Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Club categories for players without appearances

Apologies if this has been asked before. Is it appropriate for a player to be included in an "XX F.C. players" category if they haven't registered an appearance for that club? For example, Charlie Walker is in the Arsenal F.C. players category. Although he was registered to the club (and probably played for the reserves), he never made a first-team appearance. I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I just wanted to make sure for consistency. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the consensus is to include players in club categories once they sign (regardless of if they make an appearance or not) and in league categories only once they make an appearance in the league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if they're contracted to a club, then they're a player of that club. Number 57 16:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Follow-up question: Is there a line in terms of youth players? I notice that former West Ham youths Joe Benjamin and John Terry appear in the West Ham United F.C. players category, but by this logic Sol Campbell and Jonjo Shelvey should also be included. Thanks again. Nzd (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would normally exclude middle man club in Italy (those sign lots of players and sold them to lower division in co-ownership on the same day). For those middle man club of South American players, may be helpful or may be not include them. (for example, signing a player and immediately loan them to Europe or Mexico or back to Brazil) Matthew_hk tc 11:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If a player has been contracted with a club - whether youth or senior, whether they played or not, whether 'middle man' (whatever on earth that is) or not - then they should be included in the category. GiantSnowman 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks GiantSnowman, that seems unambiguous enough! (for the record, a good example of a middle-man club arrangement is Jonathan Calleri, who is registered to Deportivo Maldonado even though there was never any intention for him to ever play for them). Cheers, Nzd (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman:, For middle man, some middleman information just don't even shown in the player article, for example, Thiago Siva transfer fee was channeled to Tombense Futebol Clube, Keirrison to Desportivo Brasil, Juan Jesus to Coimbra Esporte Clube, did it need that accuracy ? Matthew_hk tc 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If they have been contracted, then the article/infobox should reflect that. GiantSnowman 12:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is a reasonable approach for situations where a club registers a player for a moment of time as a tax-planning technique. According to this article, several Brazilian clubs transferred player registrations to Deportivo Maldonado to take advantage of beneficial tax rules in Uruguay when they ultimately agreed transfers to European clubs. If the infobox is supposed to summarize a footballer's "playing career" at a glance, I don't see why it is helpful in any way to identify these people as Deportivo Maldonado's players. I agree that the infobox should indicate where a player was contracted to a club without appearing in the league (e.g., training with the reserves) but these player registration's merely represent a tax fiction. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that it would be benificial to record such an arrangement, with the circumstances explained in the prose. Ultimately, we have to go with what the sources tell us, which, in the case of Calleri last season, was that he was on loan to WH from Deportivo Maldonado. There's no other way you can really express it in the infobox, as it was a loan. Categories are another matter and I'm (still) not sure I have an opinion either way. Nzd (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but as this article indicates these players are not actually playing for Deportivo Maldonado - the ownership of their registration rights is purely for financial reasons. I would oppose inclusion of these footballers in the Deportivo Maldonado players category. Jogurney (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
How about Category:Deportivo Maldonado pretend players? :) These refs should go in a section on the club article at some point. Nzd (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Loans deal from these middle man were acceptable to add to infobox to show the "loan", or the middleman club was widely reported. However, for Hulk (footballer), C.A. Rentistas was only show in official financial document, which we did not even known the Japanese clubs did bought the player outright or not, as it was unsourced. To me ignore all middleman club more practical, as those middleman information was hard to complete and not reflecting playing career much. Matthew_hk tc 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think I have an opinion about the categories now :) If, per GiantSnowman, we are going with the hard rule that any player contracted to a club is added to the club cat, then middle-men clubs should be included, with the proviso that the arrangement is reported/referenced, per Matthew_hk. If we aren't doing that, then by omission we are making a judgement on that arrangement (which you could argue is a sort of original research). The more complicated arrangements that Matthew_hk describes are, well, more complicated, but we do ultimately have to go with what the sources tell us, so if there are no reliable sources that mention the arrangement, then neither do we.
I have added the two players I mentioned (Sol Campbell and Jonjo Shelvey) to the West Ham cat. We'll see if it prompts any objections. I guess the only complaint might be about what constitutes a contract, but players can sign schoolboy forms from the age of 9 so I suppose that's a contract.[1][2]
I also have another somewhat related query about former incarnations of clubs. In talking with @Egghead06:, I am removing Category:West Ham United F.C. players where the player only played for West Ham's forerunner Thames Ironworks. The Thames Ironworks F.C. players category is currently a subcat of the West Ham players cat. However, there is an inconsistency over at Category:Dagenham F.C. players, which has a See also, rather than being a subcat of Category:Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. players (this was a merge of clubs, rather than a rename/reincorporation, but I think the principle is the same). Is there a standard for this type of thing? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What's the deal with the Thames Ironworks/West Ham United name change? Was it just a name change or was it something else? I'm struggling to see why there are separate categories for what is essentially (it seems to me) the same club. – PeeJay 12:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Technically, Thames Ironworks resigned from the league and were dissolved. The new club was then formed as a new entity. Nzd (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(ec) There's actually two separate articles for Thames Ironworks and West Ham. The former says (admittedly unsourced) "At the end of June, Thames Ironworks F.C. resigned from the Southern League and were officially wound up. On 5 July 1900 they reformed under the new name of West Ham United and accepted an offer of the Southern League place left vacant by Thames Ironworks." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yes, that article is on my list. There are general references at the end, but I need to convert those to inline citations. I have those books too. Nzd (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So West Ham United was formed by the same people who previously ran the Thames Ironworks club and then played at the same ground. Are those the only links between them? I view this as being similar to the way Chester City FC was wound up and Chester FC formed in its place. They play at the same ground and most of the same people are involved, but I wouldn't make Category:Chester City F.C. players a sub-category of the Chester FC players category. – PeeJay 13:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: Thanks, that looks like a good example. Given other precedents, I'll remove the subcat link and add a See also. Nzd (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Going back to the issue of middle-man clubs, I have added Jonathan Calleri to Category:Deportivo Maldonado players and added some text to the article which I think is careful enough. I realise the discussion above seems not to indicate a definite consensus on this issue though, so this is me being bold. Any further opinions would be welcome. Nzd (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
loan player in the cat may be useful, may be not, but putting Juan, Thiago Silva in the cat of the club that acted as middle man for transfer fee or whatever purpose, seem not useful. Matthew_hk tc 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent additions of "doping scandal" surrounding 1996 Champions League Juventus

