. - fchd 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the result of the TfD on the other templates was Keep, this presumably means that a precedent has now been created so there is nothing to prevent the re-creation of Template:England Squad 2000 European Championship & Template:England Squad 2004 European Championship which have only just been deleted, together with templates for every other international tournament there has ever been. What a mess! I'm off to create a template for the England squad for the 1884 British Home Championship. ;)  Daemonic Kangaroo 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't bother voting because I knew that we'd never get a concensus to delete. The same happened the last time. I've personally stopped bothering to be annoyed by templates. aLii 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but wonder how much better the football articles would be if people put their effort into actually writing interesting and engaging text rather than making "cool looking templates". I suppose I'll just have to follow the lead of others and try and not notice them. Robotforaday 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What an odd decision from the editor to declare it a consensus for "keep", when 9 people said to keep and 8 to delete. Surely this is a textbook case of "non consensus"? Robotforaday 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely they know consensus would be a landslide for one side? I believe it would be consensus if it was more than 75% for one side, no? CanbekEsen 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro Championship templates 

message: An anonymous user constantly has been changing the WP:FOOTBALL redirect to point to the american football wikiproject.  At this point, I'm not sure what do as it seems that the redirect was first used in this Wikiproject. // Laughing Man 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put it back with a note on my edit - it was originally established as an association football link. Maybe it needs to go to a disambiguation page that points at each of the existing football forms? Wiggy! 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since all incoming links to that redirect is to this project, I say keep it as it is. – Elisson • T • C • 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FOOTBALL]] redirect keeps getting changed 

message: Article has no "importance" rating. I'd also invite a member to reconsider the current "B" quality rating. Finally, the article's almost finished at peer review and will shortly be heading to WP:FAC. Tweaks, criticisms and suggestions from you, the people who understand the game are most welcome. Thanks. --Dweller 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now listed here so please, head over to support if you will, or provide comments, suggestions, etc.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given it an "A" rating, and given my support for it becoming a FA. I can't see there being a massive "Oppose" contingency, so the A rating indicates that it is nearly there (now we wait for the FAC to see if it goes to FA). Daniel Bryant 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Daniel. All contributions from this WikiProject gratefully received. --Dweller 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops... sorry, didn't mention it's at FAC now. And Norwich City F.C. is the next project for The Rambling Man and myself - in fact, we've already done quite a lot of work, but not sufficient to list yet at Peer Review, let alone FAC. --Dweller 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ipswich Town F.C.]] 

message: I am seeking assistance from people knowledgeable about the criteria used to determine whether English soccer clubs are notable. We are looking to develop something for for the various codes of football notable in Australia and we are looking to use that as a possible model. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find it tough to apply the English model to many other countries. As far as I'm aware it's simply a case of Tier-10 of the league system, and above is notable. However England does have 4 fully-professional, and 1 nearly-fully-professional tiers. Perhaps you could look at doubling the number of professional tiers to get your limit (Would that be 2)? Of course there are always exceptional cases of noteability too.. aLii 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top-10 tier rule is based on the basis that that is the entry requirement (more or less) for clubs to enter the FA Cup, the senior national cup competition. I would suggest using that as a rule, except there is no national cup in Australia (according to this), though you could perhaps apply the same rule to the various state- or territory-based cups in the country. May not be the best yardstick but it is a suggestion. Qwghlm 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of English soccer clubs 

message: I'd like to discuss the abbreviation SAFC, which has wider implications for abbreviations of football teams in general. My opinion is that if a team is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, it is also notable to have its abbreviated form appear on a disambiguation page, assuming that the abbreviated form is actually used anywhere in the outside world. Surely a redirect should only be used where there is only one entity to take that abbreviated form?
To that end, I made SAFC a disambig page, pointing to both Sunderland A.F.C.. and Stirling Albion F.C.. But it keeps being reverted back to a redirect to Sunderland A.F.C. only. Having reverted it twice myself, I would rather get a consensus here than enter into an edit war. I did mention it on the Sunderland A.F.C. talk page but it only generated one response.
I completely accept that Sunderland are more notable than Stirling Albion, but Stirling Albion can be abbreviated to SAFC - see here - so surely they should be included? Thoughts anyone? --Jameboy 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be kept as a disambig page in my view; it could also stand for South Adelaide FC, and of course it may not be used just for football clubs: a quick Google finds it can also stand for Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, South Australian Film Corporation, and is the former stock exchange code for Safeco. Qwghlm 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and Sigma-Aldrich Fine Chemicals as well. Qwghlm 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with previous all comments. Should be a disambig page. aLii 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too ChrisTheDude 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And me WikiGull 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And me. I'm not in the mood to edit-war, so I'll leave it to someone else. Daniel Bryant 12:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and made the change ChrisTheDude 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a little bit of a cleanup, following the lead of CCM. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SAFC]] and abbreviations in general 

message: Hey, thanks to all who contributed and suggested, Ipswich Town F.C. is now a featured article, making it only the sixth English club article to reach this status, and only the second outside the top flight.  Hurrah.  The Rambling Man 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Featured Article 

message: There appears to be significant crossover between the articles Local derbies in the United Kingdom  and List of football (soccer) rivalries. Can these be merged or somehow restructured to prevent duplication? --Jameboy 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football rivalries - duplication of info. 

message: Should a player who was signed for some club, but have never played for it, categorized as a player of this club? MaxSem 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean should we add, for example, :Category:Arsenal F.C. players to a player who's in the squad but has never played a match for the club?  I'd say no, personally.... ChrisTheDude 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say yes. If a player has been part of the squad then others may have information on that player and if he's in a category would be able to spot him there and add the info. I see categories as an aid to expanding content rather than just a list of players. WikiGull 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes - if they have been under contract (loan or permanent) with a club and registered with them, then they are player with that club. Current first-team squad members who have not yet played a game would naturally be given the category so it makes sense to extend this to past ones as well. Qwghlm 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes per WikiGull and Qwghlm. – Elisson • T • C • 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The :Category:Leeds United AFC players stats that "This page lists footballers who have played a 1st team match for Leeds United, of Leeds, England."  This should be changed because this is the only category where you have to have played a 1st team game to get in so the likes of Folan and Seaman miss out.Kingjamie 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But were Folan or Seaman ever full professional players for Leeds, or even included in match squads for official matches? If not, this is a different issue. Given that an appearance with a fully professional club is a notability criteria, it makes sense to leave out players who were neither a member of the first team squad or signed to a professional contract with a club. Ytny (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Folan and Seaman were professionals, Folan was still at Leeds into his 20s. ArtVandelay13 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No definition of x player requires the player to have actually played a first-team game, merely to have been part of the playing squad. To omit players who haven't played renders the category incomplete. The exceptions I'd make are for triallists (except those in countries where they can play for thr first-team), and players that have left clubs before the age of 16. ArtVandelay13 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other exception that should be made, apart from trialists, is players who "guested" for other teams during wartime football - in England at least, this was a highly erratic and idiosyncratic arrangement on a match-by-match basis, not like the formal loans system of today. Qwghlm 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the precedent is yes. See Dietmar Hamann and :category:Bolton Wanderers F.C. players. The players of nowadays should not be a problem, as they have to sign a contract and the club has to hold the registration (approved by FA or FIFA etc.), so trialists don't count. Not sure about those of yesteryears though. Chanheigeorge 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say no. In my opinion, until he plays for club, he's not a "player". Seaman for example, might be a member of Category:Leeds United reserves players (if such a category ever existed), but not Category:Leeds United players. - fchd 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that if a player has had a professional contract with the club, they should be included in the category. I know it's a bit dodgy with people who didn't actually play, but seeing as they were a player for said club I think they should be included. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing players 

message: Perhaps someone could take a look at this new article List of "D" Football Squads, please? Means nothing to me I'm afraid. (Though I see its just been put up for a speedy so you may have to be quick!) TerriersFan 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious hoax, but hoaxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. I've changed the tag to prod. Oldelpaso 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of "D" Football Squads 

message: Would you guys please add your opinions in here? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1951 Copa Rio 

message: I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. Does anyone object?--Ioshus(talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there's a more proper name for it? "Magic spray" sounds like it should be a re-direct. aLii 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic sponge? Oldelpaso 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes magic sponge is a part of it. Maybe a bigger article like On field first aid in Football. Maybe you're right Magic spray and Magic sponge could both redirect. From what I have read, the magic sponge has gone out of fashion lately, and the spray has become more commonly used.--Ioshus(talk) 05:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  magic spray 

message: I've been doing some expansion work on Corinthian F.C., and I noticed that, although their adult side folded, they appear to still field teams at youth levels - should they therefore be included in :Category:Defunct English football clubs?  The club itself isn't technically defunct, but its adult 11-a-side team is.  Any thoughts....? ChrisTheDude 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the senior team, and as the senior team is defunct, the category is appropriate. Oldelpaso 09:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree - as the entity still operates at some level it is not a defunct club. Articles are about clubs not just their first teams - though obviously that dominates coverage within the articles, it doesn't have to be exclusively about the first team. Qwghlm 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with Oldelpaso here. The article is about the senior team, and the category should reflect that the senior team is defunct. Since the youth teams themselves are not notable enough on their own, then the categorisation should not have anything to do with the those. We don't include youth players in the player category of a club, and the same reasoning should be used here. My 2 öre. – Elisson • T • C • 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct or not defunct? 

message: I'd appreciate it if someone using a browser other than Firefox wouldn't mind comparing the appearances/goals section here and here and letting me know if the former looks right in their browser. I'm puzzled and slightly frustrated by the anonymous editor's ~3,000 contributions. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it makes the clubs 'rows' misaligned from the years and apps (in IE aswell). I've noticed it and fixed it a few times, I didn't realise it was so widespread. ArtVandelay13 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird indeed. The first one is messed up in Firefox, but the second one is messed up in IE6. I guess the moral of this story is "don't put flags in the infobox." aLii 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flags issue is a losing battle, I'm sad to say. They'll soon be appearing in a managerial succession box near you. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one looks terrible in IE6, the flags all run together to form what looks like a big stick of seaside rock! ChrisTheDude 07:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking. It seems the editor had the right idea but went the wrong way about it. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard breaks in infobox 

message: I created this article a while back now, but I seem to be the only one contributing to it. Just thought I'd make you guys aware of its existence, and hopefully get you to make some contributions. I feel it could be a featured article. Cheers. GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism in football 

message: I thinking of getting MiszaBot to archive this talk page automatically when topics have had no discussion for a while (two weeks? a month?). While I don't anticipate any objections, I thought I'd check first. Oldelpaso 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of talk page 

message: Someone put a page I made about my local side up for speedy deletaion, and it got deleted. I however feel this was unfairly justified. 
Clubs in the Scottish Amateur League(Lowland clubs usually) are allowed pages.
If I followed the criteria from here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability it says your club is "Probably Notable" if you have supplied a player to a national side, wait we have - Andy Gray, albeit that he didn't get chosen until he was at Dundee United. And alot of clubs in Scotland have never supplied a player to the National side, I ask how many players for East Stiringshire have gone on to supply a player for the national side, same with Gretna, same with Elgin.
Another point that is made is the 10+caps rule. 10+ Caps, nail on the head there, how many caps did Andy Gray win? 100+ appearence for a club? he made over 100 appearences for two top level clubs. He played for in all 7 premier divison sides of their respected nations, winning the Cup Winners Cup with one of them, Everton.
Oh another one, clubs, who don't normally charge an entrance fee for spectators, i'll have you know that you do need to pay to get in to a Back Fc game, who do you think we are, a school side?
Also why do England get to have pages for clubs from the first 8 divisons of football? I'm sure the Amateur seen is probably in the top 6 of the Scottish divisons.
Well since you deleted the page, I demand that these club pages should be deleted too since they play at the EXACT same level, except in a different region, but no, I don't see anyone rushing to delete these pages.
St Patrick's Former Pupils F.C. Oban Saints F.C. Eaglesham Amateur F.C.
And all the clubs playing in this league, Central Scottish Amateur Football League and this league Kingdom Caledonian Football League. They all play at the exact same level, and all the clubs are registered with the Scottish Amateur Football Association
Its discrimination against my club I reckon.
So can someone please explain to me why the page got deleted.
Allanmac9 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on user talk. Oldelpaso 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its difficult to tell without seeing the deleted revision (can't find it in the deletion log), but it sounds like a speedy that would perhaps have been better going to AfD. Oldelpaso 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article title had quotation marks around it, possibly "Back F.C."? Archibald99  15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Found it - . Archibald99  15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now on AfD. Oldelpaso 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back Fc 

message: I thought members of the project might like to respond to this question on the Motherwell F.C. talk page. Archibald99  23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ratings garbage" 

message: Both these pages appear to be a bit of a mess with dead links, multiple links, numerous unverified sources and lists of unverified groups. Both pages are full of alleged ultras groups, many of which are not verified. And it just seems that groups keep getting added without being checked. For instance, in one of the list of groups, a German club - FC Berliner Dynamo has numerous entries. Yet when checked, they all just seem to be links to fan websites, and nothing to do with ultras. 
Also, some of the content is more relevant to the pages about football hooliganism, which whilst a similar area is a different subject. I would like to try and work on both the pages to see if they can be made more appropriate for wikipedia and to also then maybe get the idea tp merge the List of ultras groups into the Ultras page finally sorted (At present it would probably  make the pages even worse to merge them). It wouldn't be an overnight task as it would take a while to get everything sorted. Would it be in order to make a start on this? Thanks Tangerines 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific problem you cite related to Berliner FC Dynamo is the result of the misconduct of a particular user and (now) his sockpuppets. If you're curious about the mess you can review that article's history or the related material on this page. I wouldn't feel particularly constrained in patching that stuff up. As for the rest, fixing up articles is good! I say go for it and have fun. Wiggy! 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought that the example I gave of Berliner FC Dynamo would have been that very same user, having read about the user above! No surprises there really! I will have a go at sorting out both pages this weekend (I did a few days ago partly clean up the England section on the List of ultras groups page). And then, once done, see what everyone thinks. It might look completely different though as there are a lot of dead links on the pages! Thanks, Tangerines 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If material has been merged from one into the other, then it should be turned into a redirect, which you can do without a special process. Oldelpaso 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ultras]] and [[List of ultras groups]] 

message: I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a Category for renaming. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen. --Dweller 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now correctly placed at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen --Dweller 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Cat rename 

message: An edit war has been taking place over the last few days, revolving around Shevvy's birthplace. Should it be the USSR, or the supposedly "generally accepted" Ukraine, even though it didn't exist as a country at the time of his birth? Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 10:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed a compromise wording on its talk page. MaxSem 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use Ukrainian SSR. The problem with using Ukraine it that the entity he was born in was not called Ukraine at the time, thus constituting a case of systemic bias towards modern times. Punkmorten 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andriy Shevchenko]] 

message: ==== All squads from most recent federation championship (EURO, Asia Cup, etc) ====
* Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of national team squad templates

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All squads from most recent federation championship (EURO, Asia Cup, etc) 

message: * Weak keep Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions from most recent federation championship 

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All squads from most recent Confederations Cup 

message: * Weak DeleteNeier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions from most recent Confederations Cup 

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All squads from all federations championships 

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions from all federations championships 

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All squads from all Confederations Cups 

message: * Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions from all Confederations Cups 

message: Allo all,
I may not be the only one in thinking that the current football league template lacks a bit of style and information and could do with a revamping, so, I was going to propose that something got under way to standardising it to a different one, I was going to suggest one like that here. Please get back to me with your thoughts.Cintrianex 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean the infobox, as per our contact over talk pages. I'll repeat what I said there - I don't like infoboxes at all per se, but appreciate I'm in a small minority there. Therefore I'd like to keep them as compact as possible, for instance keep the levels on the pyramid out because that's shown in the text of the article and in the templates at the bottom. One thing for sure, I'd heavily argue against the inclusion of "px" sized text - that goes against all known accessibility guidelines - I know what sized text is comfortable for me, but only me. Therefore keep text where possible at 100% - the USER'S default size. - fchd 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football league template 

message: I've created a WikiProject on Irish football for anyone who is interested in participating or helping out. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Irish Football 

message: The Brazilian biographies have become very large, and I've proposed some sub-types.  Please comment there if you've a view on the most useful way of doing this.  Alai 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "footy-bio" types proposed 

message: Hi all. I'm having a problem with an anon editor User:62.77.178.117 who keeps changing the placing of the place of birth in Roddy Collins. I don't understand the edit comments about as it's in the infobox it shouldn't be in the text, and then putting in the text next to date of birth. According to the template it should be outside of the date of birth bracket (I have tried pointing the editor to the template page and inviting discussion via my talk page, but s/he communicates via edit comments only), so that's what I've done - I know there are many pages that don't comply with the template, but I try to correct them as I edit for other reasons. Any thoughts on this problem appreciated. It's not a major issue, but what's the point in templates if we don't need to stick to them? WikiGull 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon. editor is stating that "Dublin" shouldn't be in the prose, but that's where he/she is putting it? - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was (born XX/X/19XX in Dublin), so I followed the template and moved the place of birth to the prose, but the anon keeps moving it back. They are arguing that because it's in the infobox it is stupid that it is also in the text, but at the same time keep moving it back to the data of birth brackets. Two issues I guess, 1) the edit comments don't make any sense, and b) if we are to follow the template how to get this editor to stop making the changes. WikiGull 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer the anon's style, and it's what I always use, taking my inspiration from the Denis Law FA. The current version you've written is far more clunky in comparison. (born 7 August 1961 in Dublin) is surely better than (born 7 August 1961) He was born in Dublin. I understand that you have style guides on your side, but I don't see why you should make an edit war over such a minor matter. aLii 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. I think the template guidelines need a little tweaking. In its current guise, having the place of birth elsewhere in the article doesn't make much sense.  - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually agree with a change in the template guidelines as well (I'm not suggesting that the way I've written it is better). WikiGull 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth in text 

message: Can someone take a look at this? I originally DB-BIO'd it but on reflection I actually don't know enough about the criteria we place on notable sportsmen - do we find schoolboys notable even if they play for the under-15s side of a large club? --Fredrick day 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help required on schoolboy article 

message: I know that I cleaning out my watchlist and started all over again, I add myself to the participants list, so I want to know what the club articles (or stubs) are needed to be contributed/editing, so contact me anytime and I will help improving the article... Rakuten06 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your pick from :Category:English football club stubs - it's nearly down to 600 but there's still a loooooooooong way to go! ChrisTheDude 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about A.F.C. Portchester?? Is it a good stub for me to work on or want me to pick another team?? Rakuten06 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Club Articles that needs editing?? 

message: I reverted his absolutely bogus addition to FC Spartak Moscow, but I'm unfaminliar with subjects of other articles he edits as they're related to Iranian football. Could someone inspect his contribs for more factual errors? MaxSem 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Contributions/LuBu24|LuBu24]] 

message: There are currently 9 articles listed at WP:MWA#Football that might be of interest to this project.  --Sapphic 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and even more in the "general" section. Such as Swedish football clubs. I'm looking at you, Elisson ;) Punkmorten 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They get linked a lot from the tables of my seasons in Swedish football articles... The most commonly linked ones should have articles eventually, and I'll create them as time goes. I actually happened to create two new (of which one is on the list) just before I read your post. :) – Elisson • T • C • 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MWA|Most wanted articles]] 

message: There are two articles on seperate footballers called David McNiven - one original and one I created today. I think that David McNiven should be a disambig page, but I am stuck for rename titles: maybe David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and David McNiven (footballer born 1955). Any thoughts/help? Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just moved the first page to David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and repaired the links and templates etc. GiantSnowman 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David McNiven 

