![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | → | Archive 110 |
See the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia#Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016. -- Theurgist ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Youth squads at tournament should not be covered in tempalte like this. We did agree on that, or? Kante4 ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Olympics templates are notable but youth tournaments are not. I have already informed the creator about this. If somebody has the time please can you TFD? Giant Snowman 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone please tell me whether we should we add UEFA Europa League, UEFA Champions League and UEFA EURO under international leagues in the infobox of a football referee's page? Please help! And also what about the domestic leagues section - should only the premier first-tier home country league be mentioned it or even the 2nd and 3rd tier teams are to be mentioned as well? Someone if please tell me! Cricket246 ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Five different places (in two countries!) mentioned so far - any help welcome... Talk:Robbie Wakenshaw#Place of birth. Giant Snowman 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I started a discussion about removing the assists on Euro 2016 and would appreciate your input there. Thanks, -- SuperJew ( talk) 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following pages 2016–17 Ukrainian First League, 2016–17 Ukrainian Second League, 2015–16 Ukrainian First League are continually being reverted by User:46.200.26.232. A request has been made for WP:3RR violations due him continually changing team names by placing a hyphen in the team's name. He has been targetting reformed teams that are returning back into the professional leagues. For instance FC Arsenal Kyiv is being editted to FC Arsenal-Kyiv (which has a redirect) and the recently readmitted FC Metalurh Zaporizhya into the Second league as Metalurh-Zaporizhya. Usually WP:COMMONNAME has diffused the situation but this individual has been incessant in his plight. The articles have been tagged for discussion. IS it possible that some admin place these pages in semi-protect mode until there is some more consensus to this issue. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Is {{ Copa América Centenario Team of the Tournament}} notable? SLBedit ( talk) 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Should 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round really have been split into individual articles for each group ( A, B, C, D, E)?
The only qualifiaction article that has been split is UEFA first round (being 260 matches), while this is only 60 matches and less than other rounds. The creator of the group articles has been asked but keeps on editing without response.
Keep, merge or delete? AfD? Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Milovan Rajevac was manager of a Slovenian club side for just under 2 weeks before leaving to become the new Algeria manager. He never took control of the Slovenian side for a competitive match. @ Panam2014: believes that that role should not be reflected in the infobox; I disagree. Bringing this here as it has ramifications wider than this article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So I was going over Fb team templates, specifically Australia and some of them are a serious clusterfuck (especially Japan and South Korea). I started nominating for deletion some of the templates which don't even link to a football team, but rather a suburb. I've seen two other cases which I'd like your guidance on: 1) Team names which link to a suburb/city. 2) Teams which link to non-existent article (usually I doubt they'll be created as they are lower tier clubs). What would you think to do with them? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are also many templates which link to the same club with different names, for example Manly United and Manly Warringah Dolphins both link to Manly United FC. My question with these is if to delete the (I guess old) name template, and if we keep it, which name to sort it by? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
(pinging @ Matilda Maniac: as I saw you created a bunch of them back in the day) -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made the following changes:
I've also updated the following:
TheBigJagielka ( talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, can someone help me and User:Debarghya89 on this page. We have an anon user and a new user (who I am pretty sure are the same) who keep adding in two foreign players who have yet to be signed officially, adding in random sponsors which have yet to be confirmed, and a bunch of other useless things. I don't want to be caught up in 3RR and neither does Deb so a little help would be appreciated. Cheers. Already submitted a protection request as well. -- ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Bury have had 3 points deducted retrospectively from last season in Football League One, dropping them two places. I've updated the table template, as well as Bury, Southend and Swindon's infoboxes and list of Bury and Southend seasons (Swindon's hadn't been updated yet, and I'm just off out so don't have time to update it myself). Just a heads up, and to see if anyone thinks of any other articles that might need updating accordingly. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
One month ago, I enhanced the {{ Football box}} and {{ Football box collapsible}} templates to add support for listing goals and penalties, rather than just separating them with <br>s. This came after Walter Görlitz made a good point on the talk page about improving MOS:ACCESSIBILITY on these templates by using {{ plainlist}} instead of the more crude linebreaks. Apart from accessibility and semantics, another benefit is that the list of goals becomes much more readable in the code this way, which is of course especially important for collaborative projects such as Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, when I used this new syntax recently on the Euro 2016 articles, people reverted it because they were not used to this syntax. I don't really blame them because it's very new and so it currently looks unusual, but that's always the case with change :) So I was wondering whether I could get support to encourage using the listing syntax instead of the line breaks, at least for penalty shootouts. Of course line breaks will always be supported, I'm not saying that should change, I would just like to officially 'encourage' the listing syntax (e.g. on the doc page) so that people can actually make use of the new syntax without it getting reverted to the more 'primitive' syntax.
For easy comparison, here is the penalty shootout from the recent Switzerland - Poland game:
Linebreak syntax:
|penalties1=[[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}<br />[[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}} |penaltyscore=4–5 |penalties2={{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]
Listing syntax:
|penaltyscore=4–5 |penalties1= * [[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}} * [[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}} * [[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}} * [[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}} * [[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}} |penalties2= * {{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]] * {{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]] * {{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]] * {{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]] * {{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]
Both are supported, but which one should be recommended? – Sygmoral ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
|goals2=* [[Robbie Brady|Brady]] {{goal|2|pen.}}
(although I'm not sure whether that should be recommended).A lot of information on the page, but one issue kept surfacing, which is the current squad section was moved to the top of the page by some editor which is not complying with the style here. I'm currently in the process of reorganising and updating the page with the latest squad info, but will do with some help to reorganise the page since the items are all over the place and consistently watch the page to prevent the current squad section from being moved again. Frankie goh ( talk) 16:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have seen an editor adding links to worldofstadiums.com so I opened a discussion about the site at WP:RSN. Feel free to comment there. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please keep am eye on Nampalys Mendy, maybe an Admin can protect? Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor dispute regarding player club in "recent call-up list" and I would like some input. Should we show the club the player is currently at, or the club he was playing for at the time he was called? Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
But the article doesn't say Player X is playing for Liverpool, it says that when he was last called up, he was playing for Liverpool. A standard note at the top of each recent callups table to clarify the meaning would stop both editors and readers getting confused. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Another point regarding this I thought about, the age column is current age, not age when called-up. -- SuperJew ( talk) 06:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to notice occasions where editors are updating the |updated
parameter in Infoboxes when they've only correctly updated a subset of the facts in the infobox. This leads to wikipedia making a factually incorrect statement that: All statistics are correct as of (timestamp) when they categorically aren't.
This appears to be prevalent in season articles, for example at 2016 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, where (an|some) IP editor(s) are extremely eager to update result and goalscorer related statistics, when attendance related statistics take a little more research.
Some editors here are notable for their insistence on updating timestamps, so I guess the positive point here is at least the timestamp is being updated. I would like to see some sort of consensus, though, that in doing so a factual error should not be introduced. Maybe this means guidance (or stronger) that the infobox should not be updated unless you are doing a complete update of stats? Would appreciate hearing other thoughts... Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that IPs have recently been changing player articles to have the infobox table in seemingly random orders? Such as:
year1
club1
national team1
national cap 1
club-update
year 4
club 4
youthyear1
youthclub1
For example. Is there some kind of tool going wrong?--
Echetus
Xe
13:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
|caps39=
or whatever, we do need some input from someone who understands the thing. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
14:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@ EchetusXe, Jaellee, and Struway2: - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Template:Infobox football biography. Giant Snowman 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The mass moving of categories relating to, and rewriting of subjects relating to, Segunda División is coming [20] '''tAD''' ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've been going through articles of footballers who have represented both a current national team, and its predecessor (e.g. Nemanja Vidic, Savo Milosevic, Radoslav Latal, etc. Players representing countries which have since split up into two or more nations such as Czechoslovakia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro are affected. Looking through player articles such as Vidic's and Milosevic's, only one country is listed in both cases (Serbia), even though both of them clearly represented two different nations, creating quite an innacurayc. It seems that there is not much consistency around these articles, as Latal's infobox lists him as representing both Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. I don't mind how we decide to approach this problem, as long as there is consistency.
The way I see it, we could follow Latal's article's approach, by listing the two national teams he has represented, or only listing the latest national team a player has played for, as long as that team is the FIFA-recognised successor of the earlier nation (like Vidic's article); however, in the case of the latter, this means that present national teams which competed previously as a part of a different nation, but are not the successor to that nation (e.g. Slovakia) would both have to be listed for a player that represented both.
Cheers lads.
LeoC12 ( talk) 05:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've spotted an issue in the template: this new way of listing manager instead of adding another template works perfectly, but only for active clubs. I mean, UD Salamanca folded in 2013, but its template lists José María Hernández (the last manager) with the dash after the year.
Should we add a parameter in the template for folded clubs, or should I simply add 2013 to 13
to the last manager in the template?
MYS
77
✉
22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2013 to 13
won't work because it would give 2013-13, which looks silly. I'd suggest adding a parameter to the template. --
SuperJew (
talk)
22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)| folded = yes
with the default in no
). Then, when this param is set to "yes", and if (that's the main part of the problem) the last manager only managed the folded club for a few months in the same year, we should change the last line of the managerlist to a list without the –.make_list
function with two if's in the part after the third if not name then
line, like something which would be captured from the param (folded). Cheers, and thank you both.
MYS
77
✉
03:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
dissolved =
would be a better option, like appears in the infobox on
the club's page. And of course a note about it should be added to the documentation :) --
SuperJew (
talk)
05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Koppapa's proposal is that "2013 to" should be entered if "(2013–)" is wanted for the last entry. I think that has a couple of problems. I have converted 1400 navboxes to the new syntax and many of them had dubious wikitext, and having a dangling "to" would be unclear—every editor looking at that would wonder whether something has been accidentally removed. An example of strange wikitext was at {{
USM Alger managers}} which used {{
Football manager last}} 52 times. Another problem can be seen by considering {{
Uganda national football team managers}}. It has six entries like "Ssali 1983" where there is no "to" year. That includes the last entry which is "Sredojević 2013" and which displays as "
Sredojević (2013–)" in the navbox. That automatic behavior of adding a dash would be better than requiring that every future adjustment to the hundreds of active navboxes must have "to" with no number on the last line. I think having an unambiguous parameter such as |dissolved=yes
would be best—it only has to be added once, assuming a club is not undissolved. I need some help at
my sandbox (
permalink) where I put a list of navboxes that might need the new parameter. If someone can confirm what is needed, I will do it.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|dissolved=yes
and added it to three navboxes, including {{
UD Salamanca managers}} mentioned above. I found there were a handful of navboxes that did not have the new syntax, so I converted them. In doing that, I noticed that
Dynafen11 had removed the incorrect dash in a navbox and my edit had inadvertently restored it. Therefore I didn't wait. If something else is wanted, that can be done instead, however "dissolved" sounds good because it is used in {{
Infobox football club}}.
