Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandman888 (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 16 January 2012 (→Ballon d'Or: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.
WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Football
Project pages
Assessment
Format templates
Other

Help requested

There is a very aggressive football fan that I am trying to help at Talk:Shamrock Rovers F.C.#Capacity of Tallaght Stadium. He has taken a strong dislike to me and is acting combatively, so the page has been protected for the time being. I believe he probably means well in his edits but he takes requests for sources as a personal affront. The point I have tried to impress on him is that Wikipedia requires sources.

He is now trying to come up with a source for his claims but is having a hard time doing so. Football articles are not something I spend a lot of time writing usually so I am not sure what the specific requirements are for sources. Recently he has suggested that the source for one of his claims is an offline technical drawing made by an architect. I need help regarding whether this is acceptable as a reliable source and a third party opinion would be very welcome at this point. I also need help pointing him to a good place for appropriate sourcing. I'd like this editor to see that I'm not attacking him personally, but I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. If anyone is interested in weighing in on the specific sources he's provided, please join the conversation such as it is. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what I see is your saying the capacity is over 8,000 which you've acknowledged was only temporary & IP thinks it's 5,947 but hasn't provided any sources. Shamrock Rovers themselves claims the stadium holds 6,500 see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium's website and this article claim a capacity of 6,000. – Kosm1fent 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything about the capacity. The source that was originally there states that temporary seating had been added bringing the capacity to 8,600. This sourced figure was presented at the article for some time until this IP editor began changing it without sources. I'm trying to get him to provide a source for his claims. Until such a source emerges, I think it makes sense to stick with the sourced claim. I'd be happy to go with any figure that is sourced, though. Either the 6500 figure (with source) or the 6000 figure (with source) would be fine in my view. But the IP editor is intent on a specific unsourced figure. Recently he's suggested that he has some kind of a source - an architect's diagram of the seating. My question is whether this is an appropriate source according to WP:FOOTY's guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if its accessible to the world at large, e.g. via a library; otherwise, how can it be verified? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Referring to "morons" or "well-intentioned imbecile" is not conducive to a rational discussion.[reply]
I'll have to disagree with you there. Goading this editor actually got him to reveal his source. Prior to that it's been a stream of abuse directed at me since October. I don't usually use such rhetoric, but this editor needed direct prompting to get him to participate in the discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt it counts as a reliable source. The architectural plan must be checked for accuracy first, and that's not our job. Plus what Daemonic Kangaroo wrote; it needs to be (easily) accessible. – Kosm1fent 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll inform the IP editor then. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architect drawings/diagrams are not a good source for actuality, but they could be good for intent. Unfortunately, the real world has an unhappy habit of interfering with architects' ideas. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the builder's plans for the extension the previous owners had put on my current house, I'll vouch for the fact that plan doesn't necessarily equal reality..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academies

User:Yaya Silva has taken it upon himself to make wholesale moves of club academy articles to "B" articles. e.g. he moved Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy to Manchester United 'B' with the edit summary "Format". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should undoubtedly be moved back, as that's simply not what they're called in England. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and explain to him why. I've moved them back now, think I got them all. GiantSnowman 14:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kershaw

Anyone with access to Joyce, Hugman or an equivalent book who can clarify this?

According to this source Kershaw played in the English Third Division North. There was a Jack Kershaw who played for Wigan Borough around this time, but there's no mention of him leaving to play in America. Despite the coincidence of being born in the same area, I suspect they are probably two seperate players, but would appreciate if someone could confirm this, and whether the player who moved to America did actually play in the Football League.

Cheers. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look in Joyce (p. 147) and there's one "John Kershaw" who played at right back and centre forward for Wigan Borough from 1921 to 1924, with 42 appearances and one goal. So it seems they are two different players. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No record of the other one playing League football? I guess that article might have confused the two players then. Thanks! J Mo 101 (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's the oly Kershaw listed. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Torres

This probably isn't the best place to report this but there is an on-going petty edit war going on at Fernando Torres. Basically, User:The Footy Show wants certain content to be included and is continually re-adding it and User:Mythical Curse is continually removing it, with both just accusing each other of vandalism, rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion. This has been going on for nearly a week now with no end in sight, and by my reckoning they've each broken WP:3RR twice. As someone closely involved with the article I thought it would be best to get someone independent taking a look. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warnings issued, article fully protected for ten days. Have suggested the two protagonists talk it out on the talk page. Let me know if it gets better/worse...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Racism in association football

There is a discussion regarding the content of this article that could be important, please see Talk:Racism in association football. GiantSnowman 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerbase

Has anyone actually got a response from Soccerbase before, I’ve been trying to get them to correct Scott Allan’s stats for some time now with no luck. Now their mistake has even made it on Sky Sports news when they were reporting his transfer to West Brom. Basically he made 4 appearances while on loan at Forfar which is correct in his wiki article & referenced via Soccerway who have it correct. Soccerbase have excluded his debut for Forfar against Alloa from their stats. Can someone else help email them so this mistake isn’t broadcast in the mainstream media again. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 4 years ago. Emailed them and they seemed happy enough to make the changes. Since then I have mailed them a few times but always got no reply and no changes were made. They no longer appear to have any working mechanism for dealing with emails or requests for changes - unless anyone knows otherwise?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from them on Twitter ages ago when I pointed out that Jean-Paul Kalala had the flag of Congo on his page instead of DR Congo. They said it would be fixed, but as you can see, it's still there: http://www.soccerbase.com/players/search.sd?search=Jean-Paul+Kalala&type=player
For the record, their Twitter page is http://twitter.com/#!/soccerbase but it looks like it's just an automated feed of betting adverts now, I don't hold out much hope of you getting a reply or any action from them. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 08:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone gotten a response recently, where they altered the mistake? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've e-mailed them a couple of times, no luck. It may be time to start using other sources as the 'default' stats provided if they can't recognise that John Smith playing for X in 2010-11 is the same as in 2011-12. Sigh. GiantSnowman 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playerhistory

Today, someone had a "streak" in my watchlist, adding "Player X on playerhistory.com" and "Club Y on playerhistory.com". (See the edits on Magnus Sylling Olsen, Freddy dos Santos, Tromsø IL and Association football here). The edits are mainly done by Polarman, but Hmandal and 88.84.174.179 also did some edits. The first thing that struck my mind, was to revert them and put a notice on the user's talk page, but I thought I should ask here first: Is Playerhistory.com a reliable source and are those edits inappropriate, especially when Polarman is Håkon Winther, the founder of playerhistory.com? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've established that playerhistory.com is a reliable source, although I'm not a member so I don't know their exact process for publishing information. I avoid adding links to subscription-required sites like that, but there is some free content, so perhaps it's okay. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself is OK, but I don't think every biography should contain a link to that player's biography at playerhistory.com. What does that website actually add to the article by being included as an external link? – PeeJay 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the site only support numbers in the infobox. Could be useful when updating/adding players with limited sources. But it's just wrong when he add link to his site, to a lot of random articles, when the same stats are already stated in other sources. I guess I could just undo all his recent edits that is like that? Mentoz86 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the site is specially helpfull for sourcing less known players, and I remember in earlier discussions (years ago), that we used to consider it among the most reliable ones. However, it shouldn´t be used at every single player article. I use it mostly to complete players careers (as it often contains clubs not included in other sources) and NT stats (specially U21, U23, U19, etc.). I am sad to see that the new version excluded place of birth, which was included before, however this new version includes the leagues each club played in for each player (a definite plus in my view). I am very glad a bot has fixed all links that were broken. FkpCascais (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to bear in mind that, as a user-edited site with no indication to the outsider as to how information is sourced or how good the fact-checking process is, playerhistory isn't a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Doesn't mean it isn't useful, and it certainly doesn't mean I've never used it as a reference, but as a non-WP:RS, we'd be wise not to start using it as the source of choice just because it's easily accessible and has wider coverage than many other stats sites. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutelly right Struway. FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes with Transfermarkt - anyone can register and edit I believe. GiantSnowman 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we mentioned it often. However I do remember us having a bit more of consideration towards Playerhistory... Just as note GS, I became an Transfermarkt editor about a year ago, because I wanted to fix a few mistakes there, and I did a test about the website. The thing is that you do have to present a source for the changes, and the changes are first presented to an admin who then makes the changes, usually only one, or more, days after. I made a test and added beside the clubs in the career section, which I presented a source for, a birthplace info without source), and after a day or so, when the changes appeared at the page, only the clubs info was added, meaning that they do have some filtering of info presented. The changes are never done directly to players pages (as here on WP happends), but they are presented to admins who approve them first. It doesn´t make Transfermarkt reliable, of course, and many errors are present which challenge it just by itself, but I just wanted to explain that the process of editing Transfermarkt is not as simple as WP, as sometimes is presented here on discussions. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user has set about adding a whole load of extra Playerhistory links. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I have with adding links to this website is I do not see it containing anything that couldn't be/isn't already in the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites, the purpose of an external link is only to facilitate access to relevant content that cannot be added to the article. Frankly I don't see anything in playerhistory that suggests it should be linked. If people are satisfied with its reliability as a source, then it may be used as a cite, but that is not the same as including it as an external link. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a former editor (well I'm still an admin, but hardly added/changed anything in the last 3 years) I can remember very few editors who turned out be to be vandals and had to be blocked. In those rare cases their additions were soon detected and deleted. There are of course editors who don't know the difference between an accurate "reliable" source and an inaccurate "reliable" source (one of the reasons that makes Wikipedia and even sites like playerhistory.com for me very frustrating places to be). Examples of inaccurate reliable sources are soccerbase.com fussballdaten.de and vi.nl, these sites are unacceptable sources for me. The Skysports/Rothmans football yearbooks, non-league directories, (combined with recent clubhistories/player who's who's) are reliable sources as well and much more accurate. The only accurate reliable sources in the Netherlands are a few clubhistories. Infostrada has reliable data on the Dutch league (ca 1970-present day), but their accurate database is for professional use only (they work with 2 databases: one for professional use and a slightly less accurate one for us common people) playerhistory.com has some very good content, including content that wasn't previously published in any form. An example is the French team who do a lot of research, they correct the errors in reliable sources like Barreaud. So I agree it shouldn't be always added/used as a ref or external link. Someone who compaires playerhistory.com with the best ,available, most recent sources both on and offline can decide if using it as a ref or external link is usefull or not. Cattivi (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the biggest fan of the layout of fussballdaten.de's website, but as for stats in the German leagues it really is nigh-on accurate. I can't comment on other sites, but, for what it's worth, I would say this one in particular is as reliable as it gets. Jared Preston (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most accurate sources on German League football can be found here [[1]] Have you ever looked at their second division line-ups of the 70's and early 80's in detail? Cattivi (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just did, and must admit they are much better than a few years ago. I can still find errors: Bernd Krumbein played 16 games for OSV Hannover in 1980-81 and not 15. There are 16 matches in the database but I think the player/season is not correctly defined. (when they change bis 31-10 into bis 1-11 the error will probably be corrected) This is a typical error you can find in databases. Cattivi (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statistics are there, obviously just a problem in counting the individual appearances for the database totals, which is a shame for that player. Cattivi, would you like to create the article on Bernd Krumbein? Would be a useful addition! Jared Preston (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only league appearances and goals?

Why are only league appearances and goals included in the infoboxes? I feel all official matches should be included, including domestic and continental cups. PaoloNapolitano 16:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because comprehensive cup etc. appearances are only available for modern players, and we need consistency between articles. GiantSnowman 16:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning that, for players where that level of detail is available, there's nothing to stop it being put in the body of the article in a table. As mentioned, though, for any player prior to the 90s it's going to be very hard to source all appearances in competitions other than the league, and to include cup games for some players but not others would just make for a horrible mess..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when it comes to Norway, it'a easier to find total matches, Stein Olav Hestad for instance, has 681 matches (league, cups, friendlies) for Molde FK, and that is the number you'll find in most sources. To find out how many league matches he played, is very difficult, atleast I haven't managed to find it out. And the story is the same for most Norwegian footballers prior to the 90s. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it's often the case that where using club records, it's much easier to find total appearances rather than league only. This is particularly true where players may have spent part of their career at a semi-professional level. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but the established convention is that the infobox stats only cover league matches and it would be nigh on impossible to change that now, with the thousands of articles that use this infobox. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some sort of a notice can be put at the top of the infobox like "All appearances that are verified by reliable sources have been included" and in other infoboxes; "The appearance and goal statistics of this football player are incomplete and only include league appearances and goals. If you want, you can cite reliable sources and update the infobox with correct number of appearances and goals". PaoloNapolitano 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the only stat available is total, then include that - it's better than having it empty - but make sure that the prose reflects this. If we are able to specify league stats, then they should be used all the time. GiantSnowman 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Gustavo Ledes

An IP user keeps adding a break (<br>) in Luis Gustavo Ledes' full-name. Seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as it stretches the infobox. I'm at a 3RR. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the "dos" is part of his full name then it should appear in his full name. That's what full name means. If you really "often" remove it, then I suggest you stop. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I mean look at Charlie Oatway's full name! Ridiculous but accurate. GiantSnowman 10:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe set the infobox to wrap the full name. Hack (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dos", "Da", "De" are merely conjunctions in my language that appear in names, meaning "of". Not really a name and not really that relevant, but OK i'll stop doing that. Was not really hoping on "heading home" my train of thought after five years :(... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Category:Association football players who died while playing

I was trying to expand the newly-created Mitotônio article and noticed that it was a member of this category (and is wikilinked at List of association footballers who died while playing. All of the sources I've found show that Mitotônio died on 1 April 1951; the day after he played in a match (on 31 March). The cause of his death was found to be a hemorrhage he developed while playing in that match, but he did not actually collaspe on the field or die the day of the match. Does this person belong in that category or list? I think not. Jogurney (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this - I should have read the text in both category and list since it's clear that injuries sustained during a match that caused death are counted. Sorry, I should be more careful. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was going to ask a question about this as well. I was going to create an article about Soldier Wilson, which someone else has since started at David "Soldier" Wilson (disregarding the COMMONNAME guideline). Now, he suffered a heart attack while playing for Leeds City against Burnley but it was nothing to do with any injury sustained in the match. However, he did not die until after the match had ended so does he belong in the category or not? Thanks in advance, BigDom 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Description for the Category has - This category covers association football players who have either died while playing, died directly from injuries sustained while playing, or died after taking ill on the pitch. - so reckon he does.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they both qualify. GiantSnowman 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. On the same topic, does anyone have Wilson's Scottish League stats for the infobox? BigDom 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clubname parameter

Due to the inconsistency among English football club articles regarding what is placed in the "clubname" parameter, I have started this discussion with the hope of a clearer consensus being reached. This inconsistency can be demonstrated by looking at the 17 English football club FAs, with four (Ipswich Town F.C., Liverpool F.C., Luton Town F.C. and Manchester City F.C.) including "F.C.", while 13 do not. Previous discussions on this topic can be accessed here and here. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd like to see them listed with the 'F.C.', but consistency is key - whatever is agreed here should be rolled out across the board. GiantSnowman 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. I remember this being a certain affectation of a now indef blocked user who insisted on removing all F.C.'s from the club name parameter. I believe it should have FC, AFC, F.C., etc otherwise it isn't actually the club name, it's just an abridged version. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that when Sarumio was blocked indefinitely, it was because "your continuing edits in removing "F.C." from various football teams is without consensus and therefore vandalism. Since you seem incapable of contributing in accordance to Wikipedia's requirements I have removed the editing privileges from this account." GiantSnowman 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's back at the moment, which is probably what kicked this issue off again. The consensus he was editing against was no unilateral mass changes, if I remember correctly. As the linked discussions show, there was no consensus for either with or without. I'd argue that if we do need consistency, and if this discussion is just about English (and possibly Scottish) clubs, we have to include the FC/AFC/whatever: Blackpool is a place, Blackpool F.C. is a football club. And as TRM says above, the FC is part of the club name: as the infobox is designed at the moment, if you don't supply the clubname parameter, you get the pagename, i.e. with the FC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That account is now indef blocked as well. But the debate is still worthwhile. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't even cross my mind that the new editor would be socking. I'm losing my edge ;) GiantSnowman 18:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
even if it is obvious half the time nobody listens anyway so wouldn't worry about it. In regard to the issue as far as I'm concerned F.C. Should be included there are so many clubs named after the place they are based in plus it is there full and proper name. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djurgårdens IF

User:Plexus14 is constantly trying to add wikilinks for non notable players that he has created articles for but which I have PROD on the basis that the players are not notable since they havn't made any apperances in a professional league. He seems incapable of reading his own talk page where I left him a proper explanation the first time I reverted his edits. I'm at 3RR so I can't reverted him should he revert my edit again, could someone please explain his error to him? --Reckless182 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to have understood the point of NFOOTBALL now. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and football

Following on from some digging around, I made this edit on the Premier League article stating that it is a men's football competition. This is a pretty obvious fact which has been missed despite two runs through the Featured Article candidate procedure and two more Featured Reviews. From an encyclopaedic perspective, we should not leave basic facts like this to our reader's imaginations! I've expanded more on the implication of this distinction here.

The Premier League is not the only featured article from this project which fails to mention the gender of its participants: Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., Manchester City F.C....etc . The omission also occurs in FA Cup, Football League Cup and Football League Championship. It is worth a review of football articles (from competition to club articles) to state when they are men's institutions which exclude women. Needless to say, the point does not get missed when we're discussing things like the FA WSL or the FA Women's Cup. SFB 21:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Premier League article should specify it's a men's competition, but isn't Arsenal F.C. a club with both men's and ladies' first teams, along with various reserve and junior sides? Both genders are mentioned in the article, though I appreciate it's almost entirely about the blokes. U+003F? 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I know, if Sepp Blatter woke up tomorrow and decided that women could play then they could. See here for the only evidence I can be bothered to find. Because of that fact, I don't think every article related to men's football should have "men's" included in it. I don't believe Arsenal of any other club specifically do not allow women to join, it is just that FIFA do not permit them to sign any women. Other than that I do not believe there is any need to clarify the gender, as I doubt any readers will be confused about the issue or need any context explaining to them. This isn't the negro leagues.--EchetusXe 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the need to express this. In almost all instances, the women's league has the word 'Women' in it. In my opinion making it unnecessary to further emphasise the gender of the participants of the league. Adam4267 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should be careful about this - Lindsay Kennedy and a few other women have played in some of the male-dominated soccer leagues in the United States. Perhaps it's clear that women are not allowed to be registered to play in some leagues, but obviously there are exceptions. Jogurney (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely need to be careful because most men's leagues do not have rules prohibiting women from playing whereas women's leagues do have rules prohibiting men from playing. This is why it is often made clear in women's sport articles but not in men's. Most of the men's professional sport's leagues in North America atleast go out of their way to make it clear women can play in them if they can make the teams. -DJSasso (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the FA specifically states that the sexes are segregated: "Save for matches in a playing season in the age ranges under 7, under 8, under 9, under 10 and under 11, players in a match must be of the same gender".[2] I think an important aspect should be stated regardless of its simplicity – we don't leave our readers to guess the fact that the FA Cup is "known as the FA Cup", or that it is a "cup competition". A cornerstone of encyclopaedic writing is that of assuming little to no prior knowledge. (If an alien read the Premier League article, would it understand that only men play?) The beauty comes in making things explicit, not implicit. As for the Arsenal Ladies, the article states that "The men's and women's clubs are formally separate entities". So, by company law and the FA's rules, Arsenal F.C. is a men's club.
Also, thanks for the input Jogurney. Unlike many European countries, the United States explicitly allows female participation where possible via the framework Title IX, thus the distinction is more blurred there. SFB 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cornerstones of Wikipedia are Neutrality, Verifiability and No original research. Although it is true that the F.A. Cup is a mens competition, it is almost never actually mentioned in sources. The reason is really irrelevant because the sources dictate what is in articles, not encyclopedic conventions. Adam4267 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mention the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Still, I have presented a non-original, verifiable statement from a primary source. Do you think it is neutral to ignore the issue of gender, even when it is an issue which de jure means the participatory exclusion of half the population from the subject? SFB 19:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that statement isn't relevant to the changes you are trying to make. When reported in the media Men's football teams are not called Men's football teams, they are called football teams. Whereas Women's football teams are called Women's football teams. Your opinion might be that having single gender football teams is unjust and other people might share that opinion, but it is really irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you really feel strongly about it then you could start up an article called Mixed gender football. Adam4267 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two basic issues here: due weight, and worldwide context. Yes, everyone in the UK knows that if you say "professional football" you mean a game exclusive to men, but this isn't the case elsewhere in the world and our articles should provide sufficient context for readers who may be unfamiliar with local customs. The FA does, as pointed out above, codify that the Premier League is for male players only, and it does have a counterpart women's league. However, because football is so male-centric in the UK it's important that we not go out of our way to point out the obvious. As such, it's sensible to point out that the Premier League (and the Football League) are men's events, while we need not specify that individual clubs or other parties which lie under those groups are men's football (for instance, "Thierry Henry plays for the Arsenal men's team in the men's Premier League"). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly with what you are saying there. But would it not be fair to say that in the majority of countries the men's game is considered important and the women's game considered less do (or non-existant). While countries like the U.S. break the trend. Adam4267 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's only if you count countries on your fingers. Population-wise it's far less clear-cut. Both the US and China have strong women's setups. A small amount of context is a select few articles is a small price to pay to avoid being unduly weighted towards European expections and prejudices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris and the above Henry example is something we definitely should avoid like the plague. I only suggest that we include one word ("men's") to descriptively clarify competitions where the distinction is not obvious (for instance, the fact that Henry is a man is a bit of a give away). Never before have I seen the inclusion of one plain, descriptive word challenge the principle of WP:Undue weight. Also, Adam, your suggestions that gender should only be addressed on separate articles misses the point – my issue is that not stating the competing gender in the article is a descriptive failing when considered in a global context. Not once did I suggest here that the exclusion of women was unjust, merely that the exclusion of the fact that they are men's competitions was an editorial oversight worth correction. SFB 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watford current squad

The current squad & loan section on Watford's page are listed in a wikitable. Should this be reverted to look like the general format or is it ok. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back through the edit history, I see that this change was made by User:WFCforLife in August 2010 (by this edit:[3]), although I can't see that the change was ever discussed. The table is based on {{Template:Football squad player2}} rather than the conventional {{Template:Football squad player}}. As far as I can see, this template is only used on the Watford and Luton Town articles and a handful of clubs on the west coast of USA/Canada (see:[4]). There is an ongoing discussion about the use of the new template on the Vancouver Whitecaps FC talk page (here). I have invited User:WFCforLife to comment here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Incidentally, what's with the Alt. Text on many of the images on the Watford FC page? For example, if you hover your mouse over the image of Aidy Boothroyd, you see this "The head and shoulders of a man in his thirties. He has short hair and is wearing a black tracksuit top. A grass field and two sides of a sports stadium are visible in the background." As I say, what's that all about? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First things first, you can't blame me for the Luton article, User:Cliftonian did that. As for the alt text, I'll look into it: alt text is supposed to be a literal description of an image for users who can't see it. It should only appear instead of an image, not when you hover over one.

My stance on the Watford squad section is that the current version should remain until a final decision has been reached on {{Football squad player2}}. Notwithstanding the Manual of Style, sortability etc, it simply looks better in the context of the article as a whole. As for the "undiscussed" jibe, while the aesthetics of the implementation on the Watford article were my own doing, the decision to use #2 was discussed when the aforementioned template was first implemented. —WFC— 06:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is a good thing. The standards have changed over the years but overall it is a good thing. It isn't meant for you. It is for those who have a disability. Browsers have changed, though, which means we actually have to do more work.
The "general" (commonish?) format of the tables we use isn't compatible with the current standards of FA/FL. Again, we will have to do more work since the bar was raised a long time ago. Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was recent consensus to go with the #2 version, or perhaps that related to the international squad list. Anyway I prefer the Watford one because it deals with the issue of 'nationality' in a better way. Eldumpo (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to both the template and the alt text issues:

  1. The template was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Roster format. The outcome there was a general agreement that the new format is superior to the old (both in terms of general aesthetics / consistency and in MOSFLAG compliance) and should be rolled out more widely.
  2. The use of alt text in the Watford article is exemplary. Would that all images had such excellent alt text as Boothroyd's image in that article. Daemonic Kangaroo, are you using Internet Explorer? It mistreats alt text as title text, which is a misfeature of the browser.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't like that table if so few articles use it then clearly there is consensus that th other is better. As far as I can see they should be changed and ole template deleted. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't allow me to respond to the above comment with the veracity it deserves, so let's stick to what I can say. WP:IDONTLIKEIT carries no weight in isolation, and inertia does not override the outcome of a series of widely publicised debates. —WFC— 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Football squad 2 template would be better if it was split into two columns. That would mean the whole squad would be visible on the screen at the same time. I like how it can be colour coded. I personally don't think either of them in their particular form are great, although could it not be possible that Fs player could be edited to make it better. Adam4267 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting it into two columns makes it less accessible for only a minor aesthetic gain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WFC ther sheer fact it's only used on two articles in the uk show that it's disliked. And as chris said the newer one is more in line with policies and as to the look im intitled to my opinion and that is its too long are garish looking. Why do you thi kits correct that two articles in the uk should look different to the rest. And I don't like your reply much eithier. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
given it is used so little and the newer one is far superior I think we should take this to a TFD. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. The Watford style is the new format that complies with MOSFLAG where the older, widely-used one doesn't. It was invented when some football club article, can't remember which, would have failed its featured article candidacy with the old standard-format squad list. As far as I remember, the Watford F.C. article was used as a stable article for experimenting on when the new format was under development. And I'd guess the main reason the new one isn't more widely used is that no-one's yet commissioned a bot to do the conversion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's far too long a table. Really I still feel the same there is clearly a reason it's not being widely used whether a bot is comissioned or not. Sorry I still feel a TFD is necessary if it not being used it shouldnt be there at all. And I personally don't see how it meets the policies better than the one that is use on masse. Unless agreed now by majority that should be widely used then it should go to a TFD to decide. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edinburgh Wanderer, please calm down and actually take the time to read through the huge amount of discussion over the formatting and design of these templates which led to the creation (over a year ago) of the new design. Your replies give every impression of being rushed through, and a TfD here is actively counterproductive (especially when the arguments are so flimsy). I can assure you that the reason the new template isn't much-used is simply because there hasn't been any particular push for it yet. When the player infobox was redesigned and I actively pushed for people to test it, the process took three years from initial implementation to the commissioning of a bot to go and update pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
chris I'm perfectly calm but would be strongly against the implementation of this without further full discussion it's wrong to implement something this long after. I still feel if it was well liked it would have been implemented. I also see no reason why it shouldn't be split into two its far too long as one. A TFD is appropriate if it is little used which is the case. As we all know consensus can change and after this length of time that is possible. I would also argue that it is no better than we what we have already they both have flaws. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be better in two columns so the entire squad is visible in one page view. The primary purpose of this table is to show people which players are currently in the playing saquad. This is being sacrificed. While other things like the nationality of the players or the table being sortable are given more prominence when they are less relevant. Adam4267 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EW - it isn't being implemented (as said earlier, it's only on two English club articles) and we are discussing it - this vry thread in fact. I'd advise against a TFD - it would be unsuccessful and a waste of time for everyone involved. Can the templates be merged at all, so we have the best of both worlds? That'd be the ideal solution. GiantSnowman 12:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, or either one be edited so it includes the best aspects of the other. Adam4267 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what I'm saying is shouldnt be further implemented and Agree merging the two would be the best option although chris and struaway give me the impression it will be implementedI. Two clubs does not merit a rollout at all. Especially without a change to take the very good points or the old one as the new one is as flawed as the old but for different reasons. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no changes should be made either way - i.e. X to Y or Y to X - while a discussion is under way. GiantSnowman 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EW, Could you give your reasons for liking/disliking certain aspects of them? I don't think anything will be implemented without consensus, either. Adam4267 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
first of all the design of the old one is better most main club pages don't use tables or rarely do so it looks nothing like the rest of the content. It needs to be able to split into two without affecting the functionality as is two long and would make sections such as clubs who have first team and reserved and people out on loan.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
secondly there is no need to have the flag and country our editors aren't thick the majority will be well aware of what country a flag represents. if this has been done to meet the flag guidelines why whats wrong with hovering over its still very clear. The roster format is far more used further afield than in europe. Basicly i good go on all day.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of reading through walls of text which basically don't say anything more constructive than "no consensus" and "I don't like it". So let's focus on the actual substance of the discussion.

The reason for the lack of a column split is that the limitations of HTML tables mean that tabular data which is split into columns is more difficult for screen readers (as used by blind and partially sighted users) and automated programs (which could be used for further analysis of our content) to comprehend and navigate. The advantage of a two-column view is primarily aesthetic, in that it results in less dead space on pages and for long lists (such as the squads of Premier League players) ensures that on devices of a certain screen resolution readers don't have to scroll to see all the players. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a technical compromise which would give us the best of both worlds.

So our choice is:

  1. Inconvenience users who use screen readers or other devices which have difficulty with tables which split tabular content over multiple rows (which incidentally includes the Wikipedia mobile view IIRC) for the sake of making articles prettier and slightly easier to follow on high-resolution devices.
  2. Inconvenience readers on high-resolution devices for the sake of users who use screen readers or other devices which have difficulty with tables which split tabular content over multiple rows.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if that's the case then we shouldnt be using it if the technology isn't there to equal what we have then the change is useless. Why cant we use a simmilar format to the existing incorporating the aspects of the new one. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also basicly the new one will always cause problems to someone then that's just crazy.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what I just explained. If you are unwilling or unable to take the time to actually understand points when they are explained to you slowly and carefully then there's little point in your involvement in this discussion. The current template is inadequate because various user agents have a problem with it. The new template fixes that problem, just not in a way that certain parties like. Nevertheless, better to have a fixed template which a few editors blessed with good eyesight find annoying than a broken template which said sighted users approve of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok chris your attitude here is totally wrong first of all you said above the new one can't be split because of HTML issues read it again. Coming from and admin I seriously think you should be civil to other users. They are civil to you so don't say thing like that I can read. you were aske twice if the new one can be split and you said no both times. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is a clear technical issue as I said above and if it can't be sorted we shouldnt use it can you imaging how long that table will get. It's tottaly not fit for purpose. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and lastly in your speech above you dont even say anything about the old one just why the new once can't be split therefore what am I misinterpreting nothing. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the new style of infobox is better all round; it looks better (I can't understand the obsession with columns), it deals with the MOSFLAG issues that the old template had, and it is more accessible to people who use screen readers or mobile devices. All your arguments boil down to is not liking it for some reason. BigDom 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don do you have a modern mobile device if you do go and have a look neither template is broken and the old one is viewable very easily whereas you not to scroll a long way to view the new one.
On my phone's browser (we can't all afford an iPhone) the new style works fine but the old one doesn't. It tries to treat it as a table but fails miserably when the text is too long to fit on one line (e.g. when there is a loan player). Also, the table headers don't align with the contents. Wikipedia should not only be accessible to those who can afford the latest state-of-the-art gadgets. BigDom 14:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree not everyone has an iPhone or htc but these Are becoming the standard and scrolling is funnily enough harder on them. So the lengthy causes issues to these devices. therefore it's no better and as tech moves forward the new one is going to be harder. Have you tries looking at struways version I don't now if thays better on yours it's fine on mine. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BigDom - how does the Boca possible compromise look like on your phone? GiantSnowman 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got my phone (an HTC Desire S, Android 2.3: certainly no ancient device) back from repair and on the system browser's default settings the Boca Juniors squad list is cut off on the right while the Watford list is perfect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the first one, but I think that's only because Boca don't have any loan players, and as Chris says it is cut off at the right hand side. Am I missing something or is the Boca one exactly the same as the original apart from three letters next to the flags? BigDom 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. As stated below, the Boca one is interesting for its own reasons, but it doesn't do anything to resolve the primary sticking points regarding layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based In the table format being totally different to anything we use already as secondly it has to split. The section will be far too long. Mobile devices will be a nightmare on it can you imagine how long the squad section will be on english premier clubs. Nobody even bothers to answer why the old one cannot be amends to meet the mos for flag policy. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i have looked at both using the iPhone I'm using and it is easier to view the old than the new. It takes for ever to scroll the new one. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where I should indent to, so I'll start again here. In last week's discussion, Digirami pointed out the existence of templates used on Argentina clubs e.g. {{Boca Juniors}} {{Boca Juniors squad}}, which combine both navbox and squad list functionality, of similar layout to the current widely-used one, while including country text alongside the flag. They only have the FIFA trigramme rather than the country name, and if I were redesigning each entry I'd put the flag/country on the RHS as per the Watford version. I was wondering whether that sort of template might be a basis for negotiation, or are there good accessibility or other arguments against? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean {{Boca Juniors squad}} right? I think going forward, that would be the ideal solution. GiantSnowman 13:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
struaway just so I know do you mean just using a naxbox not a squad template. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does both. For a club current squad section, you put a format=table parameter. See Boca Juniors#Current squad.
Please understand that I'm not advocating this ahead of the Watford version, just suggesting it might be the basis of an alternative to the wikitable if there's a general objection to the wikitable format, which as yet there hasn't been. Always assuming there aren't any accessibility or MoS arguments against it, which I don't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That's certainly a clever hack. It would leave us in the position of using a template for article contents, which is typically frowned upon, but given our need to keep the squad lists and navboxes in sync it's worth proposing. Obviously it's suboptimal that the templates use the names {{fs2 start}}, {{fs2 player}} and so on when we've got a parallel development at {{fs start2}}, {{fs player2}} etc, but ideally we want these all merged, right? But when it comes down to it, it doesn't actually resolve the key sticking points with thOEdinburgh Wanderer 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)e existing template, which are that it cooks up its own template style rather than just being a wikitable and that it has a split (I've given up on explaining here why that's a bad thing for the sake of my health, but feel free to ping me if the explanation above isn't good enough). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm particularly stupid this afternoon. Does that mean screen readers etc struggle with the current widely-used version? if so, I'd strongly favour implementing the Watford version forthwith, whether we like it or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at all three on the iPhone an can read all three clearly. The worst is the table because of its length. The best idea put forward is this one from struway. what annoys me is people saying its better for mobile devices when clearly the current mon devices can handle it. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are ways of making this less terrible, but the strong advice given is "make your tables as simple as possible". Note that at present we don't do any of the clever id or scope stuff that article #2 suggests to help mitigate the problem, and we can't guarantee that it's supported by any given screen reader anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, we do use column and row scopes. They're a requirement at FLC for lists containing wikitables. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Unfortunately that's the one that doesn't help us here, as we don't use row/colspans on the squad templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we have given the wiki table one a full test and I would suggest we do it on stuways version. If that dosent have as many problems it is a better option. I would be willing to help fully test it. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why haven't we tried the more technical option it's worth a try and also do we know if the scream reader issue is on all of them or just older devices. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A screen reader is nothing to do with how old a device is, and it's nothing to do with mobile devices. It's a software program that blind or partially sighted people use so they can hear what's on the the screen instead of reading it. BigDom 16:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually age is appropriate things change in time it's called progress. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many indents and out-dents I'm getting confused! Is there a possible way to merge the best elements from all three of the templates as a compromise? Let's think of solutions, not problems. GiantSnowman 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are four key differences in the templates:
  1. General styling. The new template is styled like a standard wikitable. The current templates use a hand-cooked style invented waaay back before template standardisation was ever really an issue: aside from minor things like colouring, it doesn't include grid lines.
  2. Placement and presentation of region options. The current template uses just a flag: the Boca template uses the FIFA trigramme: The new template uses the full country name. While this is generally a hot topic, so far we've mostly avoided it in this thread.
  3. The split. The new template omits support for {{fs mid}}. See up-thread for arguments as to why.
  4. The dual-purpose feature in the Boca template, which allows it to be used both as an in-article squad list and as a navbox.
Of those, this thread is mostly about #3. #4 is a neat feature, but needs discussed separately as it a means big changes to how we edit articles (squads will now be on dedicated pages rather than included in the article body). #1 is mostly trivial, and I think we've got general consensus that #2 is progress when it comes to MOSFLAG compliance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour the trigramme + flag combo personally. What about players from the Democratic Republic of the Congo? GiantSnowman 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
concur with GiantSnowman on this it's by far the best option as far as I can see. You are never going to solve all the problems chris all you can do is come up with something that causes the least and design is equally as important as functionality and this is bothEdinburgh Wanderer 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While mindful of what Chris says below, I do feel the need to at least explain the other side to this. One of the biggest cons to a single column is the amount of whitespace it can leave. On that basis I don't consider spelling out Congo to be a problem at all. My opinion on the likes of  COD had been done to death, but I'll take this opportunity to note that it's the same as ever. —WFC— 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the flags issue aside at the moment. In fact, let's leave everything save for the split aside. Does everybody understand at this point why a split is undesirable? If we can at least agree to that, it gets it off the agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not why it's undesirable as I think we will find the length of these tables are going to be a major issue on the clubs who have big squads plus reserves plus loans. However I understand why the two templates we currently use have issues with a split. Im yet to see that this is an issue on the latest idea. Another issue not just on the current templates is how they look for teams that do not have squad numbers the one used the most is a bit bad but on the table it stands out like a sore thumb. This was brought to my attention and have a look at what it would look like by doing a quick check on a Scottish football league club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, missed that one. The squad numbers thing is already a problem. Presently, omitting squad numbers leaves us with an empty table column. Screen readers are known to have problems with such things, and it's ugly from a markup point of view anyway. So that's five differences between the old and new designs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
chris everything to you affects mobile devices. Not all mobile devices have this problem and you are yet to answer what testing was done to show this. Any new tenplate would need to have a version based on a wiki table base would need to have a option where you can remove the option of squad numbers because if it looks bad on the current it's ten times worse on the new one.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What if we just edited the current template to have FIFA trigrammes. Then we would have improved MOS:FLAG compliance, while still retaining other features which are good about it (i.e not as noticeable when there is no squad numbers or having the whole squad on one page). I personally think that if the top could be colour coded that would be even better because I think that feature on the Watford one is really good. Adam4267 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at al clear what you think the point of the new template is, if that's your suggested compromise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adams point is very clear it would comply with mos flag dosent look as bad when no squad numbers addressed the colour issues on the old template. I know the next point what about mobile devices well as I'm yet to be advised what testing was carried out and what percentage this effects it's really hard to say if there is any heavy merit in changing it because of that reason as we will be causing problems for many others in doing so.
In EW's defence, I agree that we need to think about what to do for squads without numbers. However, it's worth saying that this issue already exists on {{fs player}}, albeit less prominently. —WFC— 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise this existed, but User:ClubOranje already coded a solution for numberless squads. An example of it in action can be seen here. —WFC— 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that looks a lot better I have to say. Could we trial these on a wider scale. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem. Jared Preston (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single vs split columns

I've started this section so that we can focus on the pros and cons of single and multiple columns, while continuing to have the more general discussion above. —WFC— 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: I guess I'll start, and I'll make this argument ignoring factors such as sortability and whitespace. For me the most important thing is not the length of the table, although this is undeniably a factor. For me, priority number one is that every bit of every line is readable by every user. Any solution, one column or two, currently on the table or yet to be invented, needs to meet this standard. —WFC— 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
are we certain that the version proposed by struway does have these problems to these devices/software it's clear the first one does. I agree we need to make as much of wiki accessible to the masses however why percentage are we talking. The reason I state that as A apple mobile device user there is problems scrolling large volumes of text that's an issue I imagine a low percentage but then is that lower or greater than the first. My certain preference is a split is needed is just far too long otherwise why don't we Have a look at the arsenal page how long a table would that be masses of white space and an age to scroll through. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you've volunteered it, I'll take Arsenal as an example. They have pretty much the same number of first team players as Watford, so it's reasonable to assume that the end result would look similar to the current Watford squad. Given that Arsenal F.C. reserves have an article, I don't see why we need to list the reserve squad (its inclusion or exclusion is beyond the remit of this discussion, but if I ignored it this would likely be pointed out). And the loan section is a very good example of why one column would be preferable: it looks cluttered even on a fairly high resolution laptop, I dread to think how bad it is on a smartphone. —WFC— 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's tottaly fine on my smartphone thank you very much however the watford one isnt is tricky to view. The reserve squad is notable that is a ridiculous length for squad sections. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you missed the point anyway does struways version have the issue for screen readers because It looks far better and is certainly more accessible for apple mobile devices. I know that htcs are simillar yes we are talking very modern devices but they are all going that way. This means the wiki table version will cause major problems for them so in two years maybe less we will need to change again hardly accessible to everyone. The split is their on that version as well. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)F[reply]
Reading through this thread some of the arguments against single columns are quite astounding. Opposing because it will be too long is ridiculous you're only going to scroll down a little bit, is that really too much trouble? I'm in favour of the table in use on the Watford article. It complies with MOS mainly ACCESS and FLAGS and allows the squad to be sorted. This is something which would not be possible if they were split in two columns. That's my two pennies worth on the issue. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As NapHit says, the problem you have highlighted can be solved by scrolling down. If I've understood Dom and Chris correctly, content on the right hand side of "Struway's version" can't be viewed at all by some users. —WFC— 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to respond saying that before I had to start again due to edit conflict. An iPhone has problems scrolling large volumes of text which is why I'm having problems editing this so you woulld be creating a problem for me. You are giving in one hand and taking with the other. As a compromise can I suggest we try a wider rollout and get more comments. I would suggest a page like arsenals for England and a few more ransoms maybe even the hearts page which would kill me as its me that edits it the most but wider discussion is needed. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the reason I think a wider trial is necessary is its clear we can meet the mos flags policy by amending and or merging these templates so it's the accessibility that's the problem a wider trial would allow us to evaluate if this fully solves it and tweak it. I feel a split is neccesary but of the majority of people don't after a wider trial then fine. WFC can this template be amended to have an option to remove the squad number column if a club dosent have them. It's a total white space that looks wrong if you can't. That would be something that would really help make it look better. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do like the new template (WP:ILIKEIT, haha), and the Watford squad can be viewed in its full glory on my big laptop screen, but save for the space on the right and the possibility of missing squad numbers, there is obviously still the issue about usability, if the third resort template really is the future of squads on Wikipedia and future updates... This is actually getting a lot more confusing than it needs to be. I'm tired. But the old template, as widespread as it might be, is a bit too old. We, as WP:FOOTY members, are probably getting too attached. We needn't be. Change can be good. And what I was thinking was, that if the old template were to be kept, it would make sense being able to update the two (squad list on article and navigational squad template) in one edit. Just, there is a lot of work to be done on this third template suggested..... Scrolling the mouse or flicking your finger once on a touchscreen device can't be a big problem though surely! Jared Preston (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jared it's a nightmare at times it jumps constantly on the touch screen you scroll down and it scrolls up I've had every iPhone since they came out and I stood in the freezing cold. It's a design flaw but it's there. My compromise suggestion would be a wider trial and If we move forward mere these templates into one. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As good as these iPhones are, they certainly seem to be as flawed as the templates are! Yep, I hope so too, that we can find a solution. More testing seems required though, you're right. And #3, as I say, is a good idea. Just the other day I was looking at a Turkish Süper Lig team's article and its squad template had less than a third of the correct/updated players. This has got to be sorted (somehow). Jared Preston (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, a "wide trial" isn't happening. We don't have the resources to go asking a large amount of partially sighted readers to go testing every change to a template, and nor can we ask editors to go out and purchase expensive screen reader software. We know there is a problem here because there is abundant documentation to that effect on the Web; the counterargument so far has been, in its entirely, "I don't believe you". FWIW I'm not inclined to consider "the iPhone has a problem scrolling large amounts of text" to be authoritative either, as the device is optimised entirely around the paradigm of vertical scrolling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though if anyone wants to have a listen to screen-reader output, the Opera browser has a screen reader built-in, and a Firefox add-on is available: see User:RexxS/Accessibility. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
chris I'm starting to think you are just being ackward for the sake of it basically because you feel its me causing trouble. A wider trial is necessary to gauge opinion on its format not just tech issues. It's clear here from not just me that there are other options re the flags additions of squad numbers and other elements. We're not just talking from a tech point so why on earth would you suggest getting further input isn't necessary. We have no idea what the wider scope is. To role this out now fully without eithier a wider trial or much more of a discussion on all elements is inappropriate. It's just isn't ready for that. As you are aware I have offered to do the setting up of it and to help gain opinion. After that it can be reviewed an if the majority want it then it should be rolled out quickly rather than waiting over a year whilst people can clearly change consensus again Edinburgh Wanderer 12:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been on the watford page on my iPhone to see where Edinburgh wanderer is coming from, and i don't think there is a problem at all. The table is not too long there are no issues with it messing up, so I'm not really sure what you're argument against these tables is. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I genuinely do have an issue with it on this phone but maybe it's mine or me even. However dropping the technical stuff I think the best way forward Is to trial this template as I've suggested below not on the grounds of tech but on sorting all the other issues.
I would like to ask a tech question of anyone who can answer it. On articles we can align two sections or wikitables to sit along side each other. Does this cause screen readers to have issues. The reason I ask is if it dosent can this be done with two templates. Obviously it means the template isn't broken and would in theory look split. It's a speculative question as was just and idea. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anything which splits the table cells up creates problems. We cannot at present make a single table column display in two using CSS like we can with lists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well was just an idea if it didn't cause the same problem but if it does then obviously not an option.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

I would like to take a poll on who would be opposed to a further trial. I suggest picking several high volume articles putting the new template in place and seeing which version of the design I.e flags, squad numberless table and section headings are correct. It's clear to me although not all users have the issue with mobile devices and screen readers as I have said above however I know feel we have to accept that some do and we need to move forward so to me the sticking points mentioned above including a tweak to section headings, flag versions and squad numberless table. I would propose a months trial on between 5 and ten high volume articles before bringing back for a final discussion. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment about 'flag versions' have you read MOS:FLAG? Eldumpo (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes I have although i find it complecated I'm talking about the proposal above for use of the trigame system used in the mod option and discussion further down my understanding from reading that is it does meet that policy. I like that system but saying that im not overly inclined to any of them. What I'm trying to establish is whether not people would object to trying these options out and sort the other issues. The flags isn't really the main issue for me a flags a flag and if it meets that policy then fine. If we are rolling out it needs to be as good as we can make it and have a firm consensus. Given that it's been well over a year the template isn't perfect yet it's time to get this sorted and implemented.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually agree with a trial, not for technical reasons but to ensure that opinions expressed here are representative of the silent majority that don't frequent the project. My suggestion would be for the trial to stay in place for a defined period of time (a fortnight or a month?) and to direct would-be reverters to this discussion so that we can enlighten them on the reasons and they can add their feedback. To achieve this I would suggest trialing on a high-profile English league, the Championship perhaps. I'd be happy to do this manually, adding images + alt text along similar lines to the Watford article. —WFC— 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a high profile English league would probably be best. What about ones without squad numbers what leagues in England don't use them. There are three in Scotland but unsure of England. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to find consensus then I say we put the new format on, at least, the 'Big 6' English clubs, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Celtic and Rangers. Adam4267 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adam: That's a possible alternative. And I assume by the big six you mean Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Watford? EW: the highest English league that doesn't use numbers is Conference South, which really isn't high enough up the pyramid to expect meaningful feedback. I don't think it's really an issue, given that the non-numbered format clearly works. —WFC— 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly - Watford already have the template. Adam4267 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it would be nice to try it out even if just one club but yeah i agree.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to target specific articles, so long as we link back to this discussion. When footybio2 was deployed we basically just added it to articles as we saw fit. What is important is that we ensure all the edge cases are tested (very long lines, odd nationalities, no / partial squad numbers et cetera). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the trial not more about establishing consensus than testing technical issues? Adam4267 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have presumed so, Adam. Jared Preston (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of both it needs to be perfect there are a few minor sticking points which can be sorted and obviously it allows us to get a clear consensus on it.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in a few hours I'll post a notice to the talk pages of the 33 clubs mentioned (the 23 other Championship teams and the 10 Adam mentions) informing them of this discussion, and see what comes of it. From past experience, and having been on both sides of this, it's likely that at least one editor will strongly object to their club's article being part of the trial. There is no point in deliberately antagonising such people; by informing them, we've made contact, can invite them here so that they can understand the reasons behind this and provide their feedback, and restrict the initial expansion to articles with receptive or indifferent editors. —WFC— 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the ten articles Adam suggested. I'll notify the 23 Championship clubs this time tomorrow; contributors to those ten clubs are likely to give quite a bit of feedback anyway, and therefore this section will be more manageable if we spread the notifications out. —WFC— 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and refs

I've added support for dates and references to the template's sandbox, and am just waiting for approval before putting it into the main template. The full proposal can be seen here. —WFC— 05:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see this moving forward. Not wanting to muddy the waters, but I really like the way you can display both squad list or navigation box, using the one {{Boca Juniors squad}} template. They are able to do that because their template separates out the surname, using |first=Joe|last=Bloggs|link=Joe Bloggs (footballer) rather than |name=[[Joe Bloggs (footballer)|Joe Bloggs]]. Whilst updating, should we consider having this (more flexible) syntax as an alternative? Also, since we're in the process of making changes, should we think about adding row and column scopes as per WP:DTAB? U+003F? 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am slowly working on a way to incorporate {{Football squad player2}} into a navbox in my userspace. I see it as more of an "in my own time, let's see if I can do this" thing than a serious proposal, but would work faster if there is consensus that we should go ahead with the idea. —WFC— 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also developed compatability for the first/last thing, at User:WFCforLife/Fsc player. —WFC— 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward with the new format on MLS articles

We've had a bit of success on two MLS articles and I plan to roll it out on the remaining team lists this coming week. I will now place notices on the MLS team articles about the pending change.

The argument above that the new format is not useful because it used in so few articles is like saying, in 1890, that the automobile is not useful because so few people own them. The reason it's used in so few articles is because it's new and the old one has been incorporated in so many. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are still problems with it but the only way that getting sorted is through more articles having it same with consensus when nobody can see it. However for some reason when i see the template it does remind of me of America. For the life of me i can't think why.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, perhaps it's because in North America we treat all people with respect and dignity while in other parts of the English world it's either "keep a stiff upper lip" or "feed 'em to the dingos"? The fact that table is sortable probably doesn't have any bearing on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, the reason I am planning on rolling it out on MLS first is because it's already implemented on three team pages and it's currently pre-season and will disrupt the least now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction four MLS articles. Another editor moved another article's roster to the improved template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's good ol' fashioned family racism... I shall help with the MLS effort, then move on to another league. :) It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DC United done. Movin' on to RBNY. It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Potts nationality

Evening all. Just want to confirm beyond all doubt that I am right in saying that wiki football policy with regards to International / Nationality status is defined only when a player has made a competitive appearance? Would Potts openly stating "I wish to play for the US" change our approach? Koncorde (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, he already represented United States men's national under-20 soccer team on one occasion, so he should already be considered primarely American footballer. I see his USA U20 appearance sourced by USsoccer.com, however it doesn´t mention if it was an FIFA recognised appereance, or non-FIFA friendly. In case of being an U20 official FIFA match, I beleave he becomes primerily considered as American. FkpCascais (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is another flag issue I want to be the one jerk who mentions that we should just remove flags to identify players.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the US under 20 cap was in an official international match then he his now a US player. However, the point of change occurs when FIFA approve the requested change in national association. This is usually reported but if it is not then we can only find out when they make the debut for their new team. Adam4267 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a friendly. Koncorde (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to verify that? GiantSnowman 20:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly or not, it's still his representative nationality (as per MOS:FLAG) for now. --Jimbo[online] 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant above was that if it was a FIFA recognised friendly then he must have had international clearance to play in it, obviously meaning he is currently eligible for the U.S. However, if it was a non-FIFA friendly then he wouldn't need to have international clearance. So wouldn't necessarily be eligible for the U.S. Although there probably won't be a source specifically stating this was a FIFA recognised match I think it would be safe to assume it is. So I would agree that he is currently a U.S. representative player. Adam4267 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He should be considered American and has flag should be that of the US. He's played for the US, albeit in a friendly, but has never featured for England, therefore he's American. Considering he's never featured for England, he wouldn't even need FIFA approval to represent the US, he would just need the regular paperwork that any international player would require. Pretty straightforward case in my opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he isn't "American" at all. Which is the root of the problem here. He has represented the United States in a football match, one which was neither for the senior team nor a competitive fixture. We should be very careful to explain exactly why he has a US flag to avoid assigning it undue weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But America is currently the only football team he is eligible to represent. Also he has to be a U.S. citizen to represent them, which surely makes him 'American'. So both personally and in footballing terms he can be considered American. He is in exactly the same situation as players like Patrice Evra or Miroslav Klose or Aiden McGeady. Born in one country but eligible to represent another through nationality. Adam4267 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is he an American citizen or is he being picked to play for an American youth team simply because his father was born in the U.S? He was born in the UK so is British of US descent.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from FIFA regulations; a player may represent more than one Association in an international match so long as that player, in addition to having the relevant nationality, fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
- Either his biological mother or father was born in the territory of the Association; 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
He's available because his father was born there, yes. As per MOS:FLAG, his sporting nationality is the US as that's who he's last represented. I can't see how this has become such an issue! --Jimbo[online] 12:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly "such an issue!". There's no need to try and make out this is some kind of stress point. It's an editing question and a formality for my benefit (and whoever else wishes) to establish the core facts to avoid reverting other editors good faith changes. I've reverted changes based on the understanding that a players nationality is defined by playing competitive games for a national team - not simply playing in a friendly. Admittedly that's a real world understanding and not wiki policy - hence the question here.
Meanwhile MOS FLAG is one thing, but his physical nationality is another. For instance, his article has now been amended to state that he is "American"[5]] Is he? Is that correct to make him American on the basis that he played 21 minutes for the US U20 in a friendly? Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A player's footballing nationality is defined by what FIFA think his nationality is, playing in matches is irrelevant. Potts' actual 'nationality' (whatever that means) is irrelevant. In footballing terms he is as American as Landon Donovan. Adam4267 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's total garbage. This edit and your even-worse followup make the article definitely less accurate, and if either you or TonyStarks are in the habit of making such edits then you should stop it immediately. The only truth here is that he has represented the United States. Gah. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A players footballing nationality is defined by who the player is eligible to represent, and then goes on to represent. FIFA excludes or allows certain nationalities depending on their rules etc at that time. However when does someone such as Owen Hargreaves become English rather than Canadian, or Potts become American rather than English? Will George John be Greek, or American born Greek? Should Hargreaves be described as a "Canadian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for English Premier League club Manchester City and the English national football team"? At what point did he cease being a Canadian and just become "Canadian-born"? Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A player like Potts is English when he plays for his club in England. Playing for the USA doesn't mean he suddenly needs a workpermit. He's American when he plays for the USA. Maybe an idea: Add an * next to the flag meaning: this is a domestic player in this country who represents country X. similar: # :This player has also a EU passport (very important in modern day football). Cattivi (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume he has Dual nationality. Adam4267 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and even after playing 100 matches for the USA, he would still be considered a domestic player in England by his club and the English FA. FIFA has no jurisdiction on these matters. The only difference is: he won't be eligible to play for England. Cattivi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I really don't understand why people love to complicate things. He has represented the US, therefore he's American. That does not mean to say he's not English or that he's not registered as being English with the FA. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tons of Brazilian internationals have a second or third nationality after spending years in Europe. Do you see Ronaldino's article refer to him as Spanish? No, it says he's Brazilian .. but then also goes on to say he has Spanish citizenship. Not to mention the thousands of cases where a player is born in one country to parents from another country. Therefore, in this particular case, he's American, but you can add in the article that he's born and raised in England, has English citizenship and explain that he was eligible to represent the US through his father.

PS. Like it or not, association football is governed by FIFA. So really, they have the final say when it comes to these types of issues. TonyStarks (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to add, when it comes to youth friendlies, there is no official/non-official tag like there is for senior friendlies. At youth level, FIFA only cares about official matches: qualifiers, contintental competitions and World Cups. That is why you see some youth players play for 3 different countries, off the top of my head, I can think of Alex Zahavi (US, Portugal, Israel) and Alix Bahlouli (Switzerland, Algeria, France). TonyStarks (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A footballer is an employee of a club. The club has to abide national labour laws, this always comes first (The FIFA doesn't rule England) The only thing FIFA does is add extra rules to prevent countries buying national teams. FIFA can decide Potts is not eligible to play for England, but they have no jurisdiction on his nationality at club level. Cattivi (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just complicate things. TonyStarks (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all missing something, and that is that the lede sentence says American footballer... He is not simply American, but an American footballer (or soccer player, if you like). The American is/should be an adjecive to footballer as that is why he is notable for, not to his personal nationality, although ends up being linked because of passport issues. I allways read it that way, am i wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to split hairs, but at present the lead describes him as "a professional football player". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, American professional football player... I was talking in general terms, and the inclusion od professional doesn´t change my reasoning anyway, just a variant of the same. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general reader won't know what "our" conventions are regarding nationality in the opening sentence. They'll assume "American footballer" means either "player of gridiron" or "footballer of United States personal nationality", neither of which apply in this case. And we shouldn't be writing anything that's going to confuse the reader. So it should just say professional footballer, or something of the sort, and later on in the paragraph/section, say he represented the US under-20 team at international level, and if people think it's necessary, add that he was born in England and qualifies for the US via his father. And if that goes in the lead, it needs to go in the body of the article as well, with sources. Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the article, so I don't know what it says at the moment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are our conventions? I ask because it doesn't appear to be consistent whatever it is. Koncorde (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything written, as basically there is no agreement. Any reference to someone as 'American' or whatever should be properly defined. If that's all you know for certain is that they have represented a country just say that and stick to the facts. Eldumpo (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A way to resolve the 'American footballer' issue would be to call them a 'United States footballer'. In my opinion more accurate. Adam4267 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't. They're English (well, British) representing the United States, just as Eoin Morgan is Irish representing England, and Owen Hargreaves is Canadian. The issue appears to be a mixing up in many articles of the players actual nationality (passport) and/or general FIFA national affiliation (such as most footballers in England being considered "English" rather than British) with the representative nationality. In the case of Jamaicans such as Robbie Earle there's a real dissonance when he is described as only "English-born", what part of his life did he live in Jamaica? What does "English-born" actually mean, and would we apply that same logic to Jack Collison? Why is John Barnes in contrast only English rather than "Jamaican-born"?
It's inconsistent and leads to revert wars. Struways solution is clean and clear and would be consistent. Looking at the player profile template it does simply state "x is a professional football player for X". Their nationality (both footballing and otherwise) can be resolved later.Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the current convention is to list a player by sporting nationality (i.e American for Daniel Potts). Although many people do no follow/know the rule and put different things. Like something-born something footballer. The thing is, you are saying that a player's nationality is 'this' because he was born there, but its not your decision to make. There are many complex reasons why a person's nationality is what it is and to say that if you were born somewhere it must be your nationality is ridiculous. It is much easier, less bias, more relevant and more in keeping with Wikipedia's rules to list a player's FIFA defined nationality. Adam4267 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adam4267 is right, we already had agreed about the convention to use sporting nationality, although I see nothing wrong in using Struway´s approach for more complicate cases where it could be usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion over and over again, so it is remarkable that anyone is still saying "X-born Yish" is acceptable. Our convention is not to use nationality in the first sentence unless there is no real ambiguity. The rest of the lead can be used to describe the player's nationality and representative status in a fuller manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you make to 'player's nationality' is a key point that needs to be discussed and understood. If all we know is that he was born in X country that doesn't mean that's his nationality. I would say there are relatively few cases where we truly know a person's 'nationality' (although you would need to define the word anyway), and one of the main occasions may be if the player makes some kind of announcement. The verifiable information we may well know is where he was born, and the country( ies) he has represented at football, and anything else we say will often be supposition. Eldumpo (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thumper. Not just me who thought that "x-born" is completely unacceptable for encyclopedic entry.
And with regards to the allegation that I believe a players nationality is based on where he was born....no, I believe a players nationality is based on his actual nationality (Passport), and believe his International eligibility and who he represents at an International level are all entirely different things to each other. If we're going to say someone is a particular nationality we should be clear as to which one we are referring and not attempt to muddy waters with all this "x-born" or "American soccer player" nonsense. Carlo Cudicini would not become English on the basis he played for England and it's ridiculous to change a biographical description.
It should be kept to the templates clear and clean "Tim Template (born 1 January 1975) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Temp in Templatonia Premier League and the Temp International team." the players nationality and eligibility would be discussed in the article (or lede if it's of such a notability to require it). Koncorde (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Konkorde, saying "American soccer player" is not nonsense, specially not if the player actually represents United States at NT level. There may be an ambiguity, OK, we can discuss how to fix it, but I see no reason to call it nonsense, even more because it was established and adopted for a very long time now, I dare to say, from the begining. The "X-born player" was established a long time now as unecessary, and I even add that breaks WP:OPENPARA point 3.2.
Don´t take me wrong, but it is not pleasent to hear someone´s ideas called nonsense, specially not when the user, myself, is absolutelly open to work in order to find the most adequate solution, and simply mentioning the options and what has been established until here. I´ll repeat myself from my last comment, I see nothing wrong in using "American soccer player" for cases where there is no ambiguity, but I equally said that I fully support Struway´s approach for players with ambiguities, which as far as I see, is the same as you proposed in your last comment. Now, I´m just not sure if you are proposing that for all cases, or just for the ambiguos ones? FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think United States soccer/football player is the better alternative. The team is called the United States soccer team. Not the American soccer team. Adam4267 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think David Beckham's article should say "is an England footballer", because the team is called England rather than English? American is just the adjective for someone from the US. For what it's worth, I agree with Chris, Struway and the others who are saying that nationality should only be included in the lead when there is no ambiguity. BigDom 12:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense is nonsense. It literally makes no coherent sense that someone might say that if Carlo Cudicini played for England he would be described as an "English professional football player". It's not an attack on a person, it's a statement that the current definitions are screwed up by inconsistent application.
And yes, I would suggest it is applied wholesale, given the flexibility of a player to potentially to switch national alliance it must be easier to maintain multiple articles if they are simply changed to ""Tim Template (born 1 January 1975) is a professional footballer who plays as a striker for Temp in Templatonia Premier League and the Temp International team." and avoids needless "American footballer / English footballer / Jamaican-born footballer" disputes. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about players without NT caps with no potential ambiguity? FkpCascais (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For cases where there is no ambiguity, including a nationality is okay. However, if there is any potential ambiguity we should avoid it. That's basically all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's correct now. I've been keeping an eye on certain articles because of nonsense like this. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)fo[reply]
Nice example, when Lilipaly returned to Holland after his "naturalization ceremony" he said: It's something I might do when my career playing for Utrecht doesn't take off. Accepting Indonesian citizenship is a big step for a Dutch footballer: he will lose his Dutch passport. Indonesia doesn't accept double nationalities Cattivi (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santos FC (women)

Apparently the women's team and the futsal team were closed in an effort to hold Neymar at the men's team. Wow, probably the best women's team outside Europe, 2 time Women's Copa Libertadores winner, just shut off for an estimated 400,000$ a year. If anyone might like to add something to that article it would be nice. Wonder if it brings down the whole Copa Libertadores. Should the team be marked as dissolved? Maybe they come back next year with a non-star team. -Koppapa (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes, mouth, nose, etc all needed at FC Barcelona

Ongoing edit war nonsense there, would appreciate some regulars here getting their hands a little bit dirty.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballon d'Or

Just to let people know that some IPs fail to understand that the Ballon d'Or and the award Messi recently won the FIFA Ballon d'Or are separate awards and are arguing that the former article should include Messi's victories from the last two years. Would appreciate it people could corroborate what I'm saying so they get the message, especially as the article will on the mainspace soon as a TFL, so would be better if it didn't go there in the middle of an edit war. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of cause. I stopped reverting those edts a while ago. Problem is the press doesn't differentiate and says Messi just won his third. So a combined total of both awards isn't that far stretched. -Koppapa (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the press report reality. reality is reliable sources. all sources claims this is third ballon dor. no sources claims it is not. ipso facto this is the third ballon dor. Sandman888 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rcardiffcity27

Just a heads up over a potentially disruptive user. He's gone around adding captain logos to squad lists, raplacing the existing text, even though these logos add absolutley no value and just create avoidable ambiguity. Not to mention his plain silly edit summaries; "i'm cardiff city, i'll do what i want", for me, is a classic. Here's another example of this user's apparent lack of maturity, on this occasion against a fellow Cardiff fan. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now given a 24 hour block for vandalism, personal attacks etc, will probably be back for more fun and games once it expires. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ran into this user myself, adding flags where they have no business being. Why said user vandalised Lloydf640's page and he left it there until you reverted it is beyond me. I'm curious to know what this article contained... A 24-hour block seems very lenient for such idiocy. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope a few bits about how great I am (!) but I doubt that. Ah well, he's not going to change overnight (literally), so he's likely heading straight for an indefinite block. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For info the entire content of the article was "An editor who is a briefcase w**ker", only without the censorship. Heven only knows what that's even meant to mean....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth F.C.

I noticed two problems in this article... and my suspicious mind wondered if they were connected:

  1. Interesting unsouced claim in lead: "Portsmouth F.C. is the most successful English football club south of London."
  2. "Honours" section in the article seems to have lots of entries that are dubious honours for a professional football team.

Any views?

I'll check the article history and invite the major contributor(s) to come here. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that claim as unsourced + POV. Overall the article is in dire need off references, general pruning, and a re-format to bring it in line with other teams. GiantSnowman 11:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With 2 league titles, 2 FA Cups and 3(?) losing apps in the Cup Final, they undoubtedly are the most successful English football club south of London, though there's not that many to choose from, and I suspect the statement's only there to show they've won more than Southampton... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would that make Ipswich Town F.C. the most successful English football club east of London?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Tranmere are the most successful English football club west of Liverpool, with one Welsh Cup and one Leyland DAF Trophy. U+003F? 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice to say that all it takes is a map, a ruler and a bit of ingenuity for any football fan to declare his club "the most successful" in a given region. In the interests of NPOV we should ensure that articles are freed of any such claims which aren't rigorously backed up by reliable secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may address the points in reverse order...
2) Honours section has clearly been updated with details of small sponsored pre-season tournaments, or youth cups. I agree these ought to be removed.
1) This shouldn't be too difficult to verify, and is undoubtedly true (2 league wins and 2 FA Cups). As for the "Ipswich east of London, Tranmere west of Liverpool", these are spurious points, 'North' and 'South' of London are widely used terms, and when addressing football in 'the South', then London is often excluded in this manner as it obviously is something of an anomaly, having so many large teams. I can recall reading various news pieces that have referred to football 'South of London', again probably easily found as sources if needs must. I think it is a point of interest, and wouldn't object to the same term being used for the 'most successful team in the North East/North West/wherever', though these geographic terms are not so easily defined for obvious reasons. Grunners (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long debate not so long ago about this kind of thing on the Celtic article. Making up arbitrary geographical or political sectors in order to maximize the significance of a club is both POV and OR. The only relevant divisions are those that are defined by football or political authorities that have a real-life significance to the club's existence. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<-Do you have a source for the claim? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that: East Anglia is a far more notable geographic descriptor than "south of London", yet not even User:The Rambling Man would add a claim to the Ipswich Town lead that claimed them to be "the most successful English football club in East Anglia" unless it was a notable claim, made in reliable sources. Which it isn't. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Real Madrid C.F. are the most successful club south of London? --Jimbo[online] 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to hell for this, but 👍 Like. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it, Chris! Love it! Jared Preston (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm now devastated that being "south" of London is somehow (allegedly)[according to whom?] much more significant than being east of it. My lot have even won a trophy in Europe, this simply isn't fair. Where do I claim my refund? (Although I do, in spirit, applaud the Pompey fans trying to "big up" their club right now, not that it's encyclopaedic or worthy of inclusion here...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller and thanks for bringing this to our attention. It looks like the south of London thing has been addressed, so moving straight to the honours thing... I've tried to tackle the honours section, firstly pruning some of the most obvious non-honours, then using the Everton article as a guide for formatting and fixing the links to major competitions. I moved the other honours to "other honours", which may be deleted or incorporated elsewhere in the article. It's true that the article needs a bit more work though, especially in the history section. At least the external links are still looking tidy since I tidied them up two weeks ago. Cloudz679 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League Manager of the Season

Just a heads up that I have nominated this for WP:FLC to add to the FL collection of Premier League awards: Premier League Manager of the Month and Premier League Player of the Month. Suggestions, critique - just any sort of feedback would be handy. Thank you, – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warms the heart...

I'm pretty sure that Javi Guerra is unknown to 90% of the English public (if not more, but i'm not being elitist, i'm sure 90% don't know about him in my country, Portugal, as well). This past week, rumours surfaced he was to move to Rangers and...voilá! Suddenly he is "known", the vandalism (and of the lowest caliber) started (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javi_Guerra&diff=470699011&oldid=470132701).

Everybody enjoy that weekend, keep it up! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen vandalism like this before. Right after Malmö FF won 1–0 over Rangers at Ibrox in this summers qualification round to to the UEFA Champions League somebody started vandalizing the goalscorer of the game Daniel Larsson, somebody even went as far as this and this. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we advertising vandalistic diffs on a page which gets permanently archived, again? Why did the last ten million polite requests to stop giving these vandals what they want fall on deaf ears? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Chris, did not know this was also considered "feeding the troll" honestly. I'll stop if it's disruptive and, "gaining momentum", maybe i should learn too that 90% of my reports (if not more) end up in scolding :( ... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Vasco: I was looking at the edit history of the Javi Guerra article and noticed that you reverted an edit by an anonymous IP and added a "filho da puta" in the edit history, which translates to "son of a bitch" if I'm not mistaken?!?!? I'm sorry but for me that type of language and action is completely unacceptable, especially considering that the user simply made a minor change to a club name in the infobox. We all have little disagreements of this typeevery single day on Wikipedia but that does not give us the right to use those types of insults. This isn't the first time I've come across this type of behaviour from you and it's getting to be rather troubling. If you're going to take stuff like this personally, you might be better off not editing on Wikipedia at all. TonyStarks (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Football agent

User:Antondefoe, probably a football agent, creates articles with loads of unreferenced info and false stats. Could someone review this biography Esmond James, is this player even notable? He probably created an article about himself: Tony Awor, also doubtful notability.--Oleola (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Watford stats for James appear to be false, can't find any record of him playing any first team games for them, which of course means the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned him before here: [[6]] (without much result) Cattivi (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have your say. If I had it my way I'd block the guy. Believable hoaxes do more harm to the WikiProject and the site than articles along the lines of "FARMER BILLY HAS A SIX FOOT WILLY. LOLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ." —WFC— 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tony Awor article is now up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Awor. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Fourth Division

This article was recently moved from 'Czech 4. Ligy', where I had originally moved it due to the only English language source referring to it as that. Whilst the latest move did go through an RM, there was not much input, and I'd be grateful for any further views as to whether the current article title is deemed appropriate. Eldumpo (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested why you didn't take part in the RM if you felt the move back was not appropriate. I welcome to chance to discuss this with you. I found a source at BBC referring to the league as Fourth Division Czech football. Cloudz679 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really refer to a league, it just states the fact that he was playing in the fourth division of Czech football. It doesn't imply that the name of the division is Fourth Division Czech football. BigDom 12:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the RM because I didn't see it until now. I agree with Big Dom's comment re the BBC source, it's making a general comment on the level, rather than referring to a specific league. Eldumpo (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1914 association football players

What is the rationale for this category? There is some text as an intro, but this mainly deals with inclusion criteria, rather than the reasoning behind the category. If it is felt to be useful to track early footballers this way (not convinced people would find it useful to search for all players from this era in a long list), why choose 1914 as the cut-off? Eldumpo (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing something to do with WW1. Don't know the history, but maybe plenty of players stopped playing? Just a guess. Could be just a random number. TonyStarks (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was World War I any more disruptive to players' careers than the next one? I would have thought that there was a fairly steady transition over the years. The only significant date was 1888, when The Football League started, but to change the category would be very hard to do. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In England at least competitive football continued until 1915 in spite of the War, so I'm not sure either where the 1914 date comes from. BigDom 15:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to delete or otherwise change the category I guess a bot could change all the links? Eldumpo (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a bot is that many of the articles will simply have the category removed while others will have it replaced with a new category. Can a bot distinguish those players whose careers started before 1888 and those that didn't? Furthermore, we should be careful to avoid becoming too Anglo-centric. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning is stated on talk page and at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Pre-1914_Association_Football_players. Unsure of validity though. Nanonic (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially convinced by any of the arguments there. I don't personally see that there was a sudden and dramatic change in any major aspect of football after WW1. One of the arguments used in that CfD is that tactics after WW1 were markedly different because teams used more strikers and fewer defenders. Firstly, I don't believe that's the case (I'm pretty sure 2-3-5 was standard either side of the war) and also, so what? It's hardly a major change. Should we have a separate category for players who played before the current backpass rule was introduced.....? --ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
moreover, that debate was nearly 5 years ago and, as we all know, consensus can change.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responses. At the moment I can't see any justification for keeping it. I don't see why it's a useful search, after all, we wouldn't want Category:Footballers of the 1930s.Eldumpo (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cat, I see that the rationale is "This category is intended to assist readers locate footballers who played in the game's formative years". Well, people are equally likely (probably more so in fact) to want to locate players from the modern era, but we don't have Category:Post-1992 footballers. I vote that the pre-1914 cat gets deleted, in fact I'm going to CfD it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer / Football

Hi! I'm working on a list of sports people, and I'm wondering when I should use "Football" versus "Soccer". Could someone let me know if there's a guideline or something on the difference? Perhaps on my talk page, since I'm not part of this group? Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline here is WP:ENGVAR. If you're subject has strong national ties to an anglophone country, use whichever term is used in that country (i.e. British footballers/Amercian soccer players), if not you're free to use whichever term you like, although football is the clearly prevailing term on Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's football categories

I have to confess to not being much interested in women's football but can someone explain why the sub-categories on Category:Women's association football players all take the form Category:British women's footballers. Why the apostrophe S? To me, this should be Category:British women footballers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sport is "women's football", so a participant would be a "women's footballer". "Woman" can't be used as an adjective, so "Woman footballer" isn't grammatically sound. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disagree but "women" (not "woman") can be used as an adjective; there are similarly named categories such as Category:English women cricketers; see Category:British women by occupation for several others. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sport is not "women's football", it is "football" (actually it is "association football"), so DK is correct.--EchetusXe 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago someone changed them all to "female footballers from X". Then they all got changed back again... My view is that it's not very important and that time/effort spent changing it back and forth could be channelled more productively elsewhere! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding representative league appearances to infoboxes

What are people's views on representative league appearances a player makes, being added to the 'National team' section of his infobox e.g. see this edit at the Billy Steel article. Whilst I'm aware that these matches were a big deal for a number of years, they were not full internationals, and it's not as if full internationals were not taking place in this era. I think it is therefore a little misleading to have them listed under National team, and perhaps it is just best if they are not included in the infobox? Eldumpo (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with removing the information. It's sourced and it was an important part of the player's career. I don't understand your problem with it. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay too, they were important matches. BigDom 09:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His problem was it being in the infobox, not its existence in the article... Jared Preston (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my issue is it being included in the infobox, and specifically the 'National team' section. I agree the appearances are notable and should be in the article, but not every aspect of a player's career should go in his infobox. If consensus is that these should stay then many other representative teams should be allowed to go in here (e.g. Galicia) else it is a British-centric rule. Eldumpo (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles also have youth national team appearances in the infobox. Therefore the nationalteam function appears to be more for the use of representative teams, rather than specifically the full national team alone. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Galicia, Catalonia, etc are generally included in Spanish player's infoboxes. I'm unsure on this because are the representative teams not representing the league rather than the country. Which IMO means that they are not 'national teams', as stated in the infobox. Adam4267 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the best players of the league that participate, irrespective of nationality, it can feature players from different countries. Therefore, in my opinion, it should not be included in the infobox under the National Team section. However, if this teams were open exclusively to local domestic players (were they?), then I don't see a problem with having it there. TonyStarks (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present the infobox guidance only refers to 'national team', although it says the under-age categories can be included, but there is no reference to other representative sides. Therefore I believe this documentation should be amended in any case to reflect the consensus. The problem with including league representative sides is that they are not being selected by the overall lead football body in that country, and may not be limited to 'nationals' from that country anyway. If it was felt they must be included what about a new sub-section to the infobox headed 'Representative teams', although then you may have to list which sides are deemed acceptable for inclusion. Eldumpo (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus turns out to be that these games are notable enough for inclusion in the infobox, can I go through adding all the additional appearances that e.g. Steve Sumner and Brian Turner earned playing against club sides and regional selections? --ClubOranjeT 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brings us back to the debate about Pelé's goals total ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if included they should be separated in some way. The Scottish League XI Steel played for was probably effectively a Scottish national team, so it's not completely out of place in his infobox, but Mirandinha played for a Football League XI and IMO to have his infobox show "national" team appearances for Brazil and the (English) Football League would look very silly indeed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If these games featured foreign players, like the Miradinha example above, then we should NOT include these games in the infobox. It makes absolutely no sense to do so. They are nothing more than gala matches. TonyStarks (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we change the "National teams" section of the infobox to "Representative teams" then? That's what they do for rugby players who play for Barbarians or the British and Irish Lions. – PeeJay 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternativly it could be put into the senior career section. Adam4267 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be an appropriate place to put it. We should treat it in the same way as we treat national team appearances. – PeeJay 00:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Football player national team statistics

Would some kindhearted soul please add a Wikipedia:Template documentation to {{Football player national team statistics}} with a decent description? Jared Preston (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Template:Football_player_national_team_statistics/doc. Pretty pointless template if you ask me. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just like that! Thanks buddy. Jared Preston (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Club World Cup is not in 2010 in association football and beyond

I did not find FIFA Club World Cup info or results in artcles 2010 in association football and 2011 in association football and I dont know if we have a protocol about, also I am working a little in 2012 in association football --Feroang (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate articles. There is no inclusion criteria and everything is unsourced or redundant like the incomplete champions and cup-winners section. If even the world cup is not mentioned, what good are they? -Koppapa (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this articles are great, but imcomplet. Help to fix it is very welcome. --Feroang (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the 2010 article - where are the references? GiantSnowman 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking navboxes

Hello all. On Premier League Manager of the Season (which, incidentally, is currently looking for reviews at WP:FLC, hint hint nudge nudge), I'm seeing a weird effect on the navboxes at the bottom of the screen when they're collapsed, all the text is left-aligned... anyone else seeing that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "all the text", I take it you mean just the title text (as they're collapsed, so there's no other text)? Or am I missing something? Doesn't seem to be anything unusual from my end. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, when stacked, the text appears left-aligned, not centrally. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing unusual for me either. The text is central. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks normal to me as well. GiantSnowman 13:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, must my "variant" of IE. And Firefox... Will try some other browsers. Thanks everyone! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What IE are you using? I'm at work and I think we're 8... GiantSnowman 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using Firefox, looks normal to me as well. (IE=Internet Explorer). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a CSD G4?

Robert Stambolziev has been recreated after previously being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stambolziev (2nd nomination). Can an admin please check if it's substantially the same as before and can a Greek football expert advise whether his recent games moves him above the WP:NFOOTY requirements. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Football League (Greece) is a fully-professional league, so an appearance in it would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&oldid=471748581"