message: I think this article should be expanded to include every player who has represented England, and not just, as is currently, players who have 25+ caps. Any thoughts/objections? GiantSnowman 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, should be expanded. Archibald99  20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. A complete "list" is better kept as a category. – Elisson • T • C • 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But a category cannot give more information - for example, we could have date of first cap, age when first cap was won, opponents of first cap; date of last cap, age when last cap was won, opponents of last cap; number of goals, all in a sortable wikitable. GiantSnowman 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I quite like the idea of a football equilavent of List of English Test cricketers, with the information above. That said, the England players category currently contains 824 articles and is no doubt no fully populated. That's a big list, if done properly. So I'm ambivalent. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second what HornetMike says - a list of players is a good idea, with caps and appearances etc. included, more than a category can include. Qwghlm 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list similar to that for the cricketers would be great. Much more information than can be given in a category, but a huge undertaking (would be happy to help with it though). WikiGull 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use this as a basis; might need to be wary of copyright issues but you cannot really copyright lists of statistics so as long as the format was different from that one it'd be fine, in my opinion. Qwghlm 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll try and start doing something with this. Do we want to agree on the column headings?WikiGull 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest:
Name	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Age at first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap	Age at last cap
I also think the table should be organised by date of first cap.
Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about this (with first few lines)
Number	Name             	Date of birth  	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Venue of first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap
1     	Robert Barker    	June 19, 1847  	1   	0    	November 30, 1872	Scotland              	Hamilton Crescent 	                	
2     	Ernest Greenhalgh	August 22, 1848	2   	0    	November 30, 1872	Scotland              	Hamilton Crescent 	March 8, 1873   	Scotland
WikiGull 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the venue and opposition of first/last caps is a bit much (especially for narrower screens) - just the dates will do for now. Also I would get rid of the number column as well; I would just have name, DoB, caps, goals, first cap date, last cap date. Qwghlm 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - scrap number and venue. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me! GiantSnowman 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. However, whilst I see the reasons for just including flags, I think if you took this to FLC I think they'd automatically ask for full names. It's because not all flags are instantly recognisable. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of England international footballers 

message: Can we reach a consensus on how football seasons are styled in WP articles?
In the article on the British Home Championship I edited the table and text to show seasons in the format 1983-84 but this has been reverted back to the style 1983-1984. 
I had thought that this was clearly stated somewhere in a Manual of Style but I must confess that these are inconsistent. Of the various style manuals listed on WikiProject_Football the only help given is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Achievements which gives the seasons in the format 3332–33, whereas Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Competitions#Past_tournaments.2Fwinners uses the format 3332/33; so no consensus there!
I have therefore had a look at the pages for some of the national leagues which have produced the following results.
England
*Premier League: 2005–06
*Football League: 2005-06
*League One: 2005-06
*League Two: 2005-06
*Conference: 2005-06
*Southern League: 2005-06
Scotland
*SPL: 2005-06
*First Division: 2005/2006
*Second Division: 2005 - 2006 (also 2005/6 and 2006/07)
Italy 
*Serie A: 2005-06
*Serie B: 2005-06
France
*Ligue 1: 2005-06
*Ligue 2: 2005/06 
Germany
*Bundesliga: 2005/06
*Bundesliga 2: 2005/06
Spain
*La Liga
**Main article: Both 2006 and 2005-06
**Season by season: 2005/2006
*Segunda División
**Main article: Both 05-06 and 2005/06
**Season by season: 2005/2006
As you can see, the position in England and Italy is clear (fairly consistently using 2005-06) and Germany (2005/06), but in France, Scotland and Spain there is no consistency.
I know this subject has come up for discussion before here and briefly again here but neither debate was particularly conclusive nor were there exactly a large number of participants (6 in total over both discussions), so can we have a more lively debate so that a firm consensus can be arrived at and then incorporated into the manual of style?
My preference is clearly for the style 2005-06.    Daemonic Kangaroo 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I've always been (both in and out of Wikipedia) a fan of the fuller format (2006-2007) as it leaves no room for ambiguity and there is no question about how to write seasons like 1999-2000, but I really don't lose any sleep over it. My velleity is not repeated when it comes to the hyphen versus slash argument, though: it has to be the hyphen. The hyphen, representing the word 'to', indicates that the season runs over both years. A slash is often used as an alternatives ('and/or') or for lists of non-linked units (a shop may list its address as '1/3 Wiki Street' (number 2, of course, is on the other side of the road)). I really don't understand why it has taken off when writing football seasons. - Green Tentacle 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football seasons - Style 

message: In the same vein as Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Arsenal F.C. Reserves, would it be worth starting a Rangers version to trim some information from the main Rangers article? I feel I should ask for opinions on here first as there don't seem to be any similar articles outside the English Premiership. Archibald99  21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, don't see any reason why not GiantSnowman 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Don't like reserve articles myself, but if Liverpool and Arsenal have them there's no reason why Rangers shouldn't. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rangers F.C. Reserves]] 

message: Hey project dudes, a new page for you to critique if you'd be so kind.  I have an open peer review for it here.  As noted in the intro to the PR, I'd like this to be considered in a similar vein to English football champions, Danish football champions and Swedish football champions, all of which are already featured lists.  Once again, thanks for you time.  The Rambling Man 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if someone would be kind enough to re-classify it as I don't believe it's a Start kind of article any more!  Cheers!  The Rambling Man 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New peer review - [[Italian football champions]] 

message: I think it's fairly clear by now that we're deleting any players who have only played at Conference level or lower. I just wondered what everyone thought about various articles that I've discovered relating to specific conference seasons. These are: Conference National 2006-07 and Conference National Playoff Final 2003 2004, 2005 and 2006. They're all well written articles, but I was wondering whether, having established a clear cut-off point for players, we should also do so for various other articles about the game at this level? Thoughts? HornetMike 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various non-league articles 

message: we have a problem with some slovak players 
* Koloman Gögh, he is dead and was citizen of czechoslovakia later slovak, he used only slovak form of his name Koloman and at his grave is this slovak name too, but another user say he is hungarian soccerplayer without sources ....
* we have another player Balázs Borbély, Szilárd Németh ..., they play for slovak national team and they have names sounds hungarian, my question, is it possible to say they are hungarian or hungarians in slovakia without sources/living people? --Mt7 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were born in Slovakia and played for (Czecho)Slovakia, then they are Slovakian footballers, and unless they actually have dual nationality (and they don't seem to) then they don't belong in the Hungarian footballers category. There should be a category for Slovakians of Hungarian descent, to cover their ethnic background. ArtVandelay13 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you, another case Tamás Priskin, born in slovakia, he has slovak and hungarian passport, his youthyears in a slovak club, but play only for hungaran national team, in interview he said, I go once in week to home to Komarno/Slovakia (that time he played for Gyor), please correct category.--Mt7 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with nationality/ethnicity 

message: Is this article really a GA? I see no signs of it being reviewed and.. well... its not particularly that good. Mattythewhite 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, GA with zero in-text references. Suspicious. MaxSem 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Failed FAC. Archibald99  17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'm going to de-list it right now as it obviously doesn't meet GA criteria. Thanks for bringing it to attention MaxSem Mattythewhite. A new rating is welcomed, maybe start class? Punkmorten 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, seems like a suitable rating. And I brought it up.. :p Mattythewhite 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah :) actually it seems it was never a GA in the first place, it was just some person who unanimously gave it the rating. Punkmorten 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is when it was "promoted" to GA... August last year. How has it not been spotted in this length of time? Mattythewhite 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Linfield F.C.]] 

message: Do we list current article/list candidates in that table? I couldn't find any, nor any spot to put them. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do, just write "Current F*C" instead of "Failed F*C". I don't know whether they should have a brown background like the Current PR's do. Punkmorten 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing F*C's on [[WP:WPF]] 

message: I was surprised to see that forward redirected to striker, because the players whose positions I have listed as the former in the past definitely aren't strikers, in my opinion. I thought I'd mention the somewhat dusty discussion here. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another related old discussion. The redirect should be the other way around IMHO. Strikers are a subset of forwards. Oldelpaso 11:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward vs. striker 

message: Hey, please, please add comments (and hopefully support!) to the nomination for promoting Italian football champions to featured list status.  You can find the discussion here.  Thanks for your time.  The Rambling Man 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just put this on the project page? Punkmorten 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, probably, I hadn't thought of that.  I was just trying to get some interest.  Cool, I'll do that too.  Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh that project page.. yes, I've done that but in most cases changes there get ignored so I wanted to make sure it was publicised.  Hope that's not a big problem.  The Rambling Man 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New featured list candidate - Italian football champions 

message: Hi gents
Inspired by our friends from East Anglia, I've spent the last couple of days working hard on the article on my club, Gillingham, adding references, editing the text, removing pointless stuff, and so on.  I was wondering if people could take a look at it and see how close they think it now is to promotion to the dizzy heights of Good Article and beyond.  I appreciate that I still need to correctly format all the refs with  templates but I'll get to that shortly, I can't face it at the moment :-)  But any other comments would be much appreciated!
Cheers!!
ChrisTheDude 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now gone up for FAC - fingers crossed! ChrisTheDude 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gillingham F.C.]] - please take a look 

message: This might be more of a village pump question, but I thought I'd try here first.  What's the score with using programme covers to illustrate articles on clubs, etc?  As far as I can tell from looking at the various image tags, if they were to be classed as magazines then they could only be used to illustrate an article on the magazine itself and, let's face it, nobody's going to create Manchester United's programme.  Alternatively if you cheat a bit and class them as event "posters" then they could only be used for articles on the specific event i.e. the match itself, which only works for a notable match like a final.  So as far as I can see they can't be used in articles on clubs - am I right.....? ChrisTheDude 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question. I'd also be interested in the answer to this. I would guess that they are classed as magazines from a legal standpoint, but I'm sure there must be someone out there who works in the trade, who could give a definitive answer. Football programmes contain a wealth of information which could be used to improve articles. I assume that one could "cite" a programme as per a magazine. Indeed some football programmes are now referred to as the "matchday magazine". --Jameboy 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify - the issue I'm concerned with is not using programmes as a source, that'd be fine as far as I know, but rather using an actual programme cover as an illustration within an article - in the example I was looking at, I was going to use the cover of the programme for Gillingham's first match in the Football League to illustrate the point that they got elected, but if classed as a magazine then the cover could only be used to illustrate an article on Gillingham's programme itself.... ChrisTheDude 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it can be allowed. Fair use allows usage when discussing the work itself, not what the work depicts. So an image of a programme cover to illustrate discussion of Gillingham FC's publications or fan culture (the work itself), but not promotion (which is what the work depicts). Looking at the examples of unacceptable use, points 2 and 6 seem to be quite relevant to this case. Qwghlm 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of programme covers 

message: As the time approaches when we'll be making up end-of-season league tables, I thought I'd re-open this discussion from a few months back about creating a standard league table format. Any thoughts? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for standardisation - the two main points I would have are - 1) Keep the points column to the right hand side, and 2) Keep use of colour to indicate things to a minimum. If it HAS to be used, give a clear indication alongside in text form as well. And, again if colour HAS to be used, keep it to pale pastel shades so that the underlying text can be read easily. - fchd 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardisation of league tables 

message: User:Cintrianex has created some articles on the cups run by various lowly leagues, such as the Northern Counties East Football League Wilkinson Sword Trophy and even the West Riding County Amateur Football League Division Two Cup - are competitions like this really notable.......? ChrisTheDude 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word - no. Archibald99  20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the teams competing appear to me notable, so I may be wrong? Archibald99  20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The West Riding Amateur teams definitely aren't notable..... ChrisTheDude 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Meltham AFC should be deleted, non? WATP  20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do the cups need seperate pages? Could they not be merged into the main articles on each league bearing in mind the level of the leagues?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about keeping Northern Counties Cup while delete West Riding Cup because they're amateur and not professional, so what about it?? Rakuten06 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, league and/or divisional cups are fairly minor competitions, best mentioned in league articles if at all. The same goes for individual divisions of leagues. There's nothing I can think of that would belong in an individual divisional article at this level that wouldn't be better off in the main league article. To that effect, I've turned the Premier and Division One pages for the Western League into re-directs to the main Western League page. I've not gone any further in case I get a consensus against. I've amended the templates at the bottom of the affected pages to remove the links, but not yet checked for other double redirects that I have inadvertently created. - fchd 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with fchd on this one - all divisions of any league below Conference level should be merged into the main league article - there is little to be said for them anyway. Qwghlm 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-league cups 

message: I disagree with the current criteria of notability of athletes; more specifically that of youth footballers.
Notability meriting an article in Wikipedia seem to stipulate first team appearences. 
I would suggest that:
1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof). 
2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.
It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) in just a few years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not! 
There are players in a youth international squad that may never turn professional, but at the same time there are players that with high probability (on the verge of certainty) will be first team players if not big stars. I'm not saying that membership of a youth national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. BTW ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 44,100 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 294. Se [[==Prominent youth footballers==
I disagree with the current criteria of notability of athletes; more specifically that of youth footballers.
Notability meriting an article in Wikipedia seem to stipulate first team appearences. 
I would suggest that:
1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof). 
2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.
It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) in just a few years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not! 
There are players in a youth international squad that may never turn professional, but at the same time there are players that with high probability (on the verge of certainty) will be first team players if not big stars. I'm not saying that membership of a youth national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. BTW ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 44,100 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 294. See [notability] talkpage for discussion.Sebisthlm 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youth footballers´notability 