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Some users at 2015 Copa América have been zealously defending an unsourced chart which ranks the teams in order according to the 3-points-for a win and 1 point for a draw, even in knockout matches. This is original research because there is no proof that CONMEBOL sort the teams like this (I can't imagine Brazil were soothed from a quarter-final exit by knowing they "came 5th"). I was told to tag the chart for maintenance, so that people can search for a reference that doesn't exist, rather than the general rule of WP:V that the burden is on the claimer to prove. These users have admittedly invented their own rules for a tournament ranking, the very definition of WP:OR. Please go to the talk page to discuss '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this edit which led to this Category. None of these clubs have won the "EFL Cup", because it's only just been renamed. Is this the way we normally handle these trophy name changes? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
One category change that bothered me was Category:English Football League representative players, for people who played for The Football League XI. Technically, the category should reflect the parent article title. And particularly as that article says it was a representative side of the Football League; if the team's defunct, it has nothing to do with the EFL. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a wider issue. A large number of 'Football League' categories have been speedy moved to EFL or English Football League. See 2 July at this page. Whilst it is appreciated there is some (further) renaming by the FL is it appropriate for all of these categories to be renamed? Eldumpo ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Could any admins about take a look at the recent contributions from 175.100.59.138 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). They've copy/paste moved a few articles on Cambodian football clubs. The name changes appear to be appropriate, but need to be done as proper page moves. Thank you. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Mikel Sarwono ( talk · contribs) is edit warring on European association football club records. This new user won't stop adding unsourced content that was previously removed because of lack of sources. SLBedit ( talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we still have Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box as separate templates? Shouldn't they be merged into one template? They mostly serve the same purpose. TheBigJagielka ( talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
, and
Template:Football box collapsible could then 'forward' to the other template with that parameter on. This would un-duplicate some code which is always good, but be quite a bit of work to ensure everything still looks as it should. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
11:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)We know that penalty shoot-outs are recorded as draws, so is then the previous record of Germany never beating Italy in a competitive match broken or not? There seems to be a dispute with User:Canon 108 on the Italy national football team page. In my view, even though it is recorded as a draw, the technicality of it is that they won the game in order to progress, so the record is technically broken. The other user seems to think otherwise. I'm fine with either way as long as we stay consistent on the other pages. What should it be written as? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: Please stop making it sound better than it is. Italy lost, that's it. We can't make Wikipedia biased, we must tell it as it is and not make it more complicated than it needs to be, AND how PeeJay even pointed out that UEFA even recognizes it as Germany's first win. Should we not say that Italy won the 2006 World Cup just because it was a shootout win? No, they won it. It's the same thing here. Please stop your reverting. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My exact edit was "Italy then faced off against rivals Germany in a quarter final which ended 1–1 after extra time and 6–5 after penalty shoot-out in favour of Germany. It was the first time the Germans had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." I'm keeping it like that, it gets the point across clearly, doesn't conflict with the fact it was a draw, and if need be, you can get in touch with someone higher up to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, we go off of facts. And what I posted doesn't conflict in any way with how the game played out. I love the fact that Germany advanced, but they advanced on penalties with a final score of 1-1. That's why I edited it initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The match itself was a draw, but Germany was still victorious over Italy - it just means that the victory came in the penalty shootout as opposed to the first 120 minutes. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 19:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's why following the shootout result I posted it was the first time they eliminated Italy, instead of posting they flat out won. This way everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's true, I'm just trying to save the trouble of more edits later on. Italian fans would claim the match ended 1-1...and they would be right in saying so. My edit simply said the shootout ended 6-5 in favour of Germany. And it was the first time the Germans eliminated Italy in a major competition. Gets the point across, and is exactly what was proposed above as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The last thing I'm going to add on this is from the
2016/17 FIFA LOTG, page 71.
"When competition rules require a winning team after a drawn match or home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determine the winning team (emphasis mine) are:
• away goals rule
• extra time
• kicks from the penalty mark"
Yesterday's match was drawn, yet required a winning team. Kicks from the penalty mark was the procedure used to determine the winning team. Germany, having won the kicks from the penalty mark, is therefore the winning team. -
Gopherbashi (
talk)
20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to get to as well. I didn't want to say they beat Italy since technically the match ended 1-1. But I wanted to emphasise that it was the first time Germany has eliminated Italy in a major tournament, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned the shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Tanonero: Thanks for your input as well. I've communicated this on Canon's talk page as well, but refuses to listen to consensus or compromise. Canon has suggested going to an admin, which I have now done. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Hashim-afc: Overcame isn't specific enough though. I, as well as User:Tanonero really liked User:Gopherbashi's suggestion saying that they defeated them (as it says in the UEFA article), although requiring a shootout to do so. If UEFA, the very tournament they played in classified it as the first defeat in a major competition, then we should too end of story. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 23:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: And Canon still insists on edit warring but is now absent from the discussion! He claims to be "in line with consensus" when he is not. Using "eliminated" is not the appropriate wording as we have all pointed out to you since they eliminated them in Euro 96 without beating them. What don't you understand?? It's factually incorrect. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in euro 16...euro 96 Italy left the group stage because of two other performances that contributed to their exit in the round...Germany eliminated Italy for the first time this year, that's factually correct. Eliminated is the accurate term since Italy were eliminated on penalties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically yes, the match is recorded as a draw. The consensus on the discussion page was to emphasise the penalty shootout however, so I edited it appropriately. I edited it to state they defeated Italy 6-5 on penalties, and that it was the first time they've eliminated Italy in a major tournament (which is correct since it was an elimination game and one team wasn't going to advance)...but now Vaselineeeeeeee is contesting that eliminated isn't the correct term to describe the outcome of an elimination game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, it really doesn't matter what Canon, or I , or anyone thinks about if Germany defeat Italy, because the source released by UEFA saying that the record that Germany first defeated Italy in a competitive match is broken. That source trumps anyone's opinion. Now, eliminated is not the best word since the euro in 96 which still eliminated Italy in the group stage, largely because of that last Germany Italy match. I get what canon is saying that all the group matches were a factor for Italy's elimination, but the final game is the biggest. We cannot expect our readers to be an expert on this matter and there is always room for improvement and so there can be a better word. I thought hashim's word of "overcame" was s good compromise for everyone, but obviously not for canon. There must be s better word we can think of Taft everyone likes to avoid any potential confusion. Canon, you can think there is no confusion all you want, but the truth is, you don't know that, and we must make it the simplest way possible for our readers who may or may not be experts on the matter. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 15:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee You're literally the only person taking issue with this. Italy were dependent on more than one factor going into their match with Germany in 1996. They either needed to beat Germany and have Czech Republic lose or draw, or draw with Germany and hope for a Russia win. Their fate was out of their hands as soon as they lost to Czech Republic in the second game. There's no confusion however, Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in 2016 after defeating then 6-5 on penalties. It was an elimination match and Italy did not advance, they were eliminated. Where in 1996 their fate was dependant on more than one factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
As you can see by Hashim's edit, I'm not the only one. Your wording of "eliminated" is also a factual error since the UEFA source states it's the first time Italy were defeated (or overcome) by Germany in a competitive tournament, NOT eliminated. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: I really don't see the problem here. The use of the word 'eliminated' = a tiny bit of confusion may arise. The use of the word 'overcame' = no confusion arises whatsoever. So why should we use 'eliminated' when it would be more sensible to use another word? You're the only person taking issue with the use of 'overcame'. Hashim-afc ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically speaking, you're the only person for it. Vaselineeeeeeee said he was indifferent in the matter. And my reasoning is that in an elimination game, a team is eliminated. I clearly stated in my edit that "The score remained 1–1 after extra time and Germany defeated Italy 6–5 in a penalty shootout. It was the first time Germany had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." There's no confusion, the statement is clear as day and lets the reader know the match needed to be resolved via penalty shootout, and that Italy were eliminated as a result. It doesn't need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Canon, when did I say I didn't care? I don't see that I have, unless I missed it and must have been before I was reminded about Euro 96, if I did. I 100% agree with Hashim's wording. You're really the only one for your wording. ALSO may I add that how you have it makes it seem like the record was that Germany eliminated Italy for the first time, which is factually incorrect since UEFA acknowledges it as Italy's first defeat (overcome) works here as well. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I used beat when referring to the shootout win and defeated when referring to the first time making they eliminated Italy, does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate if someone could takle a look at FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk. The squad list of first team players has a a source which I followed, but an IP adds a lot of players using a training camp and a pre-season friendly as a source that they are in first team. But in my mind it is not certain that you are a first team player just because you are with the team pre-season. I am to close to edit warring so I am stopping here. Please take a look. Qed237 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has been going around the UEFA Euro articles (and some others) adding wikinews, for example see this version of UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase containing the wikinews boxes, or this diff at Copa América Centenario knockout stage how they are added inside the section-tag so it is transcluded to other articles. What do we think about these templates? Keep or not? When I removed the the editor came to my talkpage claiming that Wikimedia sister projects can't be ignored and that they should be re-added. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember sincerely if I have ever filed out a report on this (I think I have, not sure), but if I have i'll try it again, for the last time,
after a difference of opinions at Adrien Silva, the following: Portuguese sports broadcasters have this idiotic custom (and I am also Portuguese, so no racism accusations please) of addressing 99,999999999999% of the players by first and last name 99,9999999999999% of the time (and sometimes even three names), they even go as far as to "make" name/nickname compounds (Nuno Capucho, Pedro Pauleta, Pedro Mantorras, etc); I once heard in disbelief as a commentator from Sport TV said, over the course of a La Liga match, " Radamel Falcao García" 40/50 TIMES.
Now, translating this to the example I spoke of before. This chap is mostly known as Adrien but, of course, with the "professionalism" of the broadcasters, he is also often referred as "Adrien Silva". But I think in his intro we should have only "commonly known as Adrien", that would suffice 100%. The fact that the ref provided displays him as Adrien Silva is not enough to back the "he-is-known-as-Adrien-Silva" up, as most players in the world have first name and surname displayed on their respective club's official profile; plus, in the biography immediately below his vital stats, he is referred to as Adrien.
Speaking of Sporting players, Silva's teammate Marvin Zeegelaar: last time I checked SOCCERWAY.com there is only ONE PLAYER in the world with this surname. Well, the Portuguese broadcasters could not care less about this fact, and refer to him as "Marvin Zegeelaar" 100% of the time. I rest my case, inputs please.
Attentively -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, correct, SPORT TV and not SPORTV. I could not care less about them (or all in general), but what about the issue at hand (Mr. Silva's intro)? -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 01:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has created season articles for Algeria national football team
All they seem to contain is list of matches for that year and stats.
Are they notable? Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I also wonder about
Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Now I also found List of foreign Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, which is not notable? Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that is obviously notable. But could someone merge the season articles and then we can nominate the other for deletion? Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Calistemon, Macosal, GiantSnowman, SuperJew, and ChrisTheDude: Have bben busy, but I have now nominated List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, List of All-time appearances for USM Alger and List of USM Alger players for deletion and I will look at the merging soon. Might also be a few more AFD coming. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've had a bit of a discussion lately on footballboxes with another user regarding Vietnamese naming conventions. s/he claims that the full name should be used while I went according to the conventions here. After discussions between us on our talkpages, at my advice the user opened a discussion on the talk page of the conventions page. If anyone here is knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, -- SuperJew ( talk) 10:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a consensus as to whether we should be naming trialists who score in preseason friendlies? I'm guessing the right thing to do would be to name them only if the reliable source (i.e. match report) names them? Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we have a rule about the date from which summer transfers apply to the new club on a player's bio. Are we past that yet? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@ SuperJew: Medhi Benatia is an example. He under went his Juventus medical today, however, it is getting held up and although it is expected he should pass it, the club hasn't officially signed or announced his signing, so we don't add it yet. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as an example: Demba Ba failed the medical at Stoke City and subsequently they didn't sign him [29] So a medical is not just a formality. -- Jaellee ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Where a player has not played (or even featured in squads) in any/many Continental club match, do we need a 'Continental' column in his career stats table? Certainly not if there are zero apps, and I think that until he has made a decent number of appearances, it's fine to absorb any appearances into the 'Other' column. FYI @ SuperJew:. Giant Snowman 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But he was a reserve player with zero appearances in any competition for Man Utd... Giant Snowman 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
As the MOS states, these tables can (and should) be formatted specifically by player. I think that while a player who has never played top flight football, for example, should not have a "continental" column, those who have played for clubs participating in Europe certainly could, regardless of whether or not they actually played. As to whether they should, I don't think it is too important whether that final column is "other" or "continental" (although I don't think both should be used if a player has played in neither). Macosal ( talk) 08:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of interest (and since I have not been that active in this project lately), what is the current consensus on the visual appearance of navboxes like Template:Football in England, Template:Football in Italy, Template:Football in Turkey or Template:Football in Serbia? –– Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone working on this? I mean since they just won the Euro's I figured it could be updated. It only goes up to 2014 world cup qualifiers. I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to know if there's anyone else working on this. I'm Portuguese so this means more to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sweet I'll get on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok if I get rid of the qualifying results tables? They don't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and other ones like this don't have qualifying results, and those group tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the help, :). 2001:1970:575F:F000:4809:8F9C:929C:7070 ( talk) 15:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)<nowwiki>
There is an IP repeatedly changing Mr Puyol's nationality to "Spanish/Catalan" without consensus. Just a request for people to help keep an eye on this. Mattythewhite ( talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, shirt numbers used by players during pre-season are not official. Is there consensus about this? SLBedit ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Now Besteirense ( talk · contribs) is reverting me on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season. SLBedit ( talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, the club have announced the official numbers. SLBedit ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been emailed by a journalist from Four Four Two magazine, who wants to interview me for a piece he's writing about people who edit football content on WP. He asked if I knew of any other footy Wikipedians who would agree to being interviewed so that he can include content about more than just me. I said I'd ask the question. So if anyone else fancies it, email me and I will pass your details on........... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Are the interviews in the issue released today? Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been active in the Wiki community for quite some time and every once in a while I visit and/or make edits but I'm curious to read the interviews when they come out. :^) Cheers, -- MicroX ( talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I've came across an issue within articles involving players who are from Nation A (say England) and are registered as a domestic player, but then at a later date choose to represent Nation B internationally (ie Canada) between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season. While there's no issue showing the player as Canadian in the season articles of his club starting from the 2014-15 season onwards, my question is do you guys think these players should being listed within previous season articles retroactively as Canadian, rather than English?
Should inconsistencies like these be made retroactive or chronological? - J man708 ( talk) 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there an admin around? there is an IP edit waring at Template:2015–16 Premier League table. => Spudgfsh ( Text Me!) 17:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the hell happened here? I know this was two months ago, but I never came across it until now. Of course we have the Football project importance ratings and stuff, but then we have Task Force pages like WP:SOUNDERS who put together some of their own importance ratings for Articles that are within their scope of the Task Force (I don't know if that made any sense). I just checked Talk:Andy Craven to see if someone mistakenly changed the Sounders importance rating, and the answer was no, but for some reason it's not showing up which I can only assume the Quality log is telling us that all these articles were reassessed. But what happened? Did anyone else come across this and has this issue been addressed yet? – Michael ( talk) 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. During the last months, I extracted data from French, English, Italian and German infoboxes, of about 150,000 players and added it to Wikidata. It represents 4 million information (clubs, periods, league matches, league goals, loan). The data I collected are neither perfect nor totally complete, because it reproduce the existing errors in infoboxes, and I could not always identify and treat so many inconsistencies. But these data form a significant mass of information, which is already exploitable (and, otherwise, I will not able to improve significantly the data quality by myself).
We've just started to use it. In WPfr, more than 5,000 articles of football players display in the infobox information from Wikidata (with fr:Template:Infobox Footballeur). Yellowcard told me he is also testing what could be done for WPde. There may be other tests elsewhere I do not know...
In my opinion, in a domain like sports, Wikiprojects of every languages would benefit greatly to share the work of updating the data in a tool like Wikidata. In WPfr, we have (tens of ?) thousands of articles of footballers which have never been updated since their creation ... I think the problem is the same everywhere.
Today, football projects in different languages can try and see. To those who are worried that this makes 2 websites to monitor, you must know that scripts exist today to show Wikidata changes in WP watchlists ( fr:User:H4stings/wef-watchlist.js / ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-wefwatchlist.js) and history pages ( fr:User:H4stings/wef-history.js). It is now quite easy to see what is happening in Wikidata without changing (too much…) its proper habits in WP.
If interested, please contact me and / or go to d:Wikidata_talk: WikiProject_Association_football to discuss with other interested people. :) In my side, I intend to import manager data now... Cheers. H4stings ( talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone have some extra time could you take a look at 2018–19 UEFA Nations League? Some IP persistently adds news article to External link-section. Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much any bio article worth its salt includes in the lead a summary of the player's international career, including their tournament picks. However, I have run into a user at Cyle Larin who is telling me that this is a pointless exercise, as the CONCACAF Gold Cup is no more important than World Cup qualifiers. I am not North American so I do not know, but if he is right would we have to rewrite the leads for the hundreds of players which have this tournament mentioned in the lead? '''tAD''' ( talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because these two things came up closely timed, what do you people think regarding the upcoming UEFA Nations League? Should it be in the league like a continental competition (which I guess it is sort of) or not like qualifiers (which I guess it also is sort of)? -- SuperJew ( talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to check for input before doing a lot of page moves. The article about the yearly main football cup in Armenia is at Armenian Independence Cup since 2007 (moved from Armenian Cup), but the season articles does not match the title. The season articles dont have "Independence" and are called 2015–16 Armenian Cup, 2014–15 Armenian Cup and so on. Should the individual articles not match the main? I have not look for any source, but lead says that the competition is known as "Independence Cup" since 1992, so my guess is that season articles should match that?
Also we have on Independence Cup (disambiguition) other articles like Independence Cup (Albania) and Lesotho Independence Cup. Should we not be consistent in the naming? Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just looked at Category:National association football cups for other cups and perhaps we should just call it Armenian Cup? Either way, I am all for consistency. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Need some help/input from the WikiProject Football community. Some time ago we held a discussion for renaming La Liga to Primera División. No consensus was reached (and after re-reading the discussion I believe staying as La Liga was the best action) but the rest of the football leagues named Primera División were moved to disambiguate the leagues of Spanish-speaking nations. The format was Demonym Primera División (e.g. Argentine Primera División). I look at the list of Primera división leagues and using the English demonym with the Spanish for first division just seems a little off—not sure if you guys know what I mean. I was re-reading WP:COMMONNAME and I'm not sure if these should've been moved to their current format. Anyone have any thoughts? Should the discussion be re-opened? -- MicroX ( talk) 20:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A good example of what I was trying to convey is the Bulgarian top flight. Article has changed name three or four times is as many years. -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
So in the Premier Soccer League of South Africa, Mpumalanga Black Aces dissolved, and their franchise was relocated to form Cape Town City F.C.. What would you say we should do with their templates? Should Black Aces squad be deleted and a new template made for Cape Town or should it just be a move? -- SuperJew ( talk) 07:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed a few inconsistencies with a few of this WikiProjects FA/FL/GAs. Many clubs have a XYZ in European football page. A few of these articles have reached FA/FL/GA status. This is where the inconsistency lies. Two of these articles are FLs (therefore could never be an FA or GA) and three (with one more at GAN) are FA/GA (therefore could never be a FL). Shouldn't all these articles be either eligible for FL or for FA/GA not a mixture of both. Here are the articles concerned:
What does this WikiProject think? Articles or lists? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
At the moment it rated at Start, I don't think it's good enough for B yet, but I think we should change it to C, Govvy ( talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody have any suggestions for a category name that will group the following articles together? The articles have details about the African qualifying tournament for the Olympic games.
I'm considering "Football at the Summer Olympics – Men's African Qualifiers".
TheBigJagielka ( talk) 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noteced sometimes club articles having their players without article listed in the squad section in italics, exemple: FC_Le_Mont#Players. I have never done that neither I see a point in it, but am I missing something? FkpCascais ( talk) 05:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not a good idea. Use of italics is difficult to read for some people, so superfluous use of it is A Bad Thing. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In UEFA competitions, the team referred as "FC Salzburg", according to UEFA regulations. In the articles, the team referred as "FC Red Bull Salzburg". Why? -- IM-yb ( talk) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I need some help with the design of IFK Göteborg squad. As you can see there are some line break problems. The "captain)" in "(vice captain)", "Dalence" in "Martin Smedberg-Dalence" and "Leksell" in "Alexander Leksell" are all one step too low. I've tried to fix it with Nowrap, but it still doesn't work perfectly and it would be nice to fix it in an other way. Thankful for your help! // Mattias321 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading his article, but what struck me was the Perugia section, it's the Muammar Gaddafi's third son, Al-Saadi Gaddafi section interview, is that copyvio? And another question, is it really needed there? This sounds like it should be under Personal life, or some other heading and I am not sure how encyclopaedia it is. Govvy ( talk) 23:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Quick question – on which grounds does Philipp Lienhart qualify as notable? He does not seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so does he meet WP:N in general and if so, why? Background of this inquiry is that there currently is a discussion about his notability in the German football portal where the fact that the English article (and with it six articles of far inferior quality in six other languages) exists but the German article does not caused some confusion. –– Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The links created by {{ Medio Tiempo}} are 404. Could someone who speaks Spanish check whether the site has changed its link format, and update the template accordingly, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again it is time for this discussion. User:TonyStarks insists on putting Ismaël Bennacer as Algerian when he most recently played for France (same thing on Arsenal F.C.. My understanding is that we always display the nation the footballer last played for after previous discussions. Also looking at other sources such as Soccerway the list nationality as "France" (could not find him at UEFA.com). Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't necessary, and it'd be doubly misleading. As to necessity, I don't think the reader loses anything by not reading a nationality in the opening sentence of e.g. Semih Aydilek or Alpaslan Öztürk. As to misleading, if it were meant to be civil nationality, you'd have to say explicitly "of dual Algerian-French nationality". But convention is for football articles to use a player's sporting nationality in the opening sentence. "Algerian-French" isn't a sporting nationality, but does carry an implication of ethnicity or descent which, per sitewide MoS, isn't something to be emphasised unless relevant to the subject's notability. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that Algerian-French is unambiguous, certainly in British English; and without specialist knowledge of the various nationality laws and/or explicit sourcing, I don't see how a person born in France of Algerian and Moroccan descent is "Algerian-French full stop". cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
1 - in Eduardo Berizzo, two O'Higgins F.C. champion squad templates; 2 - in Nicolae Stanciu (footballer, born 1993), seasonal top scorer template. User:Mattythewhite concurs with me it is overkill, anybody else has a different opinion?
Cheers -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Captaincy templates are being slowly (but surely) eliminated, that's a given. -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone deal with the chaos at that page? It's over-the-top. Can the list be cut down some? For example, only players from clubs who were in the top flight league of their country. Correctron ( talk) 01:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a look at this article for example, the scrollbar thumbs are tiny therefore making it very difficult to scroll the page. Just wondering why this is happening and how can that problem be sorted out? Thanks. Minima © ( talk) 12:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I have managed to get a list of all players in Category:English footballers that are missing "Category:Footown F.C. players" based on the clubs listed in their infobox – see User:Number 57/sandbox2.
Having been through it and started doing a bit of work to resolve the missing categorisation, there are some points to note:
So, if anyone wants to help out reducing the list (it currently has around 11,500 "missing" categories – some players have multiple ones missing), please do. If you add a category, please remove the player from the list (unfortunately due to its size, it is a bit difficult to edit – I've found the best way is to copy it into notepad and then edit it there and then paste it all back in in one go). Additionally, could I ask that in order to remove someone from the list, you either:
Hope that all makes sense? Cheers, Number 5 7 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - looking at the Rotherham United (F.C.) entries in the list, I note that
Just an update on this: A bot is being set up that will create and regularly update this list, and for other nationalities. The main page for this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories and I'll link to the bot logs (they'll be in its userspace) once it starts running. It should now avoid listing wartime guests, non-playing positions and players in "Footown SC footballers" instead of the more common "Footown F.C. players".
I have also created a list of clubs that it is probably not worth having a category for – clubs that do not meet the criteria for their own article. So far I've only done the A clubs from the original list, but please feel free to add to it. Missing categories for the clubs listed in here will not appear in the lists the bot produces. If by chance a club becomes notable (e.g. reaches the required level to have an article) it can be removed from the list and players should appear.
I should also give a huge amount of credit to KSFT who created the original list and has been incredibly helpful and patient, and is also now setting up the bot. In the meantime, we've removed around 600 entries from the list, including one article that I saw identified as having untrue information in it (it's now at AfD). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I just finished setting things up, and I ran the bot on the same category as before. The list is here. It has 6768 articles listed. As I'm writing this, the bot just finished updating the list because I forgot to have it ignore the categories on that list. I will start to run the bot on other nationality categories to create similarly-named lists. You should be able to see a list of them here. KSF T C 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@ SuperJew and Struway2: I see you're making great progress, but to stop you having to spend ages on the Huddersfield/Leeds/Wrexham front – would it be worth doing a run on AWB to fix all the misplaced links to those articles, then delete them all from the player lists in one go (in cases where they are the only ones with an issue the whole line can be taken out)? Number 5 7 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the bot might not be picking up missing categories from loans. For example Alan Gilzean was missing Category:Aldershot Town F.C., but was not listed with Aldershot Town F.C.. -- SuperJew ( talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ummm... so I was working on the list (while doing other stuff too :P), and my computer decided it felt like restarting, so I didn't have the change to save today's updates to the list. So anyways, It'd be great if we could run the bot again, and also it'll remove from the list all the clubs you changed with AWB. -- SuperJew ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So, the Olympic Stadium in Stratford has been officially renamed the London Stadium. Not a sponsored name, so that issue isn't relevant, but the question is whether the name will catch on. I can think of several grounds that had official names but were commonly referred to as something else (e.g. City Stadium/ Filbert Street, Alexandra Stadium/ Gresty Road), so should we wait a while before deciding? I ask now because I suspect an RM will appear in the not-too-distant future. Number 5 7 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that the article about football Wikipedians is in the latest issue of the mag, which I believe is out today. I haven't seen it yet, but the preview on the iTunes app seems to show that the article starts with a full page filled entirely with the words "Wiki Geeks". So that's nice of them......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to all involved, from this other geek! -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well done all.. I guess
outing doesn't apply here?
JMHamo (
talk)
19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Could an Admin please delete Ben Tilney.. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for input into a dispute I am having with Johnelwaq ( talk · contribs). This user insists on adding "English" to all English divisions, even though this is factually incorrect, as, for example, there is no such division as "English League One". There is no consensus that we should add nationalities to divisions to distinguish them from others. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
On my mobile when I look at the article I see only up to Players in the category at the top of the article when it's shortened down, but when you expand it you see the rest, I looked just now on my MacBook and it seems normal. So I don't understand what is going on. I fail to see why this error is occurring in mobile view. Maybe someone else can have a look. Cheers Govvy ( talk) 11:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's getting a bit long, should we not add the page to the archive bot? Govvy ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added template hoax to this article, because most probably distered some informations in thos article. Mybe it is OK now, but I don't have got many time to check it. Is someone who can fixed this article? Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
if they could kindly revdel this edit summary I'd be grateful. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor @ Skyblueshaun: (who does a tremendous amount of work updating season articles) and I have been having a friendly debate about how to treat transfers of players to/from free agent status in the Transfers In and Transfers Out tables on season articles.
Skyblueshaun's view is that where a player is released by a club (particularly at end of contract - 30th June/1st July) and subsequently signs for another club weeks later, the "to" field should be populated with the new club, and a footnote saying "following release, X subsequently signed for Y". [32]
And where a player is signed by a club after being release by club Y the "from" field should be populated with club Y rather than "free agent". [33]
To me, whilst the former makes some sense, I would prefer the latter to show "free agent" in the "from" field, especially where reliable sources point to 1) the player being released and 2) the player being signed as a free agent.
There is probably a time factor here as well - for example a player joining a new club a day or two after being released compared with over a month later.
We wondered whether there was existing consensus on this matter, and if not could we seek a new consensus please? Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is Ali Daei? And who is first person on this list? Who it is? Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Should they be in the football box or not? I put them in, as they are serious game-changers, but lately it's been reverted. Thoughts from more experienced users? --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
pinging @
Matilda Maniac: so he can comment. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone remind me what the latest such list to get promoted to FL is, so that I can compare one I'm planning to nominate to the current standard? Cheers!! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I volunteered to do some GA reviews. First up is 2015 UEFA Champions League Final and it's close to a pass except for some citations needed to support info about the Berlin venue. I placed the review on hold and then saw that the nominator has been banned from the site. Is there anyone else who has worked on the article or who can help with citations about the Berlin Olympiastadion so that it can pass? Any help much appreciated. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Vaselineeeeeeee: Thank you for your help. Great stuff, much appreciated. I'm passing this article to GA (but the cricket one fails miserably). I'm reviewing Herbert Chapman too so if anyone has any comments on that, do please let me know (there's a criticism of intro length so far but I haven't read it fully yet). Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 10:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I nominated a bunch of articles on particular local derbies/rivalries for deletion, but the discussion has stalled without consensus being reached - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby. More input from project members would probably be helpful. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER? There is a debate going on here. At WP:KARLSRUHER, there is a template calling it an "essay" and further states that it contains "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Kingjeff ( talk) 04:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we may need some flexibility depending on context here. In articles specifically about German leagues, it makes sense to use the full names because that's the common case there. In articles about international clubs/squads, it makes sense to use shorter names (as long as they make sense) because that's the common case there. This may seem inconsistent, but it will look a lot more consistent on the articles themselves, which is the main thing random editors will be acting on (an important thing to keep in mind, imo). Of course, nobody should ever write "Karlsruher" (adjective) or "Stuttgard" (ambiguous) anywhere, but "Wolfsburg" in between a long list of other European club names "looks more consistent". Personally, for international articles, I just go to the Wikipedia article about that club, and make sure that what I'm about to write is listed in the "commonly known as". Those include Wolfsburg, but obviously not Karlsruhe(r) or Stuttgard. – Sygmoral ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Fenix down:, I opened this discussion and the very first thing I wrote was "has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER?" So, I came here looking for what the status of this "essay" was. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really a language issue, and I included many links above, none of which shorten a club's name just to the city. Take FIFA for example, their Premier League table inlcudes just city names, while their Bundesliga table never shortens the names to just the city. Just like the BBC, ESPN, Yahoo, FOX, etc. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 19:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@ GiantSnowman:, it would be good to get an official consensus on this essay instead of a few editors treating this like it's policy. Kingjeff ( talk) 19:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I came across the page WWK Arena, which seems to be named wrongly as WWK is a sponsorship name. Should it be moved to Augsburg Arena or Impuls Arena? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
While on the topic, what about the Frankenstadion? It kept that sponsor-free name until 2006, before it was renamed to easyCredit-Stadion (deal with DZ Bank) until 2012, when it was renamed to Grundig-Stadion. Now this past July the city of Nuremberg could not find a new sponsor, so it currently is know as the Stadion Nürnberg ( [34], [35], [36], [37]). Should the stadium be renamed to the most current, sponsor-free name? Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm just wondering, do penalties count towards the goals tally? In a statistics box, a player I'm editing scored a goal in the match then during penalties scored another, should that be counted as 2 goals in the statistics box? CDRL102 ( talk) 13:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It was penalty shoot-out I meant yes that's OK then, thank you. CDRL102 ( talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Massive edit war going on at the moment which I want to play no direct part in. It is, however, being reported by Sky Sports News, Eurosport, The Independent and The Guardian. Are these not reliable enough sources? Spiderone 10:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for WP Football. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if someone competent could make kit images for Birmingham City F.C. They're pretty basic Adidas, so the same patterns or something similar probably already exist, but I can't do the colours with any degree of accuracy. See home and away. Many thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 10:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone take a look at some Irish season articles like 2015 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season. Should we really list what kits were worn on what match (for all matches), a list of what matches were broadcasted, and so on? Qed237 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst we have Leeds United F.C. and Category:Leeds United F.C. players, the wartime guest category is at Category:Leeds United A.F.C. wartime guest players. I'm not sure whether this was an oversight when the categories were moved, or whether it was deliberately kept at that title because Leeds were A.F.C. at the time of the war. I ask because the difference is causing Leeds wartime players to be flagged up in the missing categories bot run, so it would be good if the category were renamed. Personally I am in favour as I think we should use the current name of the club for all related categories, but I just wanted to check whether there was a reason why this wasn't changed, or any objections to doing so. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 100 | ← | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | → | Archive 110 |
See the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Country data New Caledonia#Template-protected edit request on 23 June 2016. -- Theurgist ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Youth squads at tournament should not be covered in tempalte like this. We did agree on that, or? Kante4 ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Olympics templates are notable but youth tournaments are not. I have already informed the creator about this. If somebody has the time please can you TFD? Giant Snowman 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone please tell me whether we should we add UEFA Europa League, UEFA Champions League and UEFA EURO under international leagues in the infobox of a football referee's page? Please help! And also what about the domestic leagues section - should only the premier first-tier home country league be mentioned it or even the 2nd and 3rd tier teams are to be mentioned as well? Someone if please tell me! Cricket246 ( talk) 12:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Five different places (in two countries!) mentioned so far - any help welcome... Talk:Robbie Wakenshaw#Place of birth. Giant Snowman 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I started a discussion about removing the assists on Euro 2016 and would appreciate your input there. Thanks, -- SuperJew ( talk) 21:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following pages 2016–17 Ukrainian First League, 2016–17 Ukrainian Second League, 2015–16 Ukrainian First League are continually being reverted by User:46.200.26.232. A request has been made for WP:3RR violations due him continually changing team names by placing a hyphen in the team's name. He has been targetting reformed teams that are returning back into the professional leagues. For instance FC Arsenal Kyiv is being editted to FC Arsenal-Kyiv (which has a redirect) and the recently readmitted FC Metalurh Zaporizhya into the Second league as Metalurh-Zaporizhya. Usually WP:COMMONNAME has diffused the situation but this individual has been incessant in his plight. The articles have been tagged for discussion. IS it possible that some admin place these pages in semi-protect mode until there is some more consensus to this issue. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Is {{ Copa América Centenario Team of the Tournament}} notable? SLBedit ( talk) 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Should 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round really have been split into individual articles for each group ( A, B, C, D, E)?
The only qualifiaction article that has been split is UEFA first round (being 260 matches), while this is only 60 matches and less than other rounds. The creator of the group articles has been asked but keeps on editing without response.
Keep, merge or delete? AfD? Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Milovan Rajevac was manager of a Slovenian club side for just under 2 weeks before leaving to become the new Algeria manager. He never took control of the Slovenian side for a competitive match. @ Panam2014: believes that that role should not be reflected in the infobox; I disagree. Bringing this here as it has ramifications wider than this article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So I was going over Fb team templates, specifically Australia and some of them are a serious clusterfuck (especially Japan and South Korea). I started nominating for deletion some of the templates which don't even link to a football team, but rather a suburb. I've seen two other cases which I'd like your guidance on: 1) Team names which link to a suburb/city. 2) Teams which link to non-existent article (usually I doubt they'll be created as they are lower tier clubs). What would you think to do with them? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are also many templates which link to the same club with different names, for example Manly United and Manly Warringah Dolphins both link to Manly United FC. My question with these is if to delete the (I guess old) name template, and if we keep it, which name to sort it by? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
(pinging @ Matilda Maniac: as I saw you created a bunch of them back in the day) -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made the following changes:
I've also updated the following:
TheBigJagielka ( talk) 19:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, can someone help me and User:Debarghya89 on this page. We have an anon user and a new user (who I am pretty sure are the same) who keep adding in two foreign players who have yet to be signed officially, adding in random sponsors which have yet to be confirmed, and a bunch of other useless things. I don't want to be caught up in 3RR and neither does Deb so a little help would be appreciated. Cheers. Already submitted a protection request as well. -- ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Bury have had 3 points deducted retrospectively from last season in Football League One, dropping them two places. I've updated the table template, as well as Bury, Southend and Swindon's infoboxes and list of Bury and Southend seasons (Swindon's hadn't been updated yet, and I'm just off out so don't have time to update it myself). Just a heads up, and to see if anyone thinks of any other articles that might need updating accordingly. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
One month ago, I enhanced the {{ Football box}} and {{ Football box collapsible}} templates to add support for listing goals and penalties, rather than just separating them with <br>s. This came after Walter Görlitz made a good point on the talk page about improving MOS:ACCESSIBILITY on these templates by using {{ plainlist}} instead of the more crude linebreaks. Apart from accessibility and semantics, another benefit is that the list of goals becomes much more readable in the code this way, which is of course especially important for collaborative projects such as Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, when I used this new syntax recently on the Euro 2016 articles, people reverted it because they were not used to this syntax. I don't really blame them because it's very new and so it currently looks unusual, but that's always the case with change :) So I was wondering whether I could get support to encourage using the listing syntax instead of the line breaks, at least for penalty shootouts. Of course line breaks will always be supported, I'm not saying that should change, I would just like to officially 'encourage' the listing syntax (e.g. on the doc page) so that people can actually make use of the new syntax without it getting reverted to the more 'primitive' syntax.
For easy comparison, here is the penalty shootout from the recent Switzerland - Poland game:
Linebreak syntax:
|penalties1=[[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}}<br />[[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}}<br />[[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}} |penaltyscore=4–5 |penalties2={{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]]<br />{{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]
Listing syntax:
|penaltyscore=4–5 |penalties1= * [[Stephan Lichtsteiner|Lichtsteiner]] {{pengoal}} * [[Granit Xhaka|Xhaka]] {{penmiss}} * [[Xherdan Shaqiri|Shaqiri]] {{pengoal}} * [[Fabian Schär|Schär]] {{pengoal}} * [[Ricardo Rodríguez (footballer)|Rodríguez]] {{pengoal}} |penalties2= * {{pengoal}} [[Robert Lewandowski|Lewandowski]] * {{pengoal}} [[Arkadiusz Milik|Milik]] * {{pengoal}} [[Kamil Glik|Glik]] * {{pengoal}} [[Jakub Błaszczykowski|Błaszczykowski]] * {{pengoal}} [[Grzegorz Krychowiak|Krychowiak]]
Both are supported, but which one should be recommended? – Sygmoral ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
|goals2=* [[Robbie Brady|Brady]] {{goal|2|pen.}}
(although I'm not sure whether that should be recommended).A lot of information on the page, but one issue kept surfacing, which is the current squad section was moved to the top of the page by some editor which is not complying with the style here. I'm currently in the process of reorganising and updating the page with the latest squad info, but will do with some help to reorganise the page since the items are all over the place and consistently watch the page to prevent the current squad section from being moved again. Frankie goh ( talk) 16:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have seen an editor adding links to worldofstadiums.com so I opened a discussion about the site at WP:RSN. Feel free to comment there. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please keep am eye on Nampalys Mendy, maybe an Admin can protect? Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor dispute regarding player club in "recent call-up list" and I would like some input. Should we show the club the player is currently at, or the club he was playing for at the time he was called? Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
But the article doesn't say Player X is playing for Liverpool, it says that when he was last called up, he was playing for Liverpool. A standard note at the top of each recent callups table to clarify the meaning would stop both editors and readers getting confused. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Another point regarding this I thought about, the age column is current age, not age when called-up. -- SuperJew ( talk) 06:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to notice occasions where editors are updating the |updated
parameter in Infoboxes when they've only correctly updated a subset of the facts in the infobox. This leads to wikipedia making a factually incorrect statement that: All statistics are correct as of (timestamp) when they categorically aren't.
This appears to be prevalent in season articles, for example at 2016 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, where (an|some) IP editor(s) are extremely eager to update result and goalscorer related statistics, when attendance related statistics take a little more research.
Some editors here are notable for their insistence on updating timestamps, so I guess the positive point here is at least the timestamp is being updated. I would like to see some sort of consensus, though, that in doing so a factual error should not be introduced. Maybe this means guidance (or stronger) that the infobox should not be updated unless you are doing a complete update of stats? Would appreciate hearing other thoughts... Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that IPs have recently been changing player articles to have the infobox table in seemingly random orders? Such as:
year1
club1
national team1
national cap 1
club-update
year 4
club 4
youthyear1
youthclub1
For example. Is there some kind of tool going wrong?--
Echetus
Xe
13:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
|caps39=
or whatever, we do need some input from someone who understands the thing. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
14:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@ EchetusXe, Jaellee, and Struway2: - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Template:Infobox football biography. Giant Snowman 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The mass moving of categories relating to, and rewriting of subjects relating to, Segunda División is coming [20] '''tAD''' ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've been going through articles of footballers who have represented both a current national team, and its predecessor (e.g. Nemanja Vidic, Savo Milosevic, Radoslav Latal, etc. Players representing countries which have since split up into two or more nations such as Czechoslovakia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro are affected. Looking through player articles such as Vidic's and Milosevic's, only one country is listed in both cases (Serbia), even though both of them clearly represented two different nations, creating quite an innacurayc. It seems that there is not much consistency around these articles, as Latal's infobox lists him as representing both Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. I don't mind how we decide to approach this problem, as long as there is consistency.
The way I see it, we could follow Latal's article's approach, by listing the two national teams he has represented, or only listing the latest national team a player has played for, as long as that team is the FIFA-recognised successor of the earlier nation (like Vidic's article); however, in the case of the latter, this means that present national teams which competed previously as a part of a different nation, but are not the successor to that nation (e.g. Slovakia) would both have to be listed for a player that represented both.
Cheers lads.
LeoC12 ( talk) 05:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've spotted an issue in the template: this new way of listing manager instead of adding another template works perfectly, but only for active clubs. I mean, UD Salamanca folded in 2013, but its template lists José María Hernández (the last manager) with the dash after the year.
Should we add a parameter in the template for folded clubs, or should I simply add 2013 to 13
to the last manager in the template?
MYS
77
✉
22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2013 to 13
won't work because it would give 2013-13, which looks silly. I'd suggest adding a parameter to the template. --
SuperJew (
talk)
22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)| folded = yes
with the default in no
). Then, when this param is set to "yes", and if (that's the main part of the problem) the last manager only managed the folded club for a few months in the same year, we should change the last line of the managerlist to a list without the –.make_list
function with two if's in the part after the third if not name then
line, like something which would be captured from the param (folded). Cheers, and thank you both.
MYS
77
✉
03:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
dissolved =
would be a better option, like appears in the infobox on
the club's page. And of course a note about it should be added to the documentation :) --
SuperJew (
talk)
05:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Koppapa's proposal is that "2013 to" should be entered if "(2013–)" is wanted for the last entry. I think that has a couple of problems. I have converted 1400 navboxes to the new syntax and many of them had dubious wikitext, and having a dangling "to" would be unclear—every editor looking at that would wonder whether something has been accidentally removed. An example of strange wikitext was at {{
USM Alger managers}} which used {{
Football manager last}} 52 times. Another problem can be seen by considering {{
Uganda national football team managers}}. It has six entries like "Ssali 1983" where there is no "to" year. That includes the last entry which is "Sredojević 2013" and which displays as "
Sredojević (2013–)" in the navbox. That automatic behavior of adding a dash would be better than requiring that every future adjustment to the hundreds of active navboxes must have "to" with no number on the last line. I think having an unambiguous parameter such as |dissolved=yes
would be best—it only has to be added once, assuming a club is not undissolved. I need some help at
my sandbox (
permalink) where I put a list of navboxes that might need the new parameter. If someone can confirm what is needed, I will do it.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
|dissolved=yes
and added it to three navboxes, including {{
UD Salamanca managers}} mentioned above. I found there were a handful of navboxes that did not have the new syntax, so I converted them. In doing that, I noticed that
Dynafen11 had removed the incorrect dash in a navbox and my edit had inadvertently restored it. Therefore I didn't wait. If something else is wanted, that can be done instead, however "dissolved" sounds good because it is used in {{
Infobox football club}}.
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Some users at 2015 Copa América have been zealously defending an unsourced chart which ranks the teams in order according to the 3-points-for a win and 1 point for a draw, even in knockout matches. This is original research because there is no proof that CONMEBOL sort the teams like this (I can't imagine Brazil were soothed from a quarter-final exit by knowing they "came 5th"). I was told to tag the chart for maintenance, so that people can search for a reference that doesn't exist, rather than the general rule of WP:V that the burden is on the claimer to prove. These users have admittedly invented their own rules for a tournament ranking, the very definition of WP:OR. Please go to the talk page to discuss '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this edit which led to this Category. None of these clubs have won the "EFL Cup", because it's only just been renamed. Is this the way we normally handle these trophy name changes? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
One category change that bothered me was Category:English Football League representative players, for people who played for The Football League XI. Technically, the category should reflect the parent article title. And particularly as that article says it was a representative side of the Football League; if the team's defunct, it has nothing to do with the EFL. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a wider issue. A large number of 'Football League' categories have been speedy moved to EFL or English Football League. See 2 July at this page. Whilst it is appreciated there is some (further) renaming by the FL is it appropriate for all of these categories to be renamed? Eldumpo ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Could any admins about take a look at the recent contributions from 175.100.59.138 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). They've copy/paste moved a few articles on Cambodian football clubs. The name changes appear to be appropriate, but need to be done as proper page moves. Thank you. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Mikel Sarwono ( talk · contribs) is edit warring on European association football club records. This new user won't stop adding unsourced content that was previously removed because of lack of sources. SLBedit ( talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we still have Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box as separate templates? Shouldn't they be merged into one template? They mostly serve the same purpose. TheBigJagielka ( talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
collapsible
, and
Template:Football box collapsible could then 'forward' to the other template with that parameter on. This would un-duplicate some code which is always good, but be quite a bit of work to ensure everything still looks as it should. –
Sygmoral (
talk)
11:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)We know that penalty shoot-outs are recorded as draws, so is then the previous record of Germany never beating Italy in a competitive match broken or not? There seems to be a dispute with User:Canon 108 on the Italy national football team page. In my view, even though it is recorded as a draw, the technicality of it is that they won the game in order to progress, so the record is technically broken. The other user seems to think otherwise. I'm fine with either way as long as we stay consistent on the other pages. What should it be written as? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: Please stop making it sound better than it is. Italy lost, that's it. We can't make Wikipedia biased, we must tell it as it is and not make it more complicated than it needs to be, AND how PeeJay even pointed out that UEFA even recognizes it as Germany's first win. Should we not say that Italy won the 2006 World Cup just because it was a shootout win? No, they won it. It's the same thing here. Please stop your reverting. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My exact edit was "Italy then faced off against rivals Germany in a quarter final which ended 1–1 after extra time and 6–5 after penalty shoot-out in favour of Germany. It was the first time the Germans had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." I'm keeping it like that, it gets the point across clearly, doesn't conflict with the fact it was a draw, and if need be, you can get in touch with someone higher up to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, we go off of facts. And what I posted doesn't conflict in any way with how the game played out. I love the fact that Germany advanced, but they advanced on penalties with a final score of 1-1. That's why I edited it initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The match itself was a draw, but Germany was still victorious over Italy - it just means that the victory came in the penalty shootout as opposed to the first 120 minutes. - Gopherbashi ( talk) 19:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's why following the shootout result I posted it was the first time they eliminated Italy, instead of posting they flat out won. This way everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's true, I'm just trying to save the trouble of more edits later on. Italian fans would claim the match ended 1-1...and they would be right in saying so. My edit simply said the shootout ended 6-5 in favour of Germany. And it was the first time the Germans eliminated Italy in a major competition. Gets the point across, and is exactly what was proposed above as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The last thing I'm going to add on this is from the
2016/17 FIFA LOTG, page 71.
"When competition rules require a winning team after a drawn match or home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determine the winning team (emphasis mine) are:
• away goals rule
• extra time
• kicks from the penalty mark"
Yesterday's match was drawn, yet required a winning team. Kicks from the penalty mark was the procedure used to determine the winning team. Germany, having won the kicks from the penalty mark, is therefore the winning team. -
Gopherbashi (
talk)
20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to get to as well. I didn't want to say they beat Italy since technically the match ended 1-1. But I wanted to emphasise that it was the first time Germany has eliminated Italy in a major tournament, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned the shootout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Tanonero: Thanks for your input as well. I've communicated this on Canon's talk page as well, but refuses to listen to consensus or compromise. Canon has suggested going to an admin, which I have now done. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Hashim-afc: Overcame isn't specific enough though. I, as well as User:Tanonero really liked User:Gopherbashi's suggestion saying that they defeated them (as it says in the UEFA article), although requiring a shootout to do so. If UEFA, the very tournament they played in classified it as the first defeat in a major competition, then we should too end of story. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 23:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: And Canon still insists on edit warring but is now absent from the discussion! He claims to be "in line with consensus" when he is not. Using "eliminated" is not the appropriate wording as we have all pointed out to you since they eliminated them in Euro 96 without beating them. What don't you understand?? It's factually incorrect. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in euro 16...euro 96 Italy left the group stage because of two other performances that contributed to their exit in the round...Germany eliminated Italy for the first time this year, that's factually correct. Eliminated is the accurate term since Italy were eliminated on penalties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically yes, the match is recorded as a draw. The consensus on the discussion page was to emphasise the penalty shootout however, so I edited it appropriately. I edited it to state they defeated Italy 6-5 on penalties, and that it was the first time they've eliminated Italy in a major tournament (which is correct since it was an elimination game and one team wasn't going to advance)...but now Vaselineeeeeeee is contesting that eliminated isn't the correct term to describe the outcome of an elimination game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, it really doesn't matter what Canon, or I , or anyone thinks about if Germany defeat Italy, because the source released by UEFA saying that the record that Germany first defeated Italy in a competitive match is broken. That source trumps anyone's opinion. Now, eliminated is not the best word since the euro in 96 which still eliminated Italy in the group stage, largely because of that last Germany Italy match. I get what canon is saying that all the group matches were a factor for Italy's elimination, but the final game is the biggest. We cannot expect our readers to be an expert on this matter and there is always room for improvement and so there can be a better word. I thought hashim's word of "overcame" was s good compromise for everyone, but obviously not for canon. There must be s better word we can think of Taft everyone likes to avoid any potential confusion. Canon, you can think there is no confusion all you want, but the truth is, you don't know that, and we must make it the simplest way possible for our readers who may or may not be experts on the matter. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 15:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee You're literally the only person taking issue with this. Italy were dependent on more than one factor going into their match with Germany in 1996. They either needed to beat Germany and have Czech Republic lose or draw, or draw with Germany and hope for a Russia win. Their fate was out of their hands as soon as they lost to Czech Republic in the second game. There's no confusion however, Germany eliminated Italy for the first time in 2016 after defeating then 6-5 on penalties. It was an elimination match and Italy did not advance, they were eliminated. Where in 1996 their fate was dependant on more than one factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
As you can see by Hashim's edit, I'm not the only one. Your wording of "eliminated" is also a factual error since the UEFA source states it's the first time Italy were defeated (or overcome) by Germany in a competitive tournament, NOT eliminated. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 16:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Canon 108: I really don't see the problem here. The use of the word 'eliminated' = a tiny bit of confusion may arise. The use of the word 'overcame' = no confusion arises whatsoever. So why should we use 'eliminated' when it would be more sensible to use another word? You're the only person taking issue with the use of 'overcame'. Hashim-afc ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Technically speaking, you're the only person for it. Vaselineeeeeeee said he was indifferent in the matter. And my reasoning is that in an elimination game, a team is eliminated. I clearly stated in my edit that "The score remained 1–1 after extra time and Germany defeated Italy 6–5 in a penalty shootout. It was the first time Germany had eliminated Italy in a major tournament." There's no confusion, the statement is clear as day and lets the reader know the match needed to be resolved via penalty shootout, and that Italy were eliminated as a result. It doesn't need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Canon, when did I say I didn't care? I don't see that I have, unless I missed it and must have been before I was reminded about Euro 96, if I did. I 100% agree with Hashim's wording. You're really the only one for your wording. ALSO may I add that how you have it makes it seem like the record was that Germany eliminated Italy for the first time, which is factually incorrect since UEFA acknowledges it as Italy's first defeat (overcome) works here as well. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I used beat when referring to the shootout win and defeated when referring to the first time making they eliminated Italy, does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon 108 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate if someone could takle a look at FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk. The squad list of first team players has a a source which I followed, but an IP adds a lot of players using a training camp and a pre-season friendly as a source that they are in first team. But in my mind it is not certain that you are a first team player just because you are with the team pre-season. I am to close to edit warring so I am stopping here. Please take a look. Qed237 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has been going around the UEFA Euro articles (and some others) adding wikinews, for example see this version of UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase containing the wikinews boxes, or this diff at Copa América Centenario knockout stage how they are added inside the section-tag so it is transcluded to other articles. What do we think about these templates? Keep or not? When I removed the the editor came to my talkpage claiming that Wikimedia sister projects can't be ignored and that they should be re-added. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember sincerely if I have ever filed out a report on this (I think I have, not sure), but if I have i'll try it again, for the last time,
after a difference of opinions at Adrien Silva, the following: Portuguese sports broadcasters have this idiotic custom (and I am also Portuguese, so no racism accusations please) of addressing 99,999999999999% of the players by first and last name 99,9999999999999% of the time (and sometimes even three names), they even go as far as to "make" name/nickname compounds (Nuno Capucho, Pedro Pauleta, Pedro Mantorras, etc); I once heard in disbelief as a commentator from Sport TV said, over the course of a La Liga match, " Radamel Falcao García" 40/50 TIMES.
Now, translating this to the example I spoke of before. This chap is mostly known as Adrien but, of course, with the "professionalism" of the broadcasters, he is also often referred as "Adrien Silva". But I think in his intro we should have only "commonly known as Adrien", that would suffice 100%. The fact that the ref provided displays him as Adrien Silva is not enough to back the "he-is-known-as-Adrien-Silva" up, as most players in the world have first name and surname displayed on their respective club's official profile; plus, in the biography immediately below his vital stats, he is referred to as Adrien.
Speaking of Sporting players, Silva's teammate Marvin Zeegelaar: last time I checked SOCCERWAY.com there is only ONE PLAYER in the world with this surname. Well, the Portuguese broadcasters could not care less about this fact, and refer to him as "Marvin Zegeelaar" 100% of the time. I rest my case, inputs please.
Attentively -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, correct, SPORT TV and not SPORTV. I could not care less about them (or all in general), but what about the issue at hand (Mr. Silva's intro)? -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 01:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has created season articles for Algeria national football team
All they seem to contain is list of matches for that year and stats.
Are they notable? Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I also wonder about
Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Now I also found List of foreign Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, which is not notable? Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that is obviously notable. But could someone merge the season articles and then we can nominate the other for deletion? Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Calistemon, Macosal, GiantSnowman, SuperJew, and ChrisTheDude: Have bben busy, but I have now nominated List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players, List of All-time appearances for USM Alger and List of USM Alger players for deletion and I will look at the merging soon. Might also be a few more AFD coming. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've had a bit of a discussion lately on footballboxes with another user regarding Vietnamese naming conventions. s/he claims that the full name should be used while I went according to the conventions here. After discussions between us on our talkpages, at my advice the user opened a discussion on the talk page of the conventions page. If anyone here is knowledgeable about this I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, -- SuperJew ( talk) 10:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a consensus as to whether we should be naming trialists who score in preseason friendlies? I'm guessing the right thing to do would be to name them only if the reliable source (i.e. match report) names them? Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we have a rule about the date from which summer transfers apply to the new club on a player's bio. Are we past that yet? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@ SuperJew: Medhi Benatia is an example. He under went his Juventus medical today, however, it is getting held up and although it is expected he should pass it, the club hasn't officially signed or announced his signing, so we don't add it yet. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 19:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Just as an example: Demba Ba failed the medical at Stoke City and subsequently they didn't sign him [29] So a medical is not just a formality. -- Jaellee ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Where a player has not played (or even featured in squads) in any/many Continental club match, do we need a 'Continental' column in his career stats table? Certainly not if there are zero apps, and I think that until he has made a decent number of appearances, it's fine to absorb any appearances into the 'Other' column. FYI @ SuperJew:. Giant Snowman 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But he was a reserve player with zero appearances in any competition for Man Utd... Giant Snowman 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
As the MOS states, these tables can (and should) be formatted specifically by player. I think that while a player who has never played top flight football, for example, should not have a "continental" column, those who have played for clubs participating in Europe certainly could, regardless of whether or not they actually played. As to whether they should, I don't think it is too important whether that final column is "other" or "continental" (although I don't think both should be used if a player has played in neither). Macosal ( talk) 08:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of interest (and since I have not been that active in this project lately), what is the current consensus on the visual appearance of navboxes like Template:Football in England, Template:Football in Italy, Template:Football in Turkey or Template:Football in Serbia? –– Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone working on this? I mean since they just won the Euro's I figured it could be updated. It only goes up to 2014 world cup qualifiers. I'm willing to do it myself, but I wanted to know if there's anyone else working on this. I'm Portuguese so this means more to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sweet I'll get on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok if I get rid of the qualifying results tables? They don't seem to fit with the rest of the article, and other ones like this don't have qualifying results, and those group tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therolder ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the help, :). 2001:1970:575F:F000:4809:8F9C:929C:7070 ( talk) 15:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)<nowwiki>
There is an IP repeatedly changing Mr Puyol's nationality to "Spanish/Catalan" without consensus. Just a request for people to help keep an eye on this. Mattythewhite ( talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, shirt numbers used by players during pre-season are not official. Is there consensus about this? SLBedit ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Now Besteirense ( talk · contribs) is reverting me on 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season. SLBedit ( talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, the club have announced the official numbers. SLBedit ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been emailed by a journalist from Four Four Two magazine, who wants to interview me for a piece he's writing about people who edit football content on WP. He asked if I knew of any other footy Wikipedians who would agree to being interviewed so that he can include content about more than just me. I said I'd ask the question. So if anyone else fancies it, email me and I will pass your details on........... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Are the interviews in the issue released today? Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been active in the Wiki community for quite some time and every once in a while I visit and/or make edits but I'm curious to read the interviews when they come out. :^) Cheers, -- MicroX ( talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I've came across an issue within articles involving players who are from Nation A (say England) and are registered as a domestic player, but then at a later date choose to represent Nation B internationally (ie Canada) between the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season. While there's no issue showing the player as Canadian in the season articles of his club starting from the 2014-15 season onwards, my question is do you guys think these players should being listed within previous season articles retroactively as Canadian, rather than English?
Should inconsistencies like these be made retroactive or chronological? - J man708 ( talk) 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there an admin around? there is an IP edit waring at Template:2015–16 Premier League table. => Spudgfsh ( Text Me!) 17:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the hell happened here? I know this was two months ago, but I never came across it until now. Of course we have the Football project importance ratings and stuff, but then we have Task Force pages like WP:SOUNDERS who put together some of their own importance ratings for Articles that are within their scope of the Task Force (I don't know if that made any sense). I just checked Talk:Andy Craven to see if someone mistakenly changed the Sounders importance rating, and the answer was no, but for some reason it's not showing up which I can only assume the Quality log is telling us that all these articles were reassessed. But what happened? Did anyone else come across this and has this issue been addressed yet? – Michael ( talk) 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. During the last months, I extracted data from French, English, Italian and German infoboxes, of about 150,000 players and added it to Wikidata. It represents 4 million information (clubs, periods, league matches, league goals, loan). The data I collected are neither perfect nor totally complete, because it reproduce the existing errors in infoboxes, and I could not always identify and treat so many inconsistencies. But these data form a significant mass of information, which is already exploitable (and, otherwise, I will not able to improve significantly the data quality by myself).
We've just started to use it. In WPfr, more than 5,000 articles of football players display in the infobox information from Wikidata (with fr:Template:Infobox Footballeur). Yellowcard told me he is also testing what could be done for WPde. There may be other tests elsewhere I do not know...
In my opinion, in a domain like sports, Wikiprojects of every languages would benefit greatly to share the work of updating the data in a tool like Wikidata. In WPfr, we have (tens of ?) thousands of articles of footballers which have never been updated since their creation ... I think the problem is the same everywhere.
Today, football projects in different languages can try and see. To those who are worried that this makes 2 websites to monitor, you must know that scripts exist today to show Wikidata changes in WP watchlists ( fr:User:H4stings/wef-watchlist.js / ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-wefwatchlist.js) and history pages ( fr:User:H4stings/wef-history.js). It is now quite easy to see what is happening in Wikidata without changing (too much…) its proper habits in WP.
If interested, please contact me and / or go to d:Wikidata_talk: WikiProject_Association_football to discuss with other interested people. :) In my side, I intend to import manager data now... Cheers. H4stings ( talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone have some extra time could you take a look at 2018–19 UEFA Nations League? Some IP persistently adds news article to External link-section. Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much any bio article worth its salt includes in the lead a summary of the player's international career, including their tournament picks. However, I have run into a user at Cyle Larin who is telling me that this is a pointless exercise, as the CONCACAF Gold Cup is no more important than World Cup qualifiers. I am not North American so I do not know, but if he is right would we have to rewrite the leads for the hundreds of players which have this tournament mentioned in the lead? '''tAD''' ( talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because these two things came up closely timed, what do you people think regarding the upcoming UEFA Nations League? Should it be in the league like a continental competition (which I guess it is sort of) or not like qualifiers (which I guess it also is sort of)? -- SuperJew ( talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to check for input before doing a lot of page moves. The article about the yearly main football cup in Armenia is at Armenian Independence Cup since 2007 (moved from Armenian Cup), but the season articles does not match the title. The season articles dont have "Independence" and are called 2015–16 Armenian Cup, 2014–15 Armenian Cup and so on. Should the individual articles not match the main? I have not look for any source, but lead says that the competition is known as "Independence Cup" since 1992, so my guess is that season articles should match that?
Also we have on Independence Cup (disambiguition) other articles like Independence Cup (Albania) and Lesotho Independence Cup. Should we not be consistent in the naming? Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just looked at Category:National association football cups for other cups and perhaps we should just call it Armenian Cup? Either way, I am all for consistency. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Need some help/input from the WikiProject Football community. Some time ago we held a discussion for renaming La Liga to Primera División. No consensus was reached (and after re-reading the discussion I believe staying as La Liga was the best action) but the rest of the football leagues named Primera División were moved to disambiguate the leagues of Spanish-speaking nations. The format was Demonym Primera División (e.g. Argentine Primera División). I look at the list of Primera división leagues and using the English demonym with the Spanish for first division just seems a little off—not sure if you guys know what I mean. I was re-reading WP:COMMONNAME and I'm not sure if these should've been moved to their current format. Anyone have any thoughts? Should the discussion be re-opened? -- MicroX ( talk) 20:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A good example of what I was trying to convey is the Bulgarian top flight. Article has changed name three or four times is as many years. -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
So in the Premier Soccer League of South Africa, Mpumalanga Black Aces dissolved, and their franchise was relocated to form Cape Town City F.C.. What would you say we should do with their templates? Should Black Aces squad be deleted and a new template made for Cape Town or should it just be a move? -- SuperJew ( talk) 07:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed a few inconsistencies with a few of this WikiProjects FA/FL/GAs. Many clubs have a XYZ in European football page. A few of these articles have reached FA/FL/GA status. This is where the inconsistency lies. Two of these articles are FLs (therefore could never be an FA or GA) and three (with one more at GAN) are FA/GA (therefore could never be a FL). Shouldn't all these articles be either eligible for FL or for FA/GA not a mixture of both. Here are the articles concerned:
What does this WikiProject think? Articles or lists? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
At the moment it rated at Start, I don't think it's good enough for B yet, but I think we should change it to C, Govvy ( talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody have any suggestions for a category name that will group the following articles together? The articles have details about the African qualifying tournament for the Olympic games.
I'm considering "Football at the Summer Olympics – Men's African Qualifiers".
TheBigJagielka ( talk) 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have noteced sometimes club articles having their players without article listed in the squad section in italics, exemple: FC_Le_Mont#Players. I have never done that neither I see a point in it, but am I missing something? FkpCascais ( talk) 05:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not a good idea. Use of italics is difficult to read for some people, so superfluous use of it is A Bad Thing. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In UEFA competitions, the team referred as "FC Salzburg", according to UEFA regulations. In the articles, the team referred as "FC Red Bull Salzburg". Why? -- IM-yb ( talk) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I need some help with the design of IFK Göteborg squad. As you can see there are some line break problems. The "captain)" in "(vice captain)", "Dalence" in "Martin Smedberg-Dalence" and "Leksell" in "Alexander Leksell" are all one step too low. I've tried to fix it with Nowrap, but it still doesn't work perfectly and it would be nice to fix it in an other way. Thankful for your help! // Mattias321 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading his article, but what struck me was the Perugia section, it's the Muammar Gaddafi's third son, Al-Saadi Gaddafi section interview, is that copyvio? And another question, is it really needed there? This sounds like it should be under Personal life, or some other heading and I am not sure how encyclopaedia it is. Govvy ( talk) 23:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Quick question – on which grounds does Philipp Lienhart qualify as notable? He does not seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, so does he meet WP:N in general and if so, why? Background of this inquiry is that there currently is a discussion about his notability in the German football portal where the fact that the English article (and with it six articles of far inferior quality in six other languages) exists but the German article does not caused some confusion. –– Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The links created by {{ Medio Tiempo}} are 404. Could someone who speaks Spanish check whether the site has changed its link format, and update the template accordingly, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again it is time for this discussion. User:TonyStarks insists on putting Ismaël Bennacer as Algerian when he most recently played for France (same thing on Arsenal F.C.. My understanding is that we always display the nation the footballer last played for after previous discussions. Also looking at other sources such as Soccerway the list nationality as "France" (could not find him at UEFA.com). Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't necessary, and it'd be doubly misleading. As to necessity, I don't think the reader loses anything by not reading a nationality in the opening sentence of e.g. Semih Aydilek or Alpaslan Öztürk. As to misleading, if it were meant to be civil nationality, you'd have to say explicitly "of dual Algerian-French nationality". But convention is for football articles to use a player's sporting nationality in the opening sentence. "Algerian-French" isn't a sporting nationality, but does carry an implication of ethnicity or descent which, per sitewide MoS, isn't something to be emphasised unless relevant to the subject's notability. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that Algerian-French is unambiguous, certainly in British English; and without specialist knowledge of the various nationality laws and/or explicit sourcing, I don't see how a person born in France of Algerian and Moroccan descent is "Algerian-French full stop". cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
1 - in Eduardo Berizzo, two O'Higgins F.C. champion squad templates; 2 - in Nicolae Stanciu (footballer, born 1993), seasonal top scorer template. User:Mattythewhite concurs with me it is overkill, anybody else has a different opinion?
Cheers -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Captaincy templates are being slowly (but surely) eliminated, that's a given. -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone deal with the chaos at that page? It's over-the-top. Can the list be cut down some? For example, only players from clubs who were in the top flight league of their country. Correctron ( talk) 01:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a look at this article for example, the scrollbar thumbs are tiny therefore making it very difficult to scroll the page. Just wondering why this is happening and how can that problem be sorted out? Thanks. Minima © ( talk) 12:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I have managed to get a list of all players in Category:English footballers that are missing "Category:Footown F.C. players" based on the clubs listed in their infobox – see User:Number 57/sandbox2.
Having been through it and started doing a bit of work to resolve the missing categorisation, there are some points to note:
So, if anyone wants to help out reducing the list (it currently has around 11,500 "missing" categories – some players have multiple ones missing), please do. If you add a category, please remove the player from the list (unfortunately due to its size, it is a bit difficult to edit – I've found the best way is to copy it into notepad and then edit it there and then paste it all back in in one go). Additionally, could I ask that in order to remove someone from the list, you either:
Hope that all makes sense? Cheers, Number 5 7 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - looking at the Rotherham United (F.C.) entries in the list, I note that
Just an update on this: A bot is being set up that will create and regularly update this list, and for other nationalities. The main page for this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories and I'll link to the bot logs (they'll be in its userspace) once it starts running. It should now avoid listing wartime guests, non-playing positions and players in "Footown SC footballers" instead of the more common "Footown F.C. players".
I have also created a list of clubs that it is probably not worth having a category for – clubs that do not meet the criteria for their own article. So far I've only done the A clubs from the original list, but please feel free to add to it. Missing categories for the clubs listed in here will not appear in the lists the bot produces. If by chance a club becomes notable (e.g. reaches the required level to have an article) it can be removed from the list and players should appear.
I should also give a huge amount of credit to KSFT who created the original list and has been incredibly helpful and patient, and is also now setting up the bot. In the meantime, we've removed around 600 entries from the list, including one article that I saw identified as having untrue information in it (it's now at AfD). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I just finished setting things up, and I ran the bot on the same category as before. The list is here. It has 6768 articles listed. As I'm writing this, the bot just finished updating the list because I forgot to have it ignore the categories on that list. I will start to run the bot on other nationality categories to create similarly-named lists. You should be able to see a list of them here. KSF T C 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@ SuperJew and Struway2: I see you're making great progress, but to stop you having to spend ages on the Huddersfield/Leeds/Wrexham front – would it be worth doing a run on AWB to fix all the misplaced links to those articles, then delete them all from the player lists in one go (in cases where they are the only ones with an issue the whole line can be taken out)? Number 5 7 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the bot might not be picking up missing categories from loans. For example Alan Gilzean was missing Category:Aldershot Town F.C., but was not listed with Aldershot Town F.C.. -- SuperJew ( talk) 15:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ummm... so I was working on the list (while doing other stuff too :P), and my computer decided it felt like restarting, so I didn't have the change to save today's updates to the list. So anyways, It'd be great if we could run the bot again, and also it'll remove from the list all the clubs you changed with AWB. -- SuperJew ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So, the Olympic Stadium in Stratford has been officially renamed the London Stadium. Not a sponsored name, so that issue isn't relevant, but the question is whether the name will catch on. I can think of several grounds that had official names but were commonly referred to as something else (e.g. City Stadium/ Filbert Street, Alexandra Stadium/ Gresty Road), so should we wait a while before deciding? I ask now because I suspect an RM will appear in the not-too-distant future. Number 5 7 21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that the article about football Wikipedians is in the latest issue of the mag, which I believe is out today. I haven't seen it yet, but the preview on the iTunes app seems to show that the article starts with a full page filled entirely with the words "Wiki Geeks". So that's nice of them......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to all involved, from this other geek! -- Be Quiet AL ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Well done all.. I guess
outing doesn't apply here?
JMHamo (
talk)
19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Could an Admin please delete Ben Tilney.. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for input into a dispute I am having with Johnelwaq ( talk · contribs). This user insists on adding "English" to all English divisions, even though this is factually incorrect, as, for example, there is no such division as "English League One". There is no consensus that we should add nationalities to divisions to distinguish them from others. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
On my mobile when I look at the article I see only up to Players in the category at the top of the article when it's shortened down, but when you expand it you see the rest, I looked just now on my MacBook and it seems normal. So I don't understand what is going on. I fail to see why this error is occurring in mobile view. Maybe someone else can have a look. Cheers Govvy ( talk) 11:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It's getting a bit long, should we not add the page to the archive bot? Govvy ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added template hoax to this article, because most probably distered some informations in thos article. Mybe it is OK now, but I don't have got many time to check it. Is someone who can fixed this article? Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
if they could kindly revdel this edit summary I'd be grateful. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor @ Skyblueshaun: (who does a tremendous amount of work updating season articles) and I have been having a friendly debate about how to treat transfers of players to/from free agent status in the Transfers In and Transfers Out tables on season articles.
Skyblueshaun's view is that where a player is released by a club (particularly at end of contract - 30th June/1st July) and subsequently signs for another club weeks later, the "to" field should be populated with the new club, and a footnote saying "following release, X subsequently signed for Y". [32]
And where a player is signed by a club after being release by club Y the "from" field should be populated with club Y rather than "free agent". [33]
To me, whilst the former makes some sense, I would prefer the latter to show "free agent" in the "from" field, especially where reliable sources point to 1) the player being released and 2) the player being signed as a free agent.
There is probably a time factor here as well - for example a player joining a new club a day or two after being released compared with over a month later.
We wondered whether there was existing consensus on this matter, and if not could we seek a new consensus please? Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is Ali Daei? And who is first person on this list? Who it is? Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Should they be in the football box or not? I put them in, as they are serious game-changers, but lately it's been reverted. Thoughts from more experienced users? --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
pinging @
Matilda Maniac: so he can comment. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone remind me what the latest such list to get promoted to FL is, so that I can compare one I'm planning to nominate to the current standard? Cheers!! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey all. I volunteered to do some GA reviews. First up is 2015 UEFA Champions League Final and it's close to a pass except for some citations needed to support info about the Berlin venue. I placed the review on hold and then saw that the nominator has been banned from the site. Is there anyone else who has worked on the article or who can help with citations about the Berlin Olympiastadion so that it can pass? Any help much appreciated. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Vaselineeeeeeee: Thank you for your help. Great stuff, much appreciated. I'm passing this article to GA (but the cricket one fails miserably). I'm reviewing Herbert Chapman too so if anyone has any comments on that, do please let me know (there's a criticism of intro length so far but I haven't read it fully yet). Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes ( talk) 10:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I nominated a bunch of articles on particular local derbies/rivalries for deletion, but the discussion has stalled without consensus being reached - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby. More input from project members would probably be helpful. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles ( talk) 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER? There is a debate going on here. At WP:KARLSRUHER, there is a template calling it an "essay" and further states that it contains "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Kingjeff ( talk) 04:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we may need some flexibility depending on context here. In articles specifically about German leagues, it makes sense to use the full names because that's the common case there. In articles about international clubs/squads, it makes sense to use shorter names (as long as they make sense) because that's the common case there. This may seem inconsistent, but it will look a lot more consistent on the articles themselves, which is the main thing random editors will be acting on (an important thing to keep in mind, imo). Of course, nobody should ever write "Karlsruher" (adjective) or "Stuttgard" (ambiguous) anywhere, but "Wolfsburg" in between a long list of other European club names "looks more consistent". Personally, for international articles, I just go to the Wikipedia article about that club, and make sure that what I'm about to write is listed in the "commonly known as". Those include Wolfsburg, but obviously not Karlsruhe(r) or Stuttgard. – Sygmoral ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Fenix down:, I opened this discussion and the very first thing I wrote was "has there been any consensus on WP:KARLSRUHER?" So, I came here looking for what the status of this "essay" was. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really a language issue, and I included many links above, none of which shorten a club's name just to the city. Take FIFA for example, their Premier League table inlcudes just city names, while their Bundesliga table never shortens the names to just the city. Just like the BBC, ESPN, Yahoo, FOX, etc. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 19:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@ GiantSