Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 14

message: I have just seen the template  pop up in my watchlist. Aston Villa F.C., Birmingham City F.C.. etc. Is this really neccessary. At the very least, i think it should be hidden, it is huge. Opinions? Woodym555 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this takes off, and we have templates for winners of other major competitions, articles for clubs which have won large numbers of tournaments will begin to look ridiculous. I'm sorry, I don't think it has much value. - fchd 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should submit it for TfD, it is really unnecessary detail for clubs. --Angelo 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO Kill it. Imagine a team like Man U. It would have FA Cup, Lge Cup, Premiership, Division One, Division Two, Champs Lge, Charity Shield, ... all in there. It would be longer than the rest of the article. Peanut4 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the creator User:Eddie6705, got the picture. He has orphaned the template. Woodym555 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, delete them all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See League Cup TFD and Champions TFD. Thanks. Woodym555 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template 

message: Should details of a player's domestic career during the two world wars be included in the infobox, or is it considered too "unofficial"?  In the case of George Tadman, for example, some stats appear to be available, but I wasn't sure whether to include them (or whether to include him in the player cats for the clubs he guested for).... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not included any in ones I've added but I've added clubs and noticed some others have included them. The best alternative could be to have a separate section within the box to differentiate wartime football but it would then disrupt the chronological flow. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unofficial, and doesn't contribute to a player's league total, so shouldn't be counted. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it all depends on the domestic situation. In England, the football competition had been suspended/abandoned during WW1 and WW2. But if you look at the Netherlands, 1944-45 was the only season that the national title wasn't contested. In that case, the domestic competition during WW1 and WW2 (except for 1944-45) should be included in the infobox, imo. AecisBrievenbus 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come accross the article for Joe Bacuzzi, which includes guest clubs and appearances in the infobox. To be honest, I'd include this information in the biography. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War years 

message: All of we know that Heereenven game did not walkovered but they played in one game only because of the airport gate. But no one mention it. I don't know how to write it. Raymond Giggs 10:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which game was that, Raymond? Ah, I guessing Maccabi Petah Tikva. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I wrote those words with confused sense. The game which should be play in Israel cancelled because of a airport conflict. I forgot what's the event is. But should be included in the article. Raymond Giggs 14:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA Cup 2004-05 

message: The ELO ratings are given on each international team page, however the early record of the Ireland Football team has been allocated to the Republic of Ireland Football team, while it is probably not significant in working out current rankings, it would have a bearing on the peak ranking of anyteam, if this occured in thhe 1920s or early thirties. Has anyone inverstigated how much these figures would change if the international records recognised by FIFA are used in place of those used by the World Football Elo Ratings people? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ELO]] 

message: We've now got relatively clear notability criteria for football players (cf. #Notability of Football biographies and #Notability of Midland League players). But what about football clubs and football competitions?
1. Football clubs. Clubs that play or have played on the highest level of the national league structure are by definition notable, it appears, whether they play in England or Andorra. But what about lower league teams? When is a club notable enough for Wikipedia?
2. Football competitions. Looking at the English football league system, every single league has an article, all the way down to the Bristol Downs Football League. Is every competition held under the umbrella of a national football league structure by definition notable enough for Wikipedia?
AecisBrievenbus 22:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of football clubs and football competitions 

message: England v Croatia 21st November 2007, I slapped a prod on it. But I thought I'd let you guys check it out. it reads like a copyvio from a sports magazine. King of the NorthEast 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's totally crystal ball. Most of what is said won't be relevant by Wednesday at 10pm. I fully support the prod. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It looks like its been copy & pasted from a magazine or something, and even if it didn't its a non-notable match anyway. Delete. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed. Delete immediately. – PeeJay 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've endorsed the prod. Can't find any source for copy & paste though, if anyone can then please speedy-nominate it with . Qwghlm (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from wikinews . I'm not too hot on copyright between wikis, so I've no idea if it's still a copyvio. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might speedy it as CSD A5, but it would be a very bold decision. So, better to keep it WP:PRODded. --Angelo (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree with it falling under A5 as it's not been subject to due process. Wikipedia and Wikinews's licences do differ but the WN version was created after the WP one (by the same user) so it can't be considered a copyvio - more likely something dual-licenced. Only thing we can do is wait for the prod to expire. Qwghlm (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Non-notable. Sports magazine material, not WP. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need this? 

message: Your thoughts please, good sirs, on the "Quotes" and "Iconic" sections of this article - I took them out as completely unencyclopedic but got reverted..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourceable quotations should be transwikied to Wikiquote, and not included in the article; unsourceable ones should be instead removed as soon as possible. The "Iconic" section is merely trivia, in fact I tagged it this way, you should follow the suggestions in WP:TRIVIA.--Angelo (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Damien Richardson]] 

message: Inappropriate links to this site are being added to stadiumdatabase.com in stadium articles by  (who has made no useful other contributions, as far as I can tell) - the site uses Wikipedia images with no GFDL/CC licence and contains no useful additional information. User has been warned twice already but keep an eye out for any more. Qwghlm (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Special:Contributions/172.206.196.206. This is the link search to watch. Rettetast (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widespread spamming of stadium articles 

message: Could someone have a look at Ferencvárosi TC#Ferencváros Scandals? It comes across to me as quite pov. AecisBrievenbus 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold!  Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferencváros pov 

message: If a player plays for a League 2 (Level 4) side, but has not featured in any league games, and is on loan to a Level 9 side, but has played for said Level 9 side, would he be notable enough for an article? Methinks probably no, but I just want to check to save myself creating an article that would later be deleted...GiantSnowman (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression a player at level 4 on loan at level 5 isn't even notable. So I can't see this one being notable. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also say a definitive no. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No is right. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability query (yes, yet another one...) 

message: Even though some of you probably will, I'm just letting you know that based on tonight's events at Wembley, you might want to keep eyes on the following articles for vandalism: Steve McClaren, Scott Carson, Croatia national football team, England national football team and UEFA Euro 2008. Obviously if there is vandalism, revert on sight. McClaren and Carson are semi-protected, but are still being targeted. Cheers, Davnel03 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Hi, this article was tagged as not sufficiently demonstrating it's notability from February till just now.
It was tagged with a prod and a prod2. Then an anon ip editor removed the prod and prod2 with no comment as to why the league is notable.
Could the article please be either improved, redirected to Football in Ireland possibly, or deleted if (as the article currently seems to show) under 21's football in Ireland is equally non-notable to everywhere else (I mean, all the good players are playing FA by then anyway....)Garrie 05:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Under 21 Football League of Ireland]] 

message: Maybe some writers read these lines. I'm by far no Hertha supporter but please: The club is officially named Hertha BSC, if you want the city name Hertha BSC Berlin is OK as well but in Germany no one will ever say "Hertha Berlin". I read it here very often. Thanks! -Lemmy- 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be that big an issue if both "Hertha" and "Berlin" are in the official name, can it? - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's by far the most commonly used name in English (and many other languages, I shouldn't wonder). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's like 70% of all users would write "West Albion", "Ham United" or something like that. In other cases the right forms like 1. FC Köln are used. I don't get why Hertha is often written that wrong. Anyway, I just wanted to make this problem get some attention and I hope some authors read it ;-) -Lemmy- (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand your concern. Some articles use the proper name (West Ham United F.C.), where the most commonly used name is simply West Ham or West Ham United. However, I suspect the current article name is the proper name in order to disambiguate it from the part of London (West Ham) and the other sports sections of West Ham United (Lady's football, perhaps?). That said, if Hertha BSC has other sports sections to the club, I think it's equally appropriate to include the "BSC" in the article name to disambiguate the football section from the others. I hope that helps. Jogurney (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is along the lines of erroneous names like Sporting Lisbon or Red Star Belgrade - English convention seems to insert the location into the club name when it is not used. Fedgin | Talk 08:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please "Hertha Berlin" no more! 

message: User:Ceyockey added a PROD-requested article in the list of debated deletions in the main project page. Personally I think we should remove it, because PROD requests are supposed to be used for uncontested deletions, so they should not be placed there. Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't see the point of it personally...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, no point. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good idea, in case there's an article with a Prod put on it which anyone here disagrees with - Prods don't get listed in bulk at AfD or the like, so it's very easy for them to slip through the net. - fchd (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD requests in project mainpage 

message: Recent AfDs have established that the project feels that non-league teams should not have articles on their individual seasons, but what about season-by-season articles along the lines of Gillingham F.C. seasons?  I'm thinking of working on one but I'll nip it in the bud if it would just get AfD'ed....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think they should all be scrapped, but given that other season-by-season articles for clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd have been kept after AfDs, it would be hypocritical not to allow them for other professional teams. Non-pro teams are still definitely a no-no though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think season-by-season articles along the lines of Manchester United F.C. seasons, Gillingham F.C. seasons, etc. for non-league teams would be fine, but perhaps only down to Conference North/South level. Individual season articles are right out though. – PeeJay 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you mean you want to know if say Ebbsfleet united should have an article Ebbsfleet United F.C. seasons? If so, I don't see why not. If the team is notable enough, has a worthy history section on its main entry, then this would be very perfectly worthy enough. Peanut4 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant, apologies to Number 57, whom I seem to have confused with my possibly ambiguous wording...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season-by-season articles for non-league teams 

message: If so can you please translate this article and then update the Carlos Alberto Cabral entry accordingly? I will be eternally grateful ;) ... GiantSnowman (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody speak Portuguese? 

message: On my travels around :Category:Football (soccer) I discovered Denmark national football team season 2006, and it got me wondering, first, whether such articles are as valid as club season articles, and second, whether there is scope for the creation of more articles of this type. For example, if I was to create a similar article for the Wales national football team's 2007 season, what would the reaction be? Comments please. – PeeJay 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By campaign would be better, I think, e.g. Germany national football team in Euro 2008 or even Germany national football team 2006-08 ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it at sight. As ArtVandelay13 correctly noted, national teams have competition campaigns (of which, in my opinion, only continental and World Cup  ones are actually notable), and no "seasons". --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference in principal between this and, say, 1887-88 in English football, other than the level of detail? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've answered my own question - I see there is already 2006-07 in Danish football which covers the same ground in less detail. This should suffice, IMHO. I see that Denmark national football team season 2006 has now been "prodded". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case, since Denmark national football team season 2006 has been prodded, I should also inform you of the existence of Denmark national football team season 2005 and Denmark national football team season 2007. – PeeJay 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha! I think it's safe to say that all of them should be deleted then. – PeeJay 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National team season articles 

message: Is this article, Argentine Football Creole Style, of any interest?  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine Football Creole Style 

message: As PeeJay noted in this AFD, we need a notability cut-off for football club season articles. So let's start discussing, pals. My personal opinion is to allow only articles covering professional teams with at least nationwide notability and coverage. Please have your say. --Angelo (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll advance on that and say Premier League (and equivalent level one divisions in other countries) teams only. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's simple - where a club's players are inherently notable, then a season article is. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of them at all but I'd say ArtVandelay13's is the best suggestion. Although for England, maybe Conference as well because all Conference clubs, games and transfers will have a decent range of sources, from BBC, club websites and local papers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I'm with Peanut.  Provide decent sources and it should stay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of football club season articles 

message: As with Euro 2008, this will no doubt need a lot of work. 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification Group A already exists, although will need moved to clarify that it is the UEFA section. That's if it shouldn't be deleted until Sunday. With this being the first time WC qualifying group articles will be created, how should they be titled, and should they follow roughly the same format as Euro 2008? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that they should be titled with the organisation name, because i believe that the AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, and UEFA all use multiple groups to decide the qualifiers, but if we are to follow previous campaigns for consistency, then we should just keep them all in one article, I think that we should also make it much neater than the older ones as well - 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) as well as the 2006 page. I am prepared to help with the 2010 qualification UEFA process, as well as any others that may find themseles neglected. As i am no longer a member of this Project, I do not have this page on watch, and would like to be notified of the result. - F9T 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow the same model as the Euro 2008 qualifiers, for Europe, at least. I suggest entitling the articles 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) - Group A, and so on. – PeeJay 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need seperate articles for every group in a region? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my point, that if we fail to reach consensus, then we need to keep it tidier than the previous campaigns pages (above.) F9T 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In reply to GiantSnowman — I don't see why we shouldn't have separate articles for each group in each region. It seems to have worked for the Euro 2008 qualifiers, so why not World Cup 2010? – PeeJay 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's worked for Euro 2008 then keep it for the World Cup, no problem! GiantSnowman (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My instinct would be to follow the same format as Euro 2008. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But, can we all agree that it should be 2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (UEFA) Group A or group 1 depending on how FIFA draw it, I remember for the 2006 World Cup uefa was pool 1 2 3 etc. F9T 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would put a dash between "(UEFA)" and "Group A" in the article title, but, as usual, I'm sure that's just me. – PeeJay 11:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it should be 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA Group A), to be consistent with 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC First Round), etc. - MTC (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that naming style. I don't know who decided on it, but maybe we should consider moving 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC First Round) to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (AFC) - Round 1. – PeeJay 11:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, how about 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group A, etc? I don't like the look of "2010 FIFA World Cup qualifying (UEFA) - Group A", as it seems the brackets should always come last if they are there at all and putting (UEFA) after Group A seems wrong too. - MTC (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that looks OK to me. – PeeJay 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, me too. F9T 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, looks good. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that look like a consensus to me, so I've been bold and moved all 3 pages that have been created so far and fixed any double-redirects. - MTC (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the qualification pages for the other confederations? – PeeJay 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it should be consistent to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONFED Group X. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Created this morning. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2010 FIFA World Cup qualification]] time 

message: A worthwhile list?  Or not?  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty pointless. And surely will only get smaller till the list no longer exists. Peanut4 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The factual accuracy of the article is also questionable, as I know for a fact that Slovenia were at Euro 2000. – PeeJay 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus Venezuela have played at numerous Copa Americas. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, would Serbia count as never qualifying considering they were formerly Yugoslavia? Eddie6705 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Serbia's record technically follows on from Yugoslavia's and Serbia & Montenegro's records. – PeeJay 23:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Malaysia, Guatemala and Venezuela from the list, as they have played at least once at the continental championships. AecisBrievenbus 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zimbabwe have played in the African Nations Cup, Panama have played in the Gold Cup.... couldn't be bothered to check the rest after finding 2 innacuracies in the first 3 I checked. If the list is so inaccurate to begin with, is there any point in keeping it? King of the NorthEast 23:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And another thought: what do we do with the 1964 European Nations' Cup? Malta and Iceland played in the preliminary round, Albania reached the Round of 16 and Luxembourg reached the quarter finals. Do those matches count as the European Championship, or is that just the final tournament of Hungary, Denmark, Spain and the Soviet Union? AecisBrievenbus 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Should be a category, if even that. GiantSnowman (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think it even deserves a category, tbh. – PeeJay 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of countries that have never qualified for a major football tournament]] 

message: Seems like an AFD that should interest you guys and should get more input from members of this wikiproject. Yonatan talk 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers]] 

message: What is everyone's opinion on using the FIFA trigrammes with the  and  templates? Personally, I prefer using them wherever possible, but I'd like to know where everyone else stands on the issue. Please view recent edits of 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) for examples of conflicting views. – PeeJay 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what difference it makes to the appearance of pages anyway. Does it matter or is there something more subtle at work? Peanut4 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a disagreement with User:Jlsa about which to use at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF), etc. – PeeJay 15:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make any difference to the page, but I personally prefer using  rather than . GiantSnowman (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of FIFA trigrammes 

message: Would the article for Neil Cartwright have any indication for notability? I prodded it, which was removed by User:DJhinckley and posed the argument of him being Hinckley United's highest appearance  holder, but I would say this isn't enough. I thought I'd see what people think here before AfDing it. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, he's not notable enough. AfD please. – PeeJay 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the fact it's worth discussion, I've AFD'd it.  Please carry on over there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Cartwright 

message: Any chance someone could please have a look at the 2010 FIFA World Cup article? User:Unschool has for some reason got quite indignant about the "future sport" tag being on the article, seemingly simply because they don't like it. They left a long message about it on the talk page and have now removed the tag. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about those tags could have a look at it?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2010 FIFA World Cup]] 

message: Can someone take a look at the recent additions to this article.  They are a lot more toned down than they were, but I'm still not sure they are NPOV.  I've been sworn at for my efforts so will leave it alone. Regan123 (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've got it resolved now, although I was intrigued to be told by the other editor involved that apparently telling someone to "f**k off" isn't being offensive.  Maybe I'm just not down with how the kids speak nowadays...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ai it looks better now. Nice work. But it's actually getting quite sad and depressing how much abuse there is on here. It's nice and easy to be so abusive while anonymous behind a computer screen. C'est la vie I suppose. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tony Pulis]] 

message: a free version of the original
:Do we need this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it's quite essential for the Honours parameter in the National football team infobox.[/sarcasm] – PeeJay 12:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These trophies look absolutely appalling. They beg the question 'Why' Peanut4 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the European Championship trophy doesn't look too bad. The Word Cup one, however, looks atrocious, and I agree that neither should be included on this website. – PeeJay 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you imagine what Man Utd, Barca or Juve for example, would look like if we had more trophies like this? Peanut4 (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look awful, there is no justification for adding such tacky looking pictures. The information is already there in the honours section's of the articles, the pictures are for purely decorative purposes. They should be binned ASAP before things get out of control. If they are allowed the pages that are going to be blighted the most are the most successful and important teams, AC Milan, Real Madrid, Liverpool etc. If people want to know the number of titles a team has won, I'm fairly sure that they don't need it in picture form. King of the NorthEast 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where do you stop?  Premier League trophy, FA Cup, League Cup, Johnstone's Paint Trophy, Play-off final trophy, Manager of the Month Trophy..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this image for the UEFA Euro 2008 article because of the copyright problem. Yes, the world cup version is awful, but it's temporary. If you don't like these pictures in the Honours parameters, I will remove them Jcer80 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted it's disappointing we can't have a picture of the trophy, but you don't "need" your image. The caption even says "New version of the Henri Delaunay Trophy". No it's not the new version, it's a pictorial representation. These images just look cheap and tacky, and the relevant pages also cheap and tacky. Fair play to trying to get a free image, but this isn't the way to do it, IMHO Peanut4 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry that someone has spent time drawing this, but I'm afraid a drawn version of a cup adds nothing an encyclopaedia. There's no justification for using this in any articles, so far as I can see. - fchd (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's because the trophy has been changed from previous editions. I've removed it from other articles, but I think it's appropriate on the Euro 2008 article. Jcer80 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Such a pictorial representation is a derivative work anyhow. To take the case of the World Cup trophy, we have an image :Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg for which the photograph is freely licensed, but in several countries the design of the trophy itself is copyrighted, making a properly free-use image – or pictogram – impossible. A situation where the law truly is an ass. The European trophy is likely to also fall into this category. (IANAL and all that) Oldelpaso (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thanks for your explanation. We have such images on the italian Wikipedia, so I thought it would have been a good idea to put this image here too... sorry for that --Jcer80 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:UEFA European Cup.svg]] 

message: Hi.  Can anyone help straightening up this visual mess (from "First Round" section down)?  I'm not sure of what happened there, since everything was perfectly aligned when I had last looked — the present code, which I had written, was working perfectly a few months back, but now it seems to be ineffective.  Suddenly, the text and the images are overlapping, and it is proving somewhat difficult to get it to align correctly again.  Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code would be able to fix this quicker and better?  Redux (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's possible to clean up, but is the subject matter really that important? It just seems to me like a "cut, paste and rearrange" job from the main 2006 FIFA World Cup articles. Most of the info can be garnered from there, or the CONMEBOL qualification page, so what's the point in this article, other than overspecification? – PeeJay 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair I think this is very similar to the likes of Middlesbrough F.C. season 2007-08 and gives more detail than would be appropriate at either the full world cup or world cup qualifying entries, particularly the World Cup preparation and the stats chart. And it puts both sections in one handy place. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's more like Denmark national football team season 2006, except it focuses on a single competition, rather than matches played in a particular year. The other advantage it has over the Denmark article is that it excludes all the friendly matches played by the Brazil team. – PeeJay 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help 

message: A notable derby?  Or not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard Coventry-Leicester referred to as a proper derby myself. I know the two cities are quite close to one another, but I wouldn't say it's a proper derby. – PeeJay 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a couple of sources for usage of the term, including this BBC story...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M69 Derby 

message: I have made some draft notability criteria for football players, football clubs, national football teams and football competitions. Several discussions on this page have made clear that this is a grey area at the moment. Please join the discussion about these criteria at User:Aecis/Notability criteria sandbox. AecisBrievenbus 11:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft notability criteria 

message: Seriously the three images above, do we need them? I have to say a very big no. Just look at Italy national football team to see how cheap and tacky they are. And what do they prove that the honours don't? Peanut4 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't need them in my opinion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy images 

message: If someone acts as caretaker manager of a club for one or two games, does anyone happen to know whether he should be included in Category: Clubname F.C. managers? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes, in a similar way to someone who plays even one game can be categorised in Category: Clubname F.C. players. In fact there's some players who are categorised in the players cat without even playing. Peanut4 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising caretaker managers 

message: Hey guys, any chance I could ask a few of you to comment on the above FLC? Only had two votes so far (both supporting), but I could do with some more, please. Cheers guys. – PeeJay 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Manchester United F.C. managers]] FLC 

message: Is Template:Rangers f.c. reserve squad really notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tfds such as Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_16#Template:Chelsea_F.C._Reserves_squad and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3#Template:Arsenal_F.C._Reserves_Squad would suggest not. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, no.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can PROD a template, can you?  It has to go through TfD..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, take it to WP:TFD.  Prods are for articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Naming convention for sports teams is drawing towards its conclusion if anyone fancies making an input. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club naming convention 

message: Without meaning any disrespect to the image's creator, did anyone else laugh their arse off when they saw this image (assuming you've seen it)? I mean, it's not terrible as a free alternative to an image of the actual FIFA World Cup, but surely we can do a bit better. – PeeJay 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it's not as bad as Skinner and Baddiel's version. Though I reckon it comes close ;-) Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I've not seen Baddiel & Skinner's version. Got a link, mate? – PeeJay 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it - maybe on YouTube somewhere (I will look). But from recollection, Frank put a melon or something in his hand and then dipped his arm in a bowl of custard. Classic Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result. Found one.  Peanut4 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, that's quality. Actually, I think I remember seeing that at the time :-D – PeeJay 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Though what's worse is the pages it's linked on. Those 5 stupid trophies beneath Brazil's badge. Not to mention half the teams with one of the those trophies won the Jules Rimet anyway. Get rid pronto. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – PeeJay 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try to make a better version as soon as possible. But you can't remove images just after half a hour of discussion Jcer80 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think these images are good because they depict which trophy each country won, now that they made a Jules Rimet Trophy image. And no I didn't laugh my "arse" off when I saw them. The creator did a pretty good job on these images. --MicroX 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Football World Cup.svg]] 

message: Anwar Uddin's article claims that he has played internationally for the Bangladesh national football team, and the national team article also lists him as a 'famous player'. I haven't been able to find any sources to back this up, the closest I could find was this article from kickitout.org where he says that he would consider playing for them. Does anyone out there have enough knowledge of Bangladeshi football to find out whether he has been capped or not? — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 12:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site says he is the only Bangladeshi football player in the UK, but not if he played for them or not...GiantSnowman (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the claim from the article, as the infobox says his international career began in 2002 and the kickitout article above was dated 2007. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, maybe add the article to you watchlist to make sure no-one reverts your edits? GiantSnowman (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anwar Uddin 

message: Another non-World Cup squad template nominated for deletion --> here. - Darwinek 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD 

message: Hi you may want to look at this and comment. Thanks This is a Secret account 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/FIFA World Cup]] 

message: Using  gives , however looking at MOS:FLAGS this would seem to be a breach of the section "Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins", does anyone know where the use of the St.Patrick's Soltaire comes from in relation to Irish Soccer? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to me to be historical, referring to the old Ireland national team which is always represented with the St Patrick's Saltire. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is exactly what I was after, do you have a reference? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page and the links on it provide some context. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, I had looked at these pages, which on the whole use the soltaire, however, it was more a reference along the lines of WP:Verify I was after, I had mentioned this at Talk:Northern_Ireland_national_football_team#MOS:FLAG, but without a response Fasach Nua (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They flew the union flag, but my understanding was, that was used to represent the  competition, not the actual team, I am uncovinced anything was used, but I dont know for sure Fasach Nua (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's the place to begin then - when did England and Scotland start flying their own flags? --sony-youthpléigh 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if other associations did it, it doesn't mean the Irish did, and even if they did fly a flag, there is no guarantee that it was the St.Patricks soltaire, there were plenty of other flags to choose from (even more back then than now) Fasach Nua (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The question of which flags to use for Irish national football teams were discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Football aliases for Ireland. I remember thinking they made the right decision at the time. - MTC (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the title should have referred to Ireland national football team (IFA) (not Northern Ireland national football team as it did i.e. 1953 onwards). I've fixed it. What consequence does this debate have for Ireland national football team (FAI)? Is there any like evidience for the use of the tricolour by the southern association prior to the 1953 split, or should that be removed also as being unfouded? --sony-youthpléigh 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the use look at the evidence and refer to MOS:FLAG and WP:Verify. Im sure you are more familiar with the topic of the Southern autonomy than I am, and are capable of working out the consequences (if any) for yourself Fasach Nua (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "consequences" are no more than good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander type stuff. If one has to be removed for being unsourced then the other has to be removed for the same reason. The magic bean grows fast in the six counties, I know, but how far are you willing to push this one? --sony-youthpléigh 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The must be some basis for the use of this flag, the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Football aliases for Ireland seemed to choose the flag on the basis of neutrality, WP is not about rewriting history, but should be about documenting it. Why use this flag and not ,  or  . If a reference could be found, I would be happy, but it is inappropriate to dress something up as being encyclopedic if there is nothing to back it up. Fasach Nua (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the  template used the flag of the nation represented by the football team, which is not necessarily the same as the flag that the team displays at matches. If this is the case, then surely the saltire (NOT "soltaire"!) is the correct flag to use here. – PeeJay 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is almost always true, for all of the national sport team templates (, , , , , etc.) but there are several exceptions.  Certainly the all-Ireland teams are atypical cases, and the Chinese Taipei teams are represented with non-national flag icons.  Some of the multi-national teams (like ) also have unique (yet real) non-national flags.  So I would say it isn't a hard and fast rule either way.  We use national flags where they make sense, and alternate flags where they national ones don't make sense.  However, if we're looking for verifiability for every flag icon, then that's a monumental can of worms being opened.  Did any nation compete "under a flag" a century ago?  We use  and  in old match tables.  Should we? Andrwsc (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the way you are thinking, it is a verifiable emblem with a clear association with the team. A flag would be nice, as this would give uniformity to all international soccer articles, but maybe this is not achieveable! The other issue would be copyright, has this expired on a 125 year old emblem? (I would guess, yes). It also makes the connection with team and the association rather than with the team the country, which will be useful as the change of status is not a simple thing to define, and it's use in the hazy NI/IRL changeover period might prove useful later on Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay I've looked into the copyright status of the badge, and I dont think we can use it :-( Fasach Nua 12:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me. jnestorius(talk) 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ireland national football team (IFA)|  Ireland]] 

message: Is there really a soccer team in Fiji called Baa? Notable tournament? Or not? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any more information quick to hand. But there is this entry that may help. Fiji Football Association. Peanut4 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Fiji Melbourne Soccer appears simply to be Inter-District Championship (Fiji). AfD or Prod maybe? Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, reading through the article again, it seems to be a round-up of Fiji soccer in 2007 with the results of the 2007 season competitions. As these topics all are thoroughly covered elsewhere (though may need updating), I'll go ahead and prod this article. --Malcolmxl5 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fiji Melbourne Soccer]] 

message: I've been putting together the List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers (and at the same time correcting the template Template:Bradford City A.F.C. managers and the list of managers at Bradford City A.F.C. main article. I still have a couple of gaps, one of which is from 9 November 2003 to 23 November 2003. I've now found the info to plug the gap, during which time there was just one game but four managers. Basically four senior pros, David Wetherall, Dean Windass, David Wetherall and Peter Atherton were in charge. It doesn't seem wise to put all four down as managers - any suggestions as what to do? Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that actually three senior players......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were taking the piss out of one of the four - which I wouldn't blame you for - but I missed out Wayne Jacobs who according to Dean Windass' autobiog was the one who actually did most of the stuff. Peanut4 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest putting something like "Senior players" with a fuller explanation in the text. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was my best bet for List of Bradford City A.F.C. managers. But what about the template - would you leave it out or simply put Senior Players again? Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it out, but then I favour leaving all caretakers out of templates. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, I favour them in, if only for completeness sake, but this is swaying me towards taking them out. Because caretakers aren't always the simplest of appointments. Peanut4 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Oldelpaso -  keep caretakers out if possible as they rarely manager more than a few games and therefore don't mess up templates that much e.g. Manager (2003-2005), Caretaker (2005), Manager (2005-). 
However, if they are there for a significant period of time (e.g. the guy who was recently sacked from Gillingham, his name escapes me) then maybe put them in with a footnote that they were pnly present in a caretaker position. GiantSnowman 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managers list 

message: Recently made categories Category:English footballers who played for other national teams and its offspring Category:English footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland seem to me to be wrought with problems:
*Could listing be considered an accusation of cheating against a player? (He's English, but he played for Templatonia)
*As an extension to that idea, is it potentially libelous?
*Nationality is being misrepresented as a simple cut and dried matter with one uncontrovertible outcome: for many of us, it is not.
*Is it accurate to describe a person of dual nationality as "English" in the category title without qualification?
*Given that their right to represent another country has been recognised, what degree of Englishness makes these individuals "English"? 
*There is no such legal status as "English": is Englishness therefore verifiable? 
A proposal has been made to merge this with Category:English expatriate footballers, but this seems inappropriate: playing club football away from the place of one's birth (or whatever other definition of Englishness is being employed) is not the same as representing another national team.  
It seemed bad form to directly propose deletion while another proposal was up for discussion, but unless another title can be thought up (Category: English-born footballers who played for other national teams or Category:Footballers eligible to play for more than one country, one of which was England, who played for another national team instead anybody?) then I cannot see how it would stay.  Kevin McE 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they played for another nation then they're not really English in my opinion...maybe change to 'British-born players who represented a foreign nation or similar. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it strikes me as overcategorisation. ArtVandelay13 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To CfD or not to CfD? 

message: Rathfarnham Punters, a notable Irish football club?  Or not?  Needs a rewrite, certainly. --Malcolmxl5 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Gone bye bye now.  The Rambling Man 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rathfarnham Punters 

message: I have belated caught a BBC news item about non-playing members of World Cup-winning teams between 1930 and 1974 being awarded retrospective World Cup Winners medals (in those days, only the members of the team itself received medals). It means, for example, that Pele will receive a third World Cup winners medal having missed Brazil's win in 1962 through injury. This strikes me as something worthwhile to add to all sort of articles, about World Cups, national teams (perhaps) and individual players, but it will need to be done in a co-ordinated and systematic way. --Malcolmxl5 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already added an "Honours" section to the non-playing England squad members from 1966 (as well as for several of the World Cup Final team). --Daemonic Kangaroo 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup winners medals for non-playing squad members 1930-1974 

message: The creation of Match of the Century (soccer) raises the interesting question of whether non-competitive matches are notable? Do we have a view? BlueValour 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it depends on the match. Last season, User:Polominty created UEFA Celebration Match as a report of the match between Manchester United and the European XI. Now, I would have said that the UEFA Celebration Match was notable as it marked the half-centenary of the European Union, even though the match was not considered a competitive match. – PeeJay 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In this specific case, I do not think the match is notable, but it and the charity campaign it was part of could be mentioned in Professional Footballers' Association. Each one should be taken on its own merits. Most are not notable, but some are. Oldelpaso 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are non-competitive matches notable? 

message: Is anyone knowledgeable about images? Someone has uploaded this image claiming that he is "the copyright holder of this work", and placed it in the Teddy Sheringham article. Yet it is clearly sourced from the BBC website here (the url in the comment to the image history was a give away!). From what little I know, the copyright for everything including images on the BBC site belongs with the BBC and this picture seems dodgy to me from a copyright pov. What should be done?  --Malcolmxl5 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the pic and warned the user. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Teddy Sheringham 

message: I've updated the portal over the last couple of days to make the following changes -
#Remove the old World Cup 2006 page and archive it
#Remove the old non-updated news section and archive it
#Add the news box as it currently stands, linking to Portal:Current events/Sports and Wikinews:Portal:Football (so we won't have to manually update the list at the portal too)
#Add a randomised Selected picture box
Pictures I've selected for the latter are available to view at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, if you know of any other half-decent free images that could be added with a description/hook - feel free to do so. I intend to do the same random type affair for Selected articles soon. My longterm goal is to turn this into a 3 tabbed portal such as Portal:Religion but with Main - Competitions - Contribute at the top. Feel free to slap me down if this sounds crap. Nanonic 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now added the random article selection bit to Portal:Association football and made the whole thing into a 3 tabbed affair. Tabs are currently: Main - Categories & Topics - WikiProjects & Things you can do. I will be working on these 2 new tabs over the next few days, but in the meantime - go and have a look. Tell me if it's poo. Nanonic (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal updates 

message: If anyone could have a go at copyediting the 1980–1999 section of History of York City F.C., it would be fantastic and would be greatly appreciated, as TRM suggested an independent copyedit for the GA review. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through it and changed a couple of things. Feel free to change anything or give me a shout for any questions. Peanut4 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone up for some copyediting? 

message: Any Liverpool fans might want to look out for the work of  and possibly other IPs, which is adding spam for a commercial memorabilia site to various Liverpool players' articles regardless of context. Qwghlm 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  Even easier, use this link to see if it's added anywhere else.  I found three more sneaky links...  And BAMM, they're gone.  The Rambling Man 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - I never knew that special page existed. Nice one, thanks. Incidentally, if this spam persists then I'll request an addition to the meta:Spam blacklist. Qwghlm 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liverpool-related Spam 

message: is at it again, posting unsourced changes of caps and goals and even player's weights for whatever reason. Please keep an eye out for him. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User to watch: posting wild changes of caps/goals again. 

message: Anyone else noticed that in club squads etc. the Northern Irish flag has completely vanished? GiantSnowman 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can still see them. Peanut4 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, very odd...could be something wrong with my internet then. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an issue with someone messing about with the image name, not sure of the exact details but there was something about it on WP:ANI. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has always been a bit of a kerfuffle. It now resides at :Image:Ulster banner.svg. See the Commons page, and Wikipedia page (now deleted) for the history of the mess. Woody (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every instance of that flag in football articles should be rendered via the flag template system (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template), using , , etc.  The image name change across a couple of thousand pages was effected by a single edit to Template:Country data Northern Ireland, and as soon as the servers catch up, all should be well.  Can you point to a page where you see a problem, so I can check into it?  Alternatively, try the instructions for your browser in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and see if that changes anything.  Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is working for me. Woody (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland template 

message: Anyone know why this has been moved from Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. to Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club? It doesn't seem to follow the naming protocol for any other football club article. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved by User:ICTFC, who gave the reason as simply "This is the full name of the team"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peejay moved it back, correctly in my view. Woody (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, should never been moved in the first place. Also interesting to note that the user and the club share the same initials...GiantSnowman (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverness Caledonian Thistle 

message: Two footballers called Ben Watson, both born in 1985 - one is Ben Watson (footballer) and the other is Ben Watson (football player) - what should we rename them as? Maybe Ben Watson (midfielder) and Ben Watson (striker)? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (footballer born July 1985) and (footballer born December 1985)? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I don't really like the "striker" ones because positions can change. Although the born .... seems a bit cumbersome, I personally think it is better. Woody (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Woody. Davnel03 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case why not list the non-notable player for deletion, and keep the Crystal Palace player as Ben Watson (footballer)? GiantSnowman (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Watson 

message: Is Sonny Pike notable? For those of you who don't know, he was a famous child player in the 90s who was constantly called "the next [Insert footballing superstar's name here]" and signed for Ajax before quitting the game after having a nervous breakdown. He is also the nephew of Mark Falco. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes, as I have heard of him on several occasions, and I'm sure that even though he probably doesn't meet WP:BIO for players, he would qualify under significant coverage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does his case differ from that of Rhain Davis........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a personal basis, because I never heard of that guy aside from his Wikipedia article, and I consider myself to have an excellent knowledge of English football. Secondly, I believe the Pike story went on for a few years, whilst I have still not heard anything about this Rhain Davis guy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sonny Pike has become synonymous with the extreme pressures that young sports players are under, and became famouse because of that. Anyway, I have now created the article, so it's up to the Wikipedia community to list it for deletion if they deem it neccessary. GiantSnowman (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonny Pike 

message: Romania, Italy, Netherlands and France already met during the Euro 2000 tournament, but it has been dubbed as "unnecessary info" in the UEFA Euro 2008 - Group C article.
However, the fact that Greece, Spain and Russia already met at Euro 2004 is considered interesting in the  Group D article.
Seriously, what is the logic behind that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.139.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that a number of teams met up in varying rounds at Euro 2000 (eight years and two tournaments ago) is not as interesting as the fact that three teams have been drawn together in the same group two tournaments in a row, IMO. Sure, I could be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me. – PeeJay 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so you find it a more interesting coincidence than the other. Does that make it a "necessary" info?--87.2.139.193 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the group C match ups being a coincidence. There are always bound the be re-matches from previous tournaments. The fact that three teams are drawn in the same group for a second consecutive tournament is a more coincindental, and more interesting, though perhaps slightly trivial. Peanut4 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is being interesting an objective criterium? Absolutely not. So why preserving a trivial info and deleting another similar? That's not fair --87.2.139.193 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are not similar, and its the Group articles, and those 3 teams where in the SAME group. The teams from group A where not in the same group, so all teams did now meat eachother. And you can't have every international meeting between the teams as it has probably happened in more than one final tournament, this is 3 teams, consecutively being drawn together. Chandlertalk 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double standards 

message: Surely we don't need all this crap.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – PeeJay 12:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.#Chants]] 

message: Hello everybody. I've got an idea about what to do with "Notable players" section. Instead, 1) shouldn't "Legendary players" section be in the article (only if a player was described as a legend in at least two reliable sources)?2) shouldn't key players be bolded in the squad list (only if a player was described as key by the manager of his (club or national) team or another team played with player's (club or national) team recently)?What do you think about it?   Jhony  |  Talk   22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and no. Both highly subjective. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, maybe. It seems that subjectivity of reliable source (my idea's case) is allowed in Wiki, while subjectivity of single editor ("Notable players" section's case) is not allowed.   Jhony  |  Talk   23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability of players included in "Notable players" lists should be determined by numbers of appearances made and goals scored, as well as captaincy and individual awards. That way the selection of such players is entirely objective. Even with your suggestion of "legendary" status having to be confirmed by two independent sources, both of those sources would most likely involve someone's opinion somewhere along the line. – PeeJay 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that notability itself is an expression of opinion of large group of people. It's impossible to evaluate real-life notability of players through number of appearances and goals. Value of appearances, goals, captaincy and awards changes from season to season, from position to position. As a result, some players considered notable by many will fail to pass the criteria, while some players considered notable by nobody will pass it. The idea is that "list of notable footballers" won't be original research of single editor or even group of established wikipedians. For the firm belief, let it be ten independent sources. Why I prefer "legendary players", not simply "notable players"? It seems to me that it's more strict (nobody will call not notable player a legend), more interesting (what is more interesting, "List of Unknown F.C. notable players" or "List of Unknown F.C. legends"?) and more popular (legendary soccer player -wiki (1 330 000 hits) vs notable soccer player -wiki (105 000 hits)).   Jhony  |  Talk   00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument has more holes than a fine piece of emmenthal. Take a look at List of Manchester United F.C. players, for example, and I doubt you will be able to find me a single player who should be in that list but isn't. The first defining criterion for notability should be, and is, a set number of appearances (in the case of Man Utd, this number is 100). If, by some freak, one of the club's top goalscorers has not reached the required number of appearances, there should also be a notability criterion for number of goals scored. Finally, all players involved in the club's major historical landmarks should be considered inherently notable; for example, Liam Whelan of Manchester United is included in that club's list of players despite only making 98 appearances and scoring 52 goals as he was one of the victims of the Munich air disaster. Similar criteria should be applied to all lists of clubs' notable players, with cut-off points for each criterion set on a case-by-case basis. – PeeJay 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legends idea is really daft - taking the example of my own club, if we applied the criteria set out above concerning being described as a legend then a quick Google search suggests that List of Gillingham F.C. players, a Featured List, would be replaced with a grand total of two names out of the club's 115 year history..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of "key players" is even more inappropriate - as I read it, if the manager of Example FC blathers away in a post-match interview after one random game that Steve Example was the key man on the park in said game, he'd then get to be shown in bold in the squad list for the foreseeable future?  Ridiculous idea. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about key players. And you didn't understand the idea about legends. Firstly, notability in case of List of all Example F.C. players is different from notability in case of Example F.C. article. Secondly, honestly, I was not with featured articles or English teams' articles in mind. The idea was to propose "Legendary players" section as an alternative for "Notable players" in case of articles not many people wants to work on. But if both ideas are such a cruft, simply forget about them.   Jhony  |  Talk   22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable players 

message: Cuju - the original soccer? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What of it? – PeeJay 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What's this 'soccer' you speak of? Chandlertalk 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, that's just ignorant. – PeeJay 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuju 

message: Sorry for being dim, but how can overlapping in navboxes like this  be prevented? (It overlaps in my browser anyway). King of the NorthEast 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxes 

message: A notable football chant? Or not? Sounds like twaddle to me.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable as a chant, yes. Notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, probably not. I'd say merge into Notts County F.C., although it also needs referencing properly. --Jameboy (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. "I had a wheelbarrow, the wheel fell off" doesn't scan well enough to fit properly to the tune "On Top of Old Smoky". Or do you have to stretch "whee-eel" to do it? I go with Malcolmx15 on this one. If nothing else, the article reads like a piece of original research, the references support only the fact that it's a chant, not the stories and anecdotes recounted in the article. That lot could be justifiably whipped out as unsourced and OR. Ref (chew)(do) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more baffled by how, even when sung in a Shropshire accent, the words to Old Smokey could sound like "I had a wheel barrow, the wheel fell off"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Wheelbarrow song]] 

message: A question has been asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#How many soccer clubs? seeking an answer for the amount of "mens soccer clubs are there worldwide, including all countries and all divisions of play". If anyone can assist in answering this question, please do. 62.136.140.178 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD:M - How many men's clubs are there worldwide? 

message: Someone might want to add to the article a bit.  It seems kind of empty. --Rockfang (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nebraska Cornhuskers soccer]] 

message: The African Cup of Nations is just around the corner, and in the spirit of countering systematic bias I was thinking about pushing to get a related article to FA by the tournament's final. Anyone interested in joining in? Mido is a current GA, but he is likely to miss the tournament through injury which rules him out. Cameroon national football team perhaps? Didier Drogba? Samuel Eto'o? Oldelpaso (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drogba would be a decent choice, but he might be on a colision course with Chelsea about whether to go. Eto'o would be my second choice for a player. Peanut4 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for Drogba, personally. (Or maybe push Mido to FA!) Mattythewhite (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African football improvement drive? 

message: Can I just confirm that this image is incorrectly tagged?  I can't see how taking four copyrighted club crests and putting them together in one image would allow the user to claim to be the copyright holder........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an invalid license, as a derivative work based on copyrighted non-free content (the club crests), I am going to delete it. --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issue 

message: Does anyone know the correct name of former Dutch international Mr Bakhuys - is it Bep or Beb? - Google brings up results for both. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know which spelling is correct, but I noticed that his name is given as Elisa, whereas on a couple of websites it's given as Evert. Which is correct? – PeeJay 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Another name that has been put forward is "Eberhard". Now I'm more confused than ever! – PeeJay 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dutch FA has articles using both Beb and Bep, which would say to me that they're both valid ways of spelling the same name. There's a former Birmingham player called Eddy Brown, and on Google and in print sources you get him spelt both Eddy and Eddie. Not sure this helps ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His own autograph said Beb. This is also the spelling used by the Royal Netherlands Football Association. It is very confusing, because it's a nickname, noone knows where it came from, and the common spelling of the name is Bep. AecisBrievenbus 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as the origin of the nickname is concerned, Beb and Bep appear to have been abbreviations for Bert and (Elisa)beth. See for instance Bertram Johannes Otto (Bep) Schrieke, Elisabeth (Bep) Voskuijl, Hubertus Willem Abraham Christiaan (Bep) Warnas, Albertha (Bep) Weeteling and Lambertus (Bep) van Klaveren and Elizabeth (Beb) Vuyk. AecisBrievenbus 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beb or Bep? 

message: It is now a FARC. If you don't want to help try and keep it as a FA at least vote for it to be kept or removed. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Everton F.C. Buc (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everton FAR 

message: Worthy of deletion? Or just needing a MAJOR clean-up? GiantSnowman (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it should be categorised to :Category:Canadian expatriate footballers. – PeeJay 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with PeeJay. This should be categorized, in accordance with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese footballers abroad. AecisBrievenbus 14:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same user has now added Canadian Soccer Players; both articles are copyvio, having being copied and pasted from a website. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another similar to this to do with American footballers - List of American soccer players abroad. Jimbo online (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canadian Soccer Players in the World]] 

message: Hi projecteers, I've just had a look at 2005 UEFA Champions League Final and discovered it now has four screenshots of the match all used under Fair Use - the "historic event" template being touted as the rationale for fair use.  It certainly has enhanced the article but I was just wondering if this is a good or bad precedent (I haven't seen it before) and whether we'll end up with every penalty being an "historic event" so we get fifteen fair use images for a match?  I'm just interested in your opinions really.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Celtic - Milan 2004.jpg certainly can't be claimed as fair use in an article on this final, given that it's taken from a different match entirely..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two images aren't of the match in question, they're of other matches en route to the final which, in my view, isn't remotely justifiable as fair use. (Also they're not screenshots, they're off the UEFA website copyright AFP.) The Crespo one comes from the BBC website, and only the players group is actually a screenshot. Is there somewhere where image rationale experts hang out, if so perhaps someone should ask for an informed opinion before it does get out of hand? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the first two images definitely fail WP:FAIRUSE for the reasons already explained above by Struway2, whereas the third one slightly fails WP:FAIRUSE #8 since it doesn't really increase a reader's understanding of the topic. I would only keep the picture depicting the award ceremony. --Angelo (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only images that could count are the iconic moments in the game, decisive goal/celebration, decisive penalty save, celebration at final whistle, award of trophy etc.King of the NorthEast 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with that, although I wouldn't support the inclusion of goal celebration/final whistle celebration shots unless they were widely considered to be "iconic images".  For instance, this image might be OK for the 2000 Division two play-off final because it was used as a book cover (and has been used in a million other places) and therefore has some form of "status", but any old generic close up shot of a player with his arm in the air wouldn't add much to an article IMO..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in match articles 

message: I'm pretty sure that Special:Contributions/Gordo2112 is adding images that are copyvios. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-11 11:45
:Well :Image:Ashley-cole.jpg has a Getty Images tagline on it, so that one certainly is a copyvio.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Getty Images, and an award-winner, no less. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief Google Images search returned the provenience of all of the pictures he uploaded, so I deleted them all and I advised the user to stop this practice. --Angelo (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio images 

message: As FIFA.com keeps shuffling their pages around and annoying the living.. poop.. out of me, I've started turning my new refs into archive links using WebCite. FIFA.com is well known for moving and deleting it's articles just when you least expect it and then leaving you with a dead link that points to fifa.com/index.php so I thought I'd recommend this to you all too. WebCite allows you to save a copy of a page and gives you a url such as http://www.webcitation.org/5U0dhgqcK that permanently links to a full stored copy of that article (have a looksee). This helps prevents dead-links which is especially useful in Featured Articles's and the like. Hope this helps someone. Nanonic (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with the Premier League Official website - all their referee profiles disappeared, leaving many articles with HTTP404 non-sources - grrrrr! Ref (chew)(do) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, is an artificially-maintained, or cached, webpage a valid reference in Wikipedia? It seems to me there might be serious problems with the credibility of such a source if challenged. What do others think, or what do you already know that we might not? Ref (chew)(do) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's acceptable as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Archive_references and  already has the fields for archive urls. WebCite is also one of the tools recommended at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Nanonic (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving a static copy of a referenced article forever 

message: I'd like to get this off the ground: Wikipedia:WikiProject German football. It's past due. Wiggy! (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already stated lots and lots of times, it's simply senseless to create WikiProjects with no prior discussion. There is a page created exactly for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals so please use it first. Let me note your brand-new WikiProject (btw, why a WikiProject and not a taskforce instead?)b has merely two members, which is a terribly low number. So, I am going to reiterate my good-old proposal: this WikiProject should accept only taskforces and related WPs with at least 4 or 5 members, prior discussion in the WikiProject Council and proved usefulness of its aim. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Angelo, I'm just trying to gather up some interested folks and put some resources on the table. It would be handy to be able to work on something like this as a group. Only two members? Yeah, its been up a whole fifteen minutes. I don't think it'll be too hard to gather up some interested editors. As to project vs. taskforce, I'm not entirely clear on the difference so just picked one. I'm sure it can be re-cast if need be. As to WikiProject Council, there is also a place to make a similar request at WikiProject Football. I don't want to over-bureaucratize the thing - I just want to gather up some like-minded folks who probably have access to information and points of view that I don't. Be happy. Wiggy! (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I would support the creation of a German football wikiproject/taskforce and would be prepared to help out. I think its daft thet Bayern have a taskforce but German football doesn't. I would also support any proposal for the creation of a Brazilian football project as these are two of the most significant footballing nations. King of the NorthEast 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Mich auch... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ich unterstütze die Idee. Ich könnte etwas ins Englische übersetzen. Support the idea and could put my rusty German to use by attempting to translate from German sources, no doubt with hilarious consequences. --Jameboy (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with Angelo's sentiments. Creating task-forces for the sake of it helps no-one. That being said, I do think there is enough support to keep it maintained. I do think it should be a task-force though. Woody (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a set of criteria that differentiates projects and task forces available somewhere? Or am I going to have to get off my e-butt and look for it? :) Wiggy! (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. basically, taskforces use the main projects manuals of style and banners and assessment tags so that they can focus on working on articles without having to come up with their own bureaucracy. A stand-alone project might have to create all of these (like what Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia has partially done). Nanonic (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, now it seems there's enough support for a German thing. In any case I would turn it into a taskforce, and still ask for clear rules for anyone willing to start a new football-related WP/taskforce. Danke schōn (my German really sucks :). --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German football 

message: It may be worth looking over the contributions of new editor User:EG M.M if these contributions, Karim Zekry, Amr El-Safti and Ahmed Ghanem Soltan are any guide, they are instant candidates for speedy deletion at the moment. He has also done something weird; he's 'moved' his user and talk page to article space, which will need to be undone, I think. Does anyone know how to undo that? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just click back on the "redirected from" link, go into "Edit page" tab and blank the redirect and save. Same for the User talk page. An edit summary of "abuse of account" or something like that should suffice. Wish I was bold enough though. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Peejay had a go at the article page. I've blanked the redirect on the talk page ("inappropriate use of redirect") but there are messages on the article talk page that should go on the user talk page. How do they and the history get 'moved' back? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. The article has been deleted, which ends that, I suppose? :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:EG M.M]] 

message: Well, in articles like Champions League and the UEFA Cup ppl are making the names clubs bold because they've won the group or qualified for no apparent reason, with the color shaded background its easy too see who've won the group/qualified, imo it looks more sloppy to have them in bold and for some clubs like Bordeaux in the uefa cup, it goes over two rows because it doesnt fit the width. Is there any guidelines that promote this? Just to show some examples of that it looks weird cl 05-06 vs wc 06 if you look at older CL articles its, advancing teams in bold and the bottom teams in italic... it just seems unnecessary and dosnt give anything Chandlertalk 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides an alternative to people who are partially-sighted and may not be able to discern the different colours in the table. – PeeJay 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it that hard to understand that the team at the top with most points won? Chandlertalk 11:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COLOUR says editors should Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information. Following this Manual of Style guideline also helps that 10% of the male population (and small percentage of the female) who suffer from some form of colour blindness. Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But ppl who don't know the team on the top is the leader/winner... well lets just say i dont think bold and italic text will help them. Chandlertalk 14:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People only uses six more letters, you know. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more in favour of removing the coloured backgrounds than the bolding. - fchd (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold names for winners in the group tables 

message: "...Following this success, Macken moved into the Premiership with a transfer to Manchester City in February 2002, for a fee of £5,000,000. However, severely hampered by a lack of ability, only made 27 league starts in over three seasons and that was due in most part to a chronic injury list and the tealady forgetting her kit...." Nick mallory (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jon Macken]] 

message: I take it that this image of Carlo Corazzin has the wrong copyright info and isn't licensed to be used on Wiki? Jimbo online (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carlo Corazzin]] picture 

message: I have started a small clean-up drive on some of the contributions of Deciiva about Ghanaian football. I'm starting with the articles on Daniel Opare and Ahmed Barusso, but it's hard to know where to begin. I know some of you have already come across some of his works and even had the fortune to discuss with him, but if someone would like to help out that would be appreciated. Also, if you don't hear from me in a couple of days, please come look for me... Sebisthlm (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Deciiva]] 

message: Spotted this CfD. What's the convention on club captains - list, cat or both? I'm open minded. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer a list of some sort. You can usually put it in somewhere else. See the AFD of Liverpool and the current setup at Aston Villa F.C. (included in List of Aston Villa F.C. players). I don't think there is a convention at the moment to be honest. Take it as it comes, although I wouldn't be averse to creating a consensus. Woody (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_12#Category:Captains_of_Norwich_City_F.C.]] 

message: "Showball is often called, when the football club from Spain/Catalunya FC Barcelona allways play beautiful games or they win big...." Hmm... Is it worth merging into FC Barcelona??  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is worth being speedied (no assertion of notability at all), that is what I'm going to do. --Angelo (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showball 

message: I have proposed the following mergers:
* Ireland national football team (IFA) → Northern Ireland national football team
* Ireland national football team (FAI) → Republic of Ireland national football team
Proposal Talk:Ireland national football team IFA#Proposed_mergers with lead-up discussion earlier on that Talk: 
page. jnestorius(talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland national football team: proposed article mergers 

message: I see that List of football clubs in Egypt has been tagged for cleanup since January 2006. Is there a preferred style for such a list? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such lists should be sorted by division or alphabetically. They shouldn't be tabulated, or include details of trophies won, but the city/state a team comes from should be put in brackets next to the team's name. – PeeJay 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at :Category:Lists of football (soccer) clubs and taking a few lists as examples, I don't really think there is a preferred style. It seems a bit haphazard. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries is a featured list, so I'd suggest adopting elements of the style used there. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to not to use sortable tables containing extra information like trophies won.  More information is better. jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how did you jump to that conclusion? There is such a thing as too much information, you know. – PeeJay 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me decades to jump to that conclusion, mate.  Yes, if there were 20 columns, or the layout was really untidy, it would be " too much information"; but I don't think the 7 columns in the Egypt table is overload.  Even with its current shoddy formatting, I was able to see in a couple of clicks that Al-Olympi is the only Alexandria club to win the league, and that Al-Ahly and Al-Zamalek are the Rangers and Celtic of Egypt.  An alphabetic club-city list would be much less infomative. jnestorius(talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: By way of background, I added the controversial table several months ago after seeing the cleanup tag and the general state of disarray of the article. I found the sortable table on another article listing clubs for another country and thought it would work well for Egypt. The only thing that needs to go in my opinion is the list of clubs beneath the table. I left them there in hopes that someone would know what league they participate in and the city and stadium, but after several months it looks unlikely. If no one disagrees, I'll be bold and remove the misc. clubs and the cleanup tag now. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of football clubs in Egypt 

message: List of Birmingham City F.C. players is now up for peer review here. I'd be grateful if any of you could spare the time to have a look at it and leave your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Birmingham City F.C. players peer review 

message: Does this article on Omar Brissett meet notability? Or is it a case of a serious clean-up?... Jimbo[online] 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does exist, a quick Google search shows a player playing in Jamaica, but there's no mention of him on any club article...GiantSnowman (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't questioning if he exsisted or not. Was wondering if his career met the criteria for him to have an article...Jimbo[online] 15:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If his biggest claim to fame is indeed that he played for Old Stationers, who play in the Southern Amateur Football League, then he 100% does not merit an article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he also seems to have played in Jamaica's premier league, but I very much doubt that league is fully professional....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Omar Brissett]] - Notability? 

message: Is this American team notable - their only 'claim to fame' is that former players and celebrities sometimes play for the side...GiantSnowman (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing more than a Sunday League team, with a few famous faces. 100% bin it...Jimbo[online] 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jimbo on this one, notability is not transferred from the famous names ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood United F.C. 

message: Notable or not? – PeeJay 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-notable, probably a hoax - very few Google hits for someone who has apparently worked in America, England, Holland, Ghana...GiantSnowman (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Johnathan McKinstry]] 

message: User:Blgeoverlord has been adding minature logos to player infoboxes, see Emiliano Ariel Dudar‎ for an example. He must have seen the fair use rationales stating "to be used only on the article on...." and just ignored them. I will warn him not to do it on his talk page, but I don't have time to undo them all at the moment, could someone else look into it please? Cheers. King of the NorthEast 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decorative use of logos 

message: What are people's thoughts on team names which are suffixed by (football club), such as AZ (football club) and NEC (football club)...personally I think they are ugly and should be, if possible, renamed. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely to be renamed as AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen respectively, for WP:COMMON and good sense. --Angelo (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So what would you like to move them to? Yes, it would be nice if they were at AZ or NEC, but if they can't, to include a descriptor as a disambiguating term is Wikipedia-standard. - fchd (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with Angelo's suggestion? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AZ article was moved from AZ Alkmaar a few months ago, see the user's reasoning. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose the move to AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen. Do we have Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers? No. So let it be as the original name. -Lemmy- (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rangers and Celtic are distinguished by being Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. respectively; however, seeing the rationale behind moving AZ and NEC, I oppose moving to AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen BUT I still think that (football club) looks ugly. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look ugly. NEC can't be moved to its name because the Japanese corporation is a wee more important but AZ could be moved, I think...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Lemmy- (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: AZ (football club) should stay where is, but NEC (football club) should be moved to NEC Nijmegen, IMO. The new football club naming guidelines state that if there is no ambiguity about a club's name in English, then that name should be used, and ambiguity is determined by whether or not the club has an English website and the name they use on said website. At the moment, AZ has an English website (where they call themselves AZ), but NEC only has a Dutch site, meaning that we should use the name that is most commonly used in the English language media (n.b. the Dutch version of the NEC website calls them NEC Nijmegen). – PeeJay 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NEC has the same problem as AZ in that their hometown is in their initials; NEC Nijmegen would be Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie Nijmegen. However, if the NEC website uses NEC Nijmegen then so should we GiantSnowman (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see where on the official NEC site it calls them NEC Nijmegen, other than in the domain name. I've looked on a dozen pages or so, and it 's always just N.E.C. (usually with the full stops). - fchd (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: N.E.C. Nijmegen is used in the titlebar and the domain name, but I guess you're right about it not being used anywhere else. That being the case, NEC should remain at NEC (football club) That being said, since NEC don't have an English website, their article should be named per the name they most commonly go by in the English language media. – PeeJay 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The newly-established naming conventions for sports teams would disagree with you both about the AZ article. The NEC article, however, should probably be moved to NEC Nijmegen per my above amended comment. – PeeJay 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the name "NEC Nijmegen" is completely wrong? If that's what you're saying, the policy is mad. - fchd (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: AZ is probably not that ambiguous in football, but it is outside of its main field (e.g., AZ is more popular in Italy as a Procter & Gamble toothpaste brand). Maybe the current guideline need to be amended in order to solve this issue; in this case I think we should go back to the English media and see the relevance of the AZ Alkmaar name: if this is actually used by a significant part of the sources, we should choose this form, otherwise let's just maintain the status quo. --Angelo (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Ugly' football team names 

message: Not only we have a Captain (football) article, but also Vice-captain (football) and even Vice-vice-captain (football). How about a merger? --Angelo (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was never all that opposed to having separate articles about captains and vice-captains, but to have one about vice-vice-captains is just silly. – PeeJay 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge to Captain (football)...having a vice-vice-captain is ridiculous; whatever next, a vice-vice-vice-vice-vice-vice-captain or something? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't for one second believe that vice-vice-captain is real. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term may not exist, but the concept certainly does. Some teams, such as FC Barcelona, nominate a hierarchy of five captains, the fifth of which I would say could be referred to as the vice-vice-vice-vice-captain. Obviously no one would ever bother saying all those "vices", but technically it's correct. – PeeJay 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded it, as a dicdef it's certainly not encyclopaedic and is unreferenced to boot. If 'no one would ever bother saying all those "vices"' then it clearly fails WP:CITE by a long way. Qwghlm (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a Vice-vice-captain is actually a vice-captain caught inflagrante dilecto? Ref (chew)(do) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support turning it into a redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that vice-vice-captain is ridiculous, however the vice-captain is a recognised and distinct role. I believe that the redirect causes confusion. I am not opposed to merging the artcles into one article per se. However that article should not be captain (football). Maybe there should be an article on football positions and they all redirect there. Making one position redirect to another is like redirecting deputy prime minister to prime minister or vice-president to president, they are not the same thing. Pbradbury (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the deputy prime minister and vice-president have official duties. Does vice-captain have any distinct official duties? Or is he simply a stand in captain when the captain is missing? So basically I support the re-direct. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will vary by team, just like it does by country. Basically they will take on the duties delegated to them by the captain (just as in the instance of a vice-president etc.). The point is that they are distinct roles and the redirect is confusing. A vice-captain is not synonymous with a captain and as such should not redirect to such. Again I am not opposed to merging the artcles I am just opposed to redirecting vice-captain to captain Pbradbury (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also notice the article is completely unreferenced. If you can find some sources about vice-captain and captain with separate duties then fair enough. As for the re-direct, how about having a separate section on the captain page, title == vice-captain == and re-directing to the sub-section? Peanut4 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me I will try and dig up some references to the role as well Pbradbury (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the suggested edits. However I still have a few fundamental issues with this, having thought about it more. Firstly, what is the disadvantage of having two articles, even though there is some repetition? Maybe it just requires better editing and writing. Secondly even though it is now consolidated on one page (neither of the contributing articles being referenced by the way) it contributes less to the overall user experience (e.g. meta data, such as 'vice positions' has now disappeared). Thirdly it is still contained in an article that is titled as another position. Pbradbury (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captaincy in football 

message: And we've got another list of football players abroad: Abroad Iraqi players. Should this list be categorized, like the list of Portuguese footballers? If kept, it should definitely be renamed. AecisBrievenbus 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I am in favour of categorizing it. --Angelo (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet another...Jimbo[online] 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abroad Iraqi players]] 

message: Two or three teams? — DenCA (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say all the same. Crossovers between squads and official club badge. Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The two first are the same club playing in A PFG (the 1st Bulgarian league), the last one appears to play in the V AFG, (the 3rd league) and is an amateur club (FC) but I would guess is a feeder team of the professional club (PFC). So merge the two first articles but keep separate from the third. – Elisson • T • C • 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A note on the RSSSF page for Bulgaria 06/07 reads : "NB: Pirin 1922 (Blagoevgrad) changed name to Pirin Blagoevgrad (Blagoevgrad) before the start of the season; they are not to be confused with the  "original" Pirin (Blagoevgrad), playing at 3rd level." - fchd (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PFC Pirin 1922 Blagoevgrad]], [[PFC Pirin Blagoevgrad]], [[FC Pirin Blagoevgrad]] 

message: As the season of goodwill is upon us, I was wondering what users have put on their Christmas list. Rather belatedly, I've added "England Player by Player" by Bobby Robson and Graham Betts, although my other half says I'm too late. I guess I'll have to buy it myself when the credit card has some slack. Any other thoughts.  --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being in Newcastle, any other answer than 'Alan Shearer's autobiography' would see me lynched...GiantSnowman (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hopefully getting Bobby Charlton's autobiography from my nan, and I've also asked for Ryan Giggs' autobiography too. Any other football books would just be pointless trivia to me. – PeeJay 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arsenal Opus looked interesting until I found out the cost was £3,000. D: Might get Arsenal: Extraordinary Images of an Amazing Club though. Qwghlm (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping to pick up West Ham: The Managers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas books 

message: What is the consensus on the inclusion caretaker managers? Has one been developed? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer templates WITHOUT caretaker managers; put them in List of Wikipedia F.C. managers instead. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather them go in simply for completeness sake. Although I can see the argument for leaving them out particularly those who only manage for one or two games, but some caretakers can be longer-term and important parts of the club's history, e.g. When a club appoints someone to take charge from the following season. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to your answer your question, no, there isn't really a consensus. Personally, I am in the non in templates, oui in lists. (no idea why I have gone french) Woody (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caretaker managers deserve to be included, they are a reality in the timeline of a football club's guidance. What would you do if the club won a trophy under the regime of a caretaker manager? You would include him. And you can't include/exclude piecemeal. That isn't application of consensus. Ref (chew)(do) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football manager templates 

message: Rivals.net seems to have re-branded, and all links to articles I have cited there are now broken. I have e-mailed them to see if the articles have been moved or archived, and am awaiting a response, but I just thought I'd warn anyone who has cited articles there that the links will probably now be broken. --Jameboy (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is rivals.net a reliable source? It is or certainly was a fans' site. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly never quote anything off a bulletin board or forum, but some of the articles (at least for West Bromwich Albion) were pretty good IMO. --Jameboy (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong the articles were good, but they were still written by fans from my experience with them. Peanut4 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rivals is owned I am pretty sure by Rupert Murdochs Sky. The whole networkd was recently revamped. However it has caused quite a few problems and issues which has resulted in a number of clubs leaving the network for other fan sites. Being a Blackpool fan I have seen the Blackpool Rivals site (AVFTT) go from being a strong and vibrant site to a total mess in under two weeks. The editors of AVFTT and numerous other clubs sites have left for "fansonline.net" which was set up by fans and which itself has also had problems. Which could be one reason why links are now dead as each club had their own independent fan site on Rivals and of course a number of them have left the Rivals network. With regard to the articles on Rivals, the vast majority are written by fans and so are highly subjective.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, Rivals isn't/wasn't a reliable source, but you can't generalise. For instance, the Rivals Leyton Orient site had biographical details of all their past players, data supplied by club historian Neil Kaufman taken from his Complete Record-type book. That particular section was probably as reliable as it gets (without actually buying the book). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals.net articles - links broken 

message: The page related to Matthew Tubbs gets redirected to Salisbury City F.C., as far as I know Tubbs doesn't meet the requirements for an article. Should this article get redirected to Salisbury City or just deleted, as it's misleading?...Jimbo[online] 09:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be simply deleted. --Angelo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Tubbs 

message: I've created the above template, based on Template:Infobox Football club season and implemented it at Scottish Premier League 2003-04. Is the template a good idea, and if so, what improvements could be made? Soccerbot seems to be a good source for a lot of the information. Fedgin | Talk 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, most of the facts presented in the infobox should be in the article itself (as prose or a combination of list and prose in a statistics section) rather than in the infobox. – Elisson • T • C • 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In fact I would go further - a lot of other infoboxes contain information that would be better added to the prose, and should be removed. - fchd (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it. Should be a good addition to league season articles. – PeeJay 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the urge on this project to avoid putting things in infoboxen. I've tidied this to make it look like the new club infobox layout. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Short answer: Prose >> Infobox. – Elisson • T • C • 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not for quick reference. While I agree that deeper statistics are best saved for the article body, having at-a-glance information at the top of an article in a consistent form is wonderfully helpful, which is why most every WikiProject has adopted them. I'd argue against trivial attributes being added to infoboxen, but rarely to the actual existence of a new variant. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough - I think it's useful to have an 'at-a-glance' summary of the key outputs of the season. I appreciate these might not include some of the points above. What would be considered useful, then? I'd suggest: winners, promotion/relegation, continental qualifiers and top scorer. Perhaps the others can be binned? Fedgin | Talk 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Football league season]] 

message: The article on Liverpool F.C. is currently a featured article candidate, however there is currently a dispute on the nomination page about the fact that its failure to mention incidents involving "hooliganism" more than it already has means that it is imbalanced. I would value it if some people from here could take a look and see what they think. Given that somebody has opposed the nomination saying "I would say any article on an English football club is incomplete without significantly mentioning associated acts of hooliganism", I think this has implications for many articles beyond Liverpool F.C. Robotforaday (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gives due coverage to Heysel (as it should do), and this is sufficient as far as I am concerned. Individual incidents such as smashing up trains, while regrettable, are not noteworthy when considering all aspects of a 125+ year old football club within an encyclopaedia article. It's not a case of brushing hooliganism under the carpet, just that it is only one small aspect to consider. Also, when events take place away from the ground, it could be argued that they have more to do with topics such as crime or law and order than with individual football clubs. --Jameboy (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about lack of reference to hooliganism in the Liverpool F.C. article 

message: The Man United player Jonny Evans is in the news for all the wrong reasons. Per WP:BLP can other editors keep an eye on the article for vandalism or possible libel? Qwghlm (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is being watched, (and we knew you meant BLP, ;) Woody (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now semi'd because of the sheer rate and WP:BLP concerns now that schools are out. Woody (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonny Evans 

message: has been adding external links to football stadium articles which link to the multimap map of the stadium, with an edit summary of Added local transport information. In the case of St Andrews, if you follow the link (which I've now removed) the only "local transport information" is the name and distance of nearest train station (at which trains rarely stop) and nearest airport. This strikes me as spam, or even assuming good faith, inappropriate external links, would others agree? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and I have said as much on his talkpage. I reverted the addition to Villa Park. I think the user is acting in good faith though with the addition of coordinates. Just doesn't understand our policies yet. Woody (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this spam? 

message: Can somebody please rate Gavin Donoghue because i have improved it and i don't think that it is a stub, if you rate it i would like if you could also create a to-do list so i can improve it. Thanks.  Sunderland06  21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rated it a B due to the fact that the English is quite poor in several places and there is a section which is tagged "neutrality disputed".... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gavin Donoghue]] 

message: For those of you that don't check the Nominations for deletion/RMs on the main board, I will list it here. There has been a requested move for the page Football (soccer), with the intention of moving to Association football. All constructive comments are welcome on the talk page. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football renaming