message: Should we also consider including Good Article Candidates on the "Featured and good articles" section in the main WikiProject page? Currently on WP:GAC there are at least three football-related nominees (Arjen Robben, Liverpool F.C. and U.S. Città di Palermo). --Angelo 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nominees 

message: There is a sourced statement on the Rangers F.C. article saying Rangers are the most successful club in the world in terms of trophies won, but apparently Linfield F.C. have a claim to this, although there are doubts about whether or not some of Linfield's trophies are "first-class". Could a consensus be reached as to which is correct? WATP  20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangers have won the most major trophies, phrasing it that way would work. Linfield have won more trophies in total, but that includes local competitions, using that metric Macclesfield Town have won 36. Perhaps some wording about national competitions? Oldelpaso 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one can get sniffy about the Irish FA cup then i'm sure Juve fans can get very sniffy indeed about the tennents sixes, the glasgow cup, the league cup and even league titles for that matter. If you want to create a debate whereby the threshold of worthiness is placed just below scottish competitions then you can't really make it a global statement that's ridiculous.Hermangelmet 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, Linfield have won the NI league trophy 46 times, The Irish FA cup 37 times, the league cup 28 times and the all ireland trophy 4 times there's the domestic major trophies. So that's linfield 115 vs Rangers 106.Hermangelmet 09:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linfield's own article states that they have won the League Cup only 8 times, where did the other 20 wins come from?  The current honour roll on their article gives a total of 92 "major" trophy wins, or 96 if the "all-Ireland" is included.... ChrisTheDude 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rangers vs Linfield - Most successful club? 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man (signed as a member of this Project under his previous name, Budgiekiller). Whichever way you choose to !vote, I would be glad if you would indicate your membership of this WikiProject. --Dweller 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member RfA 

message: Something I learned yesterday that I thought is worth mentioning here. If an article has no references but was written from information at Soccerbase, Neil Brown's site,  etc. (see Ian Gore, for example), we're supposed to put that URL in the references section, not the external links, per WP:Cite (All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links").
Some of you likely knew this. I didn't, however. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And many of the referee articles! I'm going to get to work on them soon, to correct this. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links vs. References 

message: Hi. I believe I have seen this problem commented on somewhere before, but just to heads-up and recruit if possible. There are currently countless articles with Wikilinks to the wrong Wembley (for instance, in 1966, England won the World Cup at Wembley. The correct reference is Wembley.
I have recently set about the task, and would urge those of you who don't get bored too easily to give us a hand! There are thousands to get through.
I go to this page, and click on one of the many links to articles supposedly to do with New Wembley. I then set up Internet Explorer to 'Find' [[Wembley Stadium, find next, and this shows me the reference. If it is retrospective (i.e. a record of what happened in the past at the old stadium), it needs changing to "(1924)". If it is predictive (i.e. a future event at the new stadium), it stays as 'New Wembley', if you see what I mean. I always leave an edit summary ("amend wembley reference") to guard against accusations of vandalism.
Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. In the above, go to the Edit Page and 'find next' for it to work (and to edit it, obviously). Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced of two things - a) the need for two articles, in my opinion it is just a rebuild on the same site and should be covered within the same article, and b) the "1924" date. As the stadium opened at least in 1923, and the rationale for the 1924 date on the article in question is weak to say the least, if a split article is needed it should be entitled Wembley Stadium (1923). - fchd 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pros and cons can be debated elsewhere, I am simply highlighting the need to protect Wikipedia from ridiculous linking. I don't intend to open up a debate by this, just take on board whoever wants to give it a go. I don't mind doing it on my own. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I had wondered why it was called 1924 when the first Cup Final took place there in 1923... That said I do see the need for two separate articles, as a merged article would probably be too big, and the two stadiums were completely different structures. To be honest though this sounds like a job for AWB rather than doing it by hand. Qwghlm 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But until then..... :-) Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for the (weak, IMO) justification for the 1924 date...... ChrisTheDude 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is an AWB going to differentiate between retrospective and predictive references (although if it can be done, hush my mouth)? Anyway, just cleared all the "Wembley stadium" redirects..... :-) Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Wembley vs. New Wembley 

message: Some input from other parties required at Talk:Argentina_and_England_football_rivalry#Mocking_Photo_removed. Jooler 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handbag image debate 

message: Is it possible that the above article could be changed so that only registered users are allowed to edit? For a few days I have been working on the article as it has been a mess, and had clear bias, POV, weasel words etc. I have removed whole sections which were unsourced and replaced them with sourced information. I have also working on removing bias, POC etc. It is though a gradual process, but I am being hampered by what seems to be one anonymous user who keeps disrupting all this, and not be assisting, but by both adding vandalism (stating that Celtic FC fans are nazis for instance) and by deleting whole sections without reason and keeps adding words such as psychotic (spelt psycotic) to describe the English, Serbian and Germans, and also keeps adding stuff such as hyper-violent, manic, mentally unbalanced, pathetic etc etc to describe England. 
I have tried to reason with the user to no avail. And each time I find the vandalism and change it, the user comes back again and does more. If the article is to be brought into some sort of order and be neutral then it would help if only registered users were allowed to edit. There are some sections which are bias and the user has my sympathy in that there in parts appears to be clear bias, but it is a work-in-progress. The user appears under a number of unregistered users - 86.29.251.56, 86.25.48.201, 86.25.50.25, 86.29.253.97, 86.29.255.209, 86.29.245.93 - all of which appear to be the same user. Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Qwghlm 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the assistance. I realise the article is still not decent, with some sections now ok, and others still a mess. But I plan on keep working on it and now it should be easier not having to deal with seemingly mischievous edits.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[Football (soccer) hooliganism]] 

message: I have recently been editing or creating articles about players or seasons from the Victorian era, when the concept of 4-4-2 etc. was unheard of. In those days, players played in positions such as "Centre-half" or "inside-left" and the standard formation was 2-3-5 i.e. 2 fullbacks (right and left), 3 half-backs (right, left and centre) and 5 forwards (inside & outside right & left, plus centre-forward).
The article on Football (soccer) positions describes modern positions, but when writing about a Victorian centre-half, should this be linked to midfielder or to defender? (It should be somewhere in the middle.) Ideally, there should be an article explaining former positions and formations to which articles about the early days of football can be linked. Is there anyone out there who feels competent/knowledgeable to create this?   Daemonic Kangaroo 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out, all teams (as far as I know) used the same formation in those days, so maybe an article could be created something like 2-3-5 formation, in which the positions could be outlined along with their differences from current positions.....?  Just a thought..... ChrisTheDude 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Football (soccer) positions]] 

message: Just wanted to bring the above article to the attention of a wider audience. I can't help but feel there are obvious inclusions missing. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is surely POV. Either it includes all one-club men (which would be a gigantic list) or it depends on some subjective decisions about who's worth including and who isn't. --Dweller 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself states that it lists all players who were at their club for 15 or more years, no subjective decision there unless you consider a 15 year limit to be a subjective decision. However it may be a better idea to just list all one-club men who have articles. - MTC 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[One-club man]] 

message: I don't know if any one else has mentioned/suggested this, but why not condense each team's season-by-season history into decades, in the style used by the Baseball WikiProject for an individual MLB season (example). Would perhaps make the pages more managable? Nightfreak 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand - the example you point to is of a single season, not a decade. Could you mock something up in a sandbox? --Dweller 11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season-by-Season 

message: This edit seems to have created a massive amount of whiteyellow-space in the template. I don't want to straight-out revert the edits, as that would actually break some of the templates with the irish=yes bit, but could someone try and rectify the situation to remove the big empty space in it? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've solved the problem... the price is that  causes things to break, but an article can't be about English non-League football and about Irish football at the same time, so it shouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Daniel Bryant 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break in template 

message: some editor made a nonsense article about a hoax manager [here]. Please remove it. 80.58.205.35 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to whoever deleted the article. You did well. Have a cookie. 80.58.205.35 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax 

message: User:Doma-w has been creating a lot of articles on individual matches from the Olympic games like this one.  What's the consensus on articles on individual games?  I can understand articles for, say, World Cup Finals, but is this editor going to find their hard work removed if someone decides to AfD this lot?  and if so, might it better to warn them now before s/he wastes any more effort?  Cheers, EliminatorJR Talk 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to pretty much all of that. Articles on major cup finals etc. are fine, run of the mill early-stage tournament matches such as this should not have their own article. Besides, those articles consist solely of statistical content which is non-encyclopedic in nature. Oldelpaso 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Left a message on the user's talk page. EliminatorJR Talk 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard WP:N criteria apply here, no? Though I assume simple match reports would fall under "trivial coverage", since every match these days get recaps in multiple sources. --Ytny (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the test should be some variant of the "will this be remembered in 100 years?" criterion. Cup finals, title deciders and major international tournament matches highly significant matches in international tournaments fall under that but not obscure Olympic matches. Am willing to nominate them all for deletion if no-one else fancies the leg-work. Qwghlm 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the justification is that before the 1930 World Cup, the Olympic Games was the major international tournament. I still would support deletion of all but perhaps the games from the semi-finals onwards, provided of course that reliable sourcing can be found for those medal-deciding matches. - fchd 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased what I said, as it did not convey what I meant. I would balk at most World Cup group matches being covered in the same detail to be honest. In any case the Olympics wasn't the major international tournament, as it was only an amateur contest, and professionalism was in full swing by 1912, in the UK and much of Europe at least. Qwghlm 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nominate and burn (with fire). – Elisson • T • C • 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for deleting basically every single one. Daniel Bryant 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on individual games 

message: I was looking at the above earlier today (nice work, Johan Elisson) and thought it might be time to bring it more in line with what's actually going into club articles, if that doesn't sound backwards. I've seen elements in several articles that I think would be worthwhile introducing into more articles (though, of course, I'm drawing a blank as I type). I'll refer to the relevant discussion page when they occur to me, and I'd urge others to do the same. With close-seasons almost upon us, it would be a good time to get club articles tidied up, but we'll always have our work cut out with player articles, of course (Eufa Cup, indeed). - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to do something like that for some time (about the same amount of time I've been meaning to write a football club editing advice page), so sounds good to me. One example is that the notable players section is deprecated in many cases. Oldelpaso 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost all of the manual of styles are somewhat deprecated by this stage (most of the stuff was written by me in 2005... it's amazing to see how much has happened since :]), even though they provide a fairly good start, most of them are in need for some kind of update. I've been less active lately, and considering that the spring has finally arrived to Sweden, I'm not likely to increase my activity in the next few weeks, but I'll help out as good as I can. – Elisson • T • C • 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've always tried to follow that manual of style. My last few articles, U.S. Città di Palermo and G.S. Mazara 1946, have been clearly written in that sense, so I guess it is still a valid source. A very short number of possible fixes might be considered for paragraphs such as "notable players" and "notable managers" (as lately I was thinking over about the notion of notability in itself) and some of Oldelpalo's considerations. --Angelo 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be a good idea. I've looked at the Bristol Rovers current season article, and it looks pretty, but it's full of lists and clearly misses of prose. A good idea would be to add a main paragraph where to describe how and what the club did in the related season. Following this paragraph, all the lists and the table graph (that looks really cute) are good to be included. --Angelo 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll have a go at that. I think it might be a good idea to write an introduction to each section as well, rather than going straight into each list. Gasheadsteve 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the club MOS has stood the test of time, which is a credit to Johan :) Although a lot of articles tweak it slightly, this is natural as no subject (club) is the same. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs|Club-article manual of style]] 

message: What do people think about creating a list of football teams in cities e.g. London, Rio de Janiero, Buenos Airies etc. This woule be especially relevant for South American countries, as teams are rarely named after their home city. GiantSnowman 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the likes of List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries cover this.  There is also an article Football in London.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I'm not sure what additional information this would add beyond the list of football clubs in country/continent articles, which list (or ought to list) the towns and cities that clubs hail from, such as List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries is a featured list (List of football clubs in Argentina etc. could easily use the same format, and probably should). Oldelpaso 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was already aware of Football in London (I started it!) but wasn't aware of articles such as List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries etc....thanks. I suppose that covers Europe, but what about South America? GiantSnowman 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha silly me, just checked that CONMEBOL link, thats what I ws looking for, thanks! GiantSnowman 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a single, European or South-American, city provides a very high number of notable pro teams, as it happens with London (very good article by the way, I found it really useful), in my opinion it should be eligible for a standalone article. For instance Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires would be, but Rome not, as the latter is home to only three professional teams. --Angelo 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Would there be any value in converting the tables within the lists of top division clubs in each confederation into sortable tables?  That way users could sort the list by city to see which cities have multiple clubs.  Just a thought.... ChrisTheDude 07:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football teams per city 

message: This forum thread got me thinking: should we perhaps start an article with a list of relatives involved in football? We could include the Schmiechels, Nevilles, Davids, Seerdorfs, Terrys etc. GiantSnowman 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a very, very rough draft here; ignore the page title, was used for a previous project of mine GiantSnowman 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - is there any encyclopaedic value to lists like this, or is it just trivia? - fchd 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's borderline cruft of little real value. Also it's not actually that rare - many footballers have relatives who play, as it's often part of family tradition. Qwghlm 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this list will be far too big to manage. Without really trying I can think of Xabi Alonso, Pepe Reina, Paul Anderson, Scott Carson and John Arne Riise who all have next-of-kin footballer relations, and that's just from one team. aLii 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives in football 

message: I recently added Template:Football League Championship, Template:Football League One and Template:Football League Two teamlist to my watchlist, anticipating people adding teams to their promoted/relegated league in advance, as happened last year. Now, they're quite patently getting edited, but they're not showing up on my watchlist and their history shows no record of the edits. Am I going mad? HornetMike 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Football League Championship template, which was last modified on late January, is made up as composition of at least two other templates, Template:Football League Championship teamlist (which was modified today) and Template:Football in England table cells (last change on March). Are they on your watchlist? --Angelo 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahhh, I see. The first two are composites of the standard English template and the specific league list to be stuck on all team pages to save space. The latter is one part of the League Two composite! That does get changed, whilst the former two don't. I'll change my watchlist accordingly. HornetMike 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates oddity 

message: This user returned changing the header style on the football squad template set, now removing at all every single colour from the table. The result was terribly ugly at my eyes, and as this is not the first time he acts this way I reverted all his edits. Please look in particular at the Fs start and Fs mid templates.--Angelo 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to my watchlist. – Elisson • T • C • 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I think User:Ed g2s's version is better. The amount of pointless, quite often bright and dark, colour that is creeping in to articles and templates is making them more difficult to read. In my opinion of course. - fchd 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it'd be great if the blue was changed. It hardly befits a Liverpool or Manchester United article. aLii 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already discussed the matter, and a consensus emerged not to personalize colours according to the teams' official colours. In addition, I firmly believe a fully-transparent header would appear quite ugly. We might instead think about changing the blue to a better colour, but possibly to be unique for all articles. --Angelo 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We? We who? I've never discussed it before. aLii 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I like having the light blue colour as some kind of "football article theme". Not only is the colour used for the teamlist, it is also used for the headers in most football navboxes. Saying it hardly befits a "red team" article is, IMHO, pretty much nonsense, as those articles usually are full of blue links giving the article a "blue theme" more than anything else. – Elisson • T • C • 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's merely an argument as to why it isn't a particularly neutral colour. It's not something I'd ever put much thought into before, past thinking "German and French Wikipedia articles look better". I think it'd be better if the blue was removed, I'd always thought it as rather ugly. Zero colour would be better — I'm certainly not advocating that each team article should use the team's colours everywhere. aLii 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ed g2s]] and his edits on [[Template:Football squad start]] 

message: The disambiguation page for the name "Werner" lists three men named "Werner Roth", and two of them are associated with football (soccer):
* Werner Roth (German football coach), one-time coach of Karlsruher SC in the 1960s
* Werner Roth (soccer) (born 1948), American soccer player
The American player is Serbian-born, and notable on several levels, according to the page on him (above) and the List of American soccer players with dual nationality, though that page seems lacking.  Isn't there a soccer infobox?.  
Also, does anyone know anything about the German coach?  He's listed on Karlsruher SC's page, but is he notable enough to have his own page?  If so, please add biographical and other info to his page.  I just created it as a stub.      Fredwerner 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Werner Roth's? 

message: Should we add that controversy which nearly affected Man United? KyleRGiggs 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To where? For Tim Howard it would be reasonable. For Manchester United or Everton it would be excess detail for a minor incident. Oldelpaso 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to Howard's article GiantSnowman 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Howard controversy 

message: I just had a look at Sunderland A.F.C. and I think it needs a clean up, it's slightly different to the normal norm we have. Just thought a few people might be interested in bring it up to scratch. Regards, Govvy 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sunderland A.F.C.]] 

message: I see that all club articles have lists of 'Notable players'. This is entirely POV and fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE- one person's list of notable players will be different to another person's. What is needed to comply with WP policy is some clear criteria. I suggest that 'Notable players' is replaced by 'Full and u-21 internationals' but am receptive to argument as to different criteria. BlueValour 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost impossible to have one of these lists that doesn't appear POV or indiscriminate - to use a definitive criteria like internationals or x number of games will be unrepresentative and will be full omissions. ArtVandelay13 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same thing at Fenerbahçe S.K. I don't think renaming it to "Full and u-21 internationals" would be better, but instead make it policy that players in the "Notable players" section be full and u-21 internationals. Or players who have made a significant impact at the club (e.g. Helped win titles, 100+ games, 50+ goals) or something like that. CAN 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great ideas and I appreciate the difficulty in having centralised criteria since the editors of clubs who never have had internationals will still want a list of Notable Players. By instinct, as you will see above, I am a devolutionist, and have no problem with editors shaping their own criteria for the 'Notable Players' list in their articles. However it is done, though, there must be criteria otherwise it will simply be POV which is not acceptable. BlueValour 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not, under 'Notable Players', provide a link to the category of that teams's players (who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry) or to a list of notable players? See Manchester United#Former players as an example GiantSnowman 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that does sound good. However, I still think that players who have had a large impact at the club based on a few parameters should be listed, along with prose paragraphs as used on the Liverpool article. The rest would, as you suggested, be listed at a different page. CAN 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CAN's made a point. Some players really do have a larger impact at clubs than others. Based on honours, empathy with fans, whatever parameter it is. And this is what make him "notable" to the club's history. This is fact. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do clubs have Team of the Decade, honor roll, hall of fame or equivalent? Listing players who are officially recognized by clubs or supporters would be preferable to trying to decide who's notable or not. --Ytny (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. But surely it would have to be sourced. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like what I did with the section at the Central Coast Mariners FC article. Basically, I clearly stated that the list included international representatives only, but did this in the prose rather than a footnote or header change. I agree that this can be a problem section, and that the CCM style won't work for all teams (imagine a section, with details in prose, like for Man U!), but I felt it worked well in the situation. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable players 

message: I've started to notice an increasing prevalence of assist columns appearing in player's stats boxes. I was wondering if anyone could point to any sites that had reliable data on them? I just deleted the assist stats from the Steven Gerrard article, because I wanted to update them, but had no idea where to find the relevent info. I'm not against having such info in articles, but I'd like to know where it's coming from. aLii 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm instead clearly against, because make an assist is not like a goal and its assignation to a player can be highly subjective. To me, it's better to delete all these trivias, this is an encyclopedia and not a repository for football statistics. --Angelo 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Angelo GiantSnowman 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also fully agree with Angelo. "assists" is not a commonly used term in football, nor as in the likes of Ice hockey an officially recognised on the pitch action.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Assist stats are not widely available and which produces problems with making them verifiable. There is also the problem of indiscrepencies, as what defines an "assist" can be debatable. Dave101→talk  20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it depends on the league.  In MLS, for example, assist stats are readily available.  If the information is extremely difficult to find, however, then I say yes, get rid of it. Che84 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assists