Hi. Please take a look at the thread at Talk:Juventus F.C.#Doping case so far between User:Wim Kostrowicki, who persistently adds claims from a single, somewhat biased, source using contentious words per WP:LABEL such as "controversial", and claims such as "practically certain" and "very probable" at 1996 UEFA Champions League Final#Controversy, and User:Dantetheperuvian who claims with several sources the dismissal of investigations surrounding this have been dropped since 2007. Does this warrant mention, and if so, definitely not in the lead, and info regarding the dismissal of these claims should also be mentioned. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A trial's verdict is a fact and a source with encyclopedic value, a claim dismissed by three Italian courts (Corte d'Appello in 2005, Corte di Cassazione in 2007 and by CONI in all three sporting trial's degrees since 2004 to 2007), not.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the trial was somewhat conclusive, but the controversy still existed. You can't just paint over it and pretend the accusations never happened. We should mention it and also the fact that the accusations were dismissed in equal/proportionate measure. – PeeJay 15:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Controversy with who or what? Supporter's POV are irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes and there was never a legal action by UEFA, Ajax or another club for that (the first two have petsonnel in the courts). The trials were for Juve between 1994 to 1998 and in Juventus FC:Talk I cited the latest two with pages in which was stated it, please read it. If CONI and two courts of three in ordinary trial said that there was not doping with epo, you don't add a claim that was rejected at sporting and ordinary justice level by that courts. In the real world is punished do it. For the rest, I agree with User:Vaselineeeeeeee.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dantetheperuvian: To try and save this from an edit war, we can probably add it, but in lighter terms, ie. no need to list a dozen players and say unencyclopedic things like “practically certain” in that style. Then use the several sources you have to refute this when it was dismissed. I see PeeJay’s point that the controversy did exist and therefore may warrant inclusion, but again, maybe a compromise can be reached. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: The courts discussed about Juve from 1994 to 1998, not about a single cup to had won or lost. With re-writte the case in Juve article according the verdicts with reliave and neutral souces (imho in history of Juve article due its main article is over 125 kb. of weight) is enough. The "controversy" must be between some journalist that don't know / don't want know anything about the trials verdicts and between fans that discuss about anything, most if they are rivals, lovers or haters, but at institutional level, not.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's no controversy, why was this even discussed in the courts? I know you love Juventus and you hate seeing bad stuff said about them, but the controversy exists and must be discussed in the relevant articles. – PeeJay 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
A 'somewhat biased source'? What the hell are you talking about Vaseline? The Independent is a serious newspaper and there are many other reliable sources saying similar things. Also, the words 'practically certain' are not used by me, but is a quote from the hematologist who testified in the court case. Read more carefully before you make comments about this. This kind of POV, especially from Dantetheperuvian, is simply unacceptable and is making Wikipedia worse every day. The entire section of my addition consist of quotes and factual descriptions of what happened. Read it for yourself:

Although Juventus won the final, the victory remains controversial because of accusations of doping use.[47] The Juventus team has been accused of using EPO and the matter went to trial in Turin in 2004. Club doctor Riccardo Agricola was given a suspended prison sentence for providing performance enhancing drugs, specifically EPO, to the players, but he was acquitted on appeal the following year. Leading hematologist Giuseppe d'Onofrio said that it was "practically certain" that midfielders Antonio Conte and Alessio Tacchinardi had taken EPO to overcome brief bouts of anaemia, and that it was "very probable" that seven other players - Alessandro Birindelli, Alessandro Del Piero, Didier Deschamps, Manuel Dimas, Paolo Montero, Gianluca Pessotto and Moreno Torricelli - had taken EPO in small doses.[48]

The entire content is descriptive: '...because of accusations', '...has been accused of', '...the matter went to trial', '...said' etc. Disagreeing with a factual description, now THAT'S unencyclopedic! Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: If someone accuses you of something wrong and a court textually dismisses it, that's not something that is discussed, it's a legal fact and generally should not appear on the criminal record certificates that I know of, but if You want to tell it here as "controversy", according Wikipedia guidelines both sides must be treated equally and the text must be equidistant and neutral, is not obviously unbalanced towards the accusation as in the Dutch user's text using a markedly tendentious article and another which shamelessly declares "on one's side" insisting on omitting the courts' verdicts about the accusations. I remind you that the judgments in the last instance constitute the "legal truth" (which is encyclopedic to dispense with Wikipedia as long as this is verifiable with official documents) and after that the entire case was declared res judicata, so the "controversy" legally ends.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This was never a "doping case" and the reasons I put in the same place that I added the verdicts about this. That's enough to reformulate the entire paragraph. The relevant article is that about the club not that of a competition which was never discussed in court and its organizer never questioned its legitimacy.

Um, that's not how it works. If a court dismisses a case (or finds the defendant not guilty), that doesn't stop people from discussing the content of the case. You simply say there was a trial (or a court proceeding of some kind) and the person was found not guilty (or the case was dismissed). You don't simply sweep it under the rug like it never happened. If something is discussed in court, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that discussion in the first place. – PeeJay 22:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have not written that "nothing happened", I said that all that text is unbalanced in favor of the accusation and the case is not well formulated being is based on biased articles. Obviously everyone can say/discuss about whatever argument, as well as anyone can prosecute that person for defamation. Sentences do not exist for pleasure.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
By deleting the text, you are essentially claiming that nothing happened. If the text is bad, make it better, don't just delete it. – PeeJay 01:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. Please stop reverting back and forth.

Wim Kostrowicki added the content to 1995–96 UEFA Champions League on 05:07, 8 November 2017‎, to Juventus F.C. on 03:56, 19 October 2017, Antonio Conte on 03:15, 11 November 2017, and 1996 UEFA Champions League Final on 03:56, 19 October 2017. The content was immediately controversial, disputed, and removed.

Per WP:BRD, the content should remain out of the article until consensus is reached that it should be in the article. That is how things work at Wikipedia.

It is appreciated that you are using the talk pages.

Now, rather than editors just reverting back and forth while arguing why the content should be there or not, here is a good plan:

1. Get consensus here that, per WP:BRD, the content ought to remain out until this is resolved.

2. Argue about whether or not to restore the content.

This eliminates the back and forth reverting.

If you have a good reason why we should not follow the customary BRD, please say, otherwise, follow it. Okay?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've always agreed with that, that's what I first said at the Juve talk page. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the thread.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
(Just posting my comment from the doping thread from the Juventus page) Although similar accusations have been made against several other teams and players without substantial proof, in thise case I personally don't think that there is actually a problem with adding the information to either the Juventus or History of Juventus articles, as the matter actually went to trial, and as there was initially some controversy in the news and media over the club's victories during that period, until Agricola and the club's staff and players were later acquitted. I'm not certain how relevant it is to the Champions League finals articles of that period, or whether it's worth mentioning at all in the articles of certain Juventus players of the time, as no players were actually charged, and Agricola and the club were later acquitted of all charges and no move was ever made to revoke those titles; I had actually already mentioned this briefly in Del Piero's article, but only because he was one of the players who was particularly singled out because of his dramatic weight gain during that period, when he really put on significant muscle mass, so I don't think anything else needs to be mentioned there. If this information is added to the article, however, it is pivotal that it should be done in a neutral manner, with accurate and reliable sources, no biased language (the initial proposed additions were not impartial; furthermore, they were not entirely accurate either, as they mentioned that the 1996 Champions League victory was controversial because of the doping allegations, when some of the players who were accused of being given banned substances – namely Montero, Dimas, and Birindelli – were not actually squad members until later), and mentioning all the facts surrounding the case, such as the accusations that were first made, the initial conviction, and the later acquittal. There are some inconsistencies with those sources listed from the Independent however, although I'm sure there are certainly better sources floating around, especially in Italian. I know some people feel very strongly regarding this matter, so I would like to have everyone's opinion on this. I hope this is of some help. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to find a Daily Mail article,

I've been working on Chris Kinnears article, even know some ppl want to delete it, I found this story on the web, 1. I thought it quite funny and interesting, I was wondering if anyone know how to find the Mail article online that the hammers page is referencing. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you not aware that the Daily Mail is pretty much banned from use as a source on Wikipedia, and is particularly unusable on BLPs? Number 57 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a source from the 1970s which was more reliable, it's from the 1990s which the Daily Mail has a problem, deleting Daily Mail as a source from it's inception to 1980s is wrong, it was reliable then. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an inherent problem with this old managers and players, ppl seem to break right into he fails NFooty and GNG, while failing to do any research, the guy was a trainee at West Ham United then he went to Tottenham Hotspur as a player, I am doing research here, and ppl want to delete a player who could have possibly played for a top flight club. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
We've deleted dozens if not hundreds of players who were signed to top division teams as youngsters but never played for the first team (if you mean you still think he may have made a first team appearance for either club, he does not have appeared to have played for either; he has no listing on Neil Brown's database and is not included in either West Ham or Spurs all-time player listings). Number 57 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I found him on the bench for the London Challange Cup on this page for West Ham, 1, but I am not sure how on the books he was at West Ham, there does seem to be a lot of missing information. Govvy (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"It's a source from the 1970s" - the website is quite clearly referring to an article which may talk about something which occurred in the 1970s but which was published in 2002...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
hmm, well I copied the article to my user space to work on there if it gets deleted. I sent an email to Dover Athletic, see what response I get if any. Govvy (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't copy it - we need to actually move the page so as to maintain the history. I have closed the AFD and moved the page to User:Govvy/Chris Kinnear. GiantSnowman 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Didn't know you could move pages like that into user spaces, I will have to remember for next time. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
As much as I hate to defend such a loathsome paper, I think context needs to be taken into account. With regard to sports coverage, the DM actually has a pretty good record, and Martin Samuel has won Sports Writer of the Year/Sports Journalist of the Year multiple times while with the paper. Clearly it has a seedy side, but we have a general rule about tabloids on BLPs anyway. I wouldn't see an issue with a DM report on a pre-match presser though (which was the case in this instance).
Cite is "Drayton, John (6 December 2002). "I Threw out My Prized Boots from Icon Bobby". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 20 November 2017 – via Highbeam Research. " BTW.. Nzd (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:2000 Connecticut Huskies men's soccer navbox

Thoughts about {{2000 Connecticut Huskies men's soccer navbox}}? GiantSnowman 11:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Kante4 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It should be a discussion about the whole category, no? --SuperJew (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete, post-haste. Last time I checked, you need more than five players to make up a football team... – PeeJay 11:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tottenham Hotspur.svg

I have a file given to me from Senior Marketing Executive at Tottenham Hotspur, it's a *.png file of the emblem, I tried to update the svg file but it wouldn't let me, is there a way to update the file with an png? Or should I just upload it on commons? Govvy (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't put non-free images on commons. What is the difference between the two? The crest on the club's twitter account seems to be identical to the one we have on here. svg format is preferable, so if there's no difference, the current file should remain in place. Number 57 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
1 The one we are currently using shouldn't have TM (Trademark) on it, it needs removing. I am not a good graphics editor, maybe someone can fix it? Govvy (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
TM means trademark, with or without not a big problem. Matthew_hk tc 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, Tottenham prefer the image without, when you google "Tottenham Hotspur" you get the emblem in the box on the right about Tottenham from wikipedia, you can just notice the TM, we basically been asked by Tottenham Hotspur to fix the image to remove the TM. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It seem intended by the original creator of the svg file, as svg file can be scale to a larger size. And the logo was indeed a registered trademark according to EU database. Wikipedia is not a place for a free host of copyrighted logo in svg size. I don't understand the logic of the club? Want wikipedia a freehost of genuine svg logo? Matthew_hk tc 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the email I got,

Hi Govvy, I do! The trademark hasn't expired - it is simply not used as part of the Official Club badge. I currently work as the Digital Operations Executive at Tottenham Hotspur. I'd like to make sure that the badge is amended given that it is the first 'logo' that shows on a Google image search using multiple keywords is the Wikipedia example - which is incorrect. The badge - where possible - always is displayed without the TM present on the Official Club website. Please also consult our social media channels for further examples. Hopefully my email address is evidence enough - but please feel free to email me directly at #REDACTED where I can provide more proof. I can also of course - provide you with a replacement badge.

Govvy (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, just a free rider on the advertising effect of wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didn't understand that comment, Govvy (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
i am not sure wikipedia had policy on replacing svg to png, but the staff just want wikipedia to host a clean svg copyrighted version of the logo for the google hit. May be require to ask the relevant image wikiproject, is that intentional to add tm to the svg by wikipedia policy, or removable. Matthew_hk tc 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

FC Deccan

I'd like the advice of WP:FOOTBALL here. FC Deccan is a newly created club that plays in the third tier, state level league, of Indian football. In my opinion, it doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. Would appreciate the comments before initiating AfD. Coderzombie (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In England we don't discriminate against non-league club articles, if it's in the Indian ladder system and a registered club and sourced there shouldn't be a problem. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's another issue. There are reliable sources to mention inception etc, but not sure how many would be enough to establish notability, they'll get coverage for the games, but beyond that most of the content is from primary source. Coderzombie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Balkan Cup or Balkans Cup?

A vandal on Balkans Cup made me noticed that the citations actually refer to the football team tournament as Balkan Cup (without s), same as the defunct pre-WWII Balkan Cup. So any idea on renaming both? Matthew_hk tc 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

With the existence of BVA Cup, better turn Balkan Cup page to dab? Matthew_hk tc 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
In Serbian, Craotian, Slovenian etc. they're both called the same, "Balkanski", as adjective for Balkan. Linhart (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cameron Carter-Vickers

The guy was born in England yet represents US for football, I just wanted to clarify what date format we should be using on him, I prefer dmy which is how it was, but the latest editor changed it all to American format for an Englishman representing US, no evidence he has a greencard either! Govvy (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's consistent throughout the article, I don't have a real problem with either. But if I had to choose I'd probably go with mdy (US format) as his main sporting nationality is American and that's the reason for the notability of his page. --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
hmm, okay, cheers, Govvy (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the opposite. He passed WP:NFOOTY for his Sheffield United appearances before becoming an American international. As someone born in the UK and who has spent his entire career in the UK, I'd say DMY makes more sense, as does calling him a footballer rather than soccer player. Number 57 19:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to stick with British English formats, it's more universal than American English. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree we should use UK formats. Born in England, lived his entire life here, and entire career here. GiantSnowman 11:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree aswell. Kante4 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

Morning all, I've seen on a handful of footy pages that a Trivia Section is included. I'm not sure what the current position is on these and if it is still appropriate to include it? Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA, which states simply "Trivia sections should be avoided." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Basically, if the content can be worked into another section then it should be. If it can't be worked in anywhere else then it probably doesn't belong in the article anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD of Zaneta Wyne

I'd like to invite more discussion at the AfD for Zaneta Wyne. --SuperJew (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing Question

I'm looking through the sourcing page for the project and I'm wondering if there is a list of sources complied somewhere that are generally considered NON-reliable e.g. transfermarkt. Does such a list exist? Jay eyem (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I've just made a start on something. It's at a very early stage at the moment, but I was thinking that we could incorporate something like this into the page linked above. I agree, it would be really useful to have a listing of those sites the project considers reliable (or not). Nzd (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Kenny Burns

I am endeavouring to make some constructive edits on the Kenny Burns article. User Jmorrison230582 is insistent on being disruptive to these edits:-

a) Jmorrison230582 insists on removing the sectioning I have added b) I left a message on the talk page for user Jmorrison230582 as follows. User Jmorrison230582 replied with the total comment of:

"I know what I am doing"

Jmorrison230582 then proceeded to ignore my request to think calmly before undoing edits and again removed the sectioning. The sectioning I am attempting to add is based on wikipedia practice of a section per club where there is sufficient content. For a player as distinguished as Burns, there is more than sufficient content to justify more than the solitary section of "Playing career" asserted by Jmorrison230582.

c) User Jmorrison230582 deleted the conversation on Kenny Burns that I had added to his talk page.

d) I added the inuse tag to indicate that the article is undergoing a major edit. User Jmorrison230582 deleted that tag and again insisted on reverting to the layout on which Jmorrison230582 insists. This is disrespectful to wikipedia and wikipedia editors.

I regret to say this is typical of the sort of experience I regret to have encountered from Jmorrison230582 before insisting everyone else is wrong.

Can I request the views of others on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.149.195 (talkcontribs)

The edit you are insisting on using has terrible spelling "whoem", poor grammar "he won the 1977-78 Football League title winning the FWA Player of the Year award that same season" and used separate sections for one sentence of text. That's why it was reverted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say Jmorrison230582 appears to be largely in the right here. The changes you made were very poor in terms of spelling and grammar. I would have the Honours section as a top level heading though. Number 57 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree that Jmorrison230582 is right in that case. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There's certainly no need for a separate heading for a section that only comprises one sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with comments above, wasn't an improvement. Not sure message should have been removed from the talk page though? That can inflame these situations. Crowsus (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick comment, it was removed from the user's own talk page, not the talk page of the article itself. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jay eyem,

"it was removed from the user's own talk page, not the talk page of the article itself."

Correct statement.


Hi all,

Thanks everyone who replied on this and for the constructive tone in doing so. If I may add further and ask for further comment:-

1) Would it not be better for wikipedia if user Jmorrison230582 adopted a more constructive and collaborative approach and tone? For example instead or repeatedly just undoing other work:-

a) "The edit you are insisting on using has terrible spelling "whoem""

Is it not obvious 'whoem' is just a typo? Would it not be more constructive / collaborative just to fix the typo?


b) "he won the 1977-78 Football League title winning the FWA Player of the Year award that same season"

Would it not be more constructive / collaborative just to improve the grammar?


c) "used separate sections for one sentence of text."

Does that mean it is optimal to have all the text under a single heading? Sub sections for which there was a lesser amount of text could be grouped together such as Rangers & Birmingham City and also those later in his career. Burns' time at e.g. Forest especially and Birmingham City justify individual sections.


d) Are abrupt comments such as "I know what I am doing" and using profanity constructive and collaborative and in the right spirit of wikipedia?


e) Is adding the inuse tag not an indication that some serious enhancement to the article is in the works? Abrupt edit warring to remove the edit that added the inuse tag is disrsepectful to the constructive intent for which the inuse tag was added. There are ways in wikipedia to constructively communicate and collaborate with other people.

Is there not an onus on experienced wikipedia editors to set the right example not just in terms of wikipedia policy of content change but also in attitude, tone and spirit of collaboration?


Hi Jmorrison230582,

2) Why was it necessary for you to remove the comments I added to your talk page re Kenny Burns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.148.227 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2017

The whole point of my edit was to fix the problems you had introduced to the article (poor spelling, grammar and inappropriate use of section breaks). You must have lived a very sheltered life if you are at all offended by the use of "pisspoor". Finally, users are free to remove whatever comments are made on their own talk page (WP:OWNTALK). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Sheltered life or not, that's no reason to act uncivil. Jay eyem (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fabrice Olinga

Have edited this page regularly, only new of this weird developments four years later or so (well, i guess it's better late than never). Málaga sold the player to Apollon Limassol per source from official web (#10), but then the following Dutch source says they LOANED him to Waregem; could it be some percentage of rights still held by the Spaniards?

The most tricky part: Sampdoria/Apollon/Viitorul, who held the player when? Any help/assistance would be welcome, article has been significantly improved, but I'd be very deserving of a wiki-scolding were i to leave misleading/false info in the article.

Sorry for any inconvenience (for the readers but especially Mr. Olinga), thank you very much for whatever can be provided --Quite A Character (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sampdoria: transfer rumour, can't be verified the actual signing of the contract, but worth mentioning if it was supported by secondary source. Many Italian club were unable to register new signing due to non-EU new signing quota. The only way to verify it, was appeared on the WP:primary source, the official transfer list or the club's financial report, or club statement, or did appeared in the newspaper with photo from press release. Martín Cáceres's Lazio link was wiped entirely. Matthew_hk tc 07:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Sampdoria did have a press release regarding Olinga. http://www.sampdoria.it/u-c-sampdoria-comunicato-stampa-dell11-aprile-2016/ not using google translate yet, but seem the wording regarding the footballer's career with Sampdoria, as a collapsed signing? Matthew_hk tc 07:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Italian: mancato accordo economico tra le parti, did not have an agreement on a transfer at all. Matthew_hk tc 07:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Community flags in Spanish women's national football team, #Team section

Some IP has added these flags 5 years ago to the name field of each player in the team's section. They aren't used anywhere else. It has been brought up in the talk section. They were removed a couple of months ago but a user who seems to edit a lot in this article has reinstated them since (as "vandalism").

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain_women%27s_national_football_team&oldid=810830891#Team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_women%27s_national_football_team#Team

The issue is that no other national team has these flags (not even Spain's men's team) and it isn't even possible to determine them as there's no Andalusian passport that would tell us that player X has to have an Andalusian flag, etc. This seems completely arbitrary.

Others are complaining about this user regarding compliance with MOS:FLAG in other articles, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lagarto-spock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016%E2%80%9317_Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n_(women)#Flags 92.196.30.218 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: The situation was discussed before in Regional flags at Spanish articles, seem the user keep on violating MOS:flag. Any admin want to intervene ? (despite the reverts such as special:diff/785816441 and special:diff/784907990 were in June and not further removal by other user (until today) so no further revert by the same user) Matthew_hk tc 12:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
As you reported, the Regional flags issue is extended to the Spanish football league and cup season articles, and also to the regional teams (see Basque Country women's national football team). Asturkian (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Propose a change for Template:Football box and Template:Football box collapsible

@Colonies Chris and SuperJew: I bring this issue up here after seeing Chris' edits (mainly about removing links for countries) in Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19) (among many others) contested by SuperJew, who insists that these links are useful. More personally, I also reverted Chris' changes in 2015–16 Athletic Bilbao season, citing those Templates' instructions, which currently suggest linking. Please be noticed that WP:OVERLINKING discourages us from linking well-known locations (including countries), and Chris' point is we should only link the stadia and cities, with which I actually agree, but I would like to reach a consensus here and change the Templates' instructions before taking action. Everyone, please have some words. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading the template documentaion correctly, it currently has nothing to say explicitly about whether locations should be linked, but all the examples do in fact link everything. I suspect this practice dates from the days before we started to link intelligently rather than just routinely linking everything without thinking about which links were really useful. Perhaps a note could be added to the template documentation to remind editors that linking should be in line with policy at WP:OVERLINKING. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Also summon Matilda Maniac who briefly discussed this in Talk:Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19), and S.A. Julio who currently has the most recent edit on those Templates. Hopefully you can join us. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
As I said to Chris in this discussion: What is the line dividing the well-known locations from the not well-known location? --SuperJew (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@SuperJew: In Australia women's national soccer team results (2010–19), Chris has eventually taken a more thorough approach and unlinked all countries. Therefore I think your argument about 'arbitrariness' is no longer relevant. Do you have another one? Centaur271188 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In most cases linking to countries should be avoided, as it provides little added benefit. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Smith

Could someone please restore the sourced details (full name, date of birth) to the article Doug Smith (footballer, born 1937)? A new editor who says they are a relative of Smith's keeps changing it to what they claim is the correct details from his birth certificate. I've tried to explain to them why this isn't satisfactory, but as I've already reverted it twice last night, I don't want to do so a third time. Thanks. Jellyman (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

relative may be both WP:primary source (or able to access it) and WP:COI, but football fans is not and something else. I am not sure actually showing the birth certificate via OTRS would help or not, but even the secondary source is wrong, it seem wikipedia is not a place to publish the research on the real date without any external citation. Matthew_hk tc 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think providing the birth certificate via OTRS is an appropriate way of dealing with it (it won't be referenced in the article, but a note can be added in the article code referring to a certain OTRS ticket). Incidentally I was dealing with a player last year and had his passport to do some work for him. His full name was not the same as what is detailed in his infobox, which is sourced to Hugman. Number 57 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just in case he is a real relatives and not a relatives of a namesake. Just like the case of Etrit Berisha, some user, even a sport website from Albania, using a namesake's citizenship ceremony document (without published DOB), to support the claim of middle name and ineligible to play for Albania between X & Y year. Matthew_hk tc 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&oldid=811374074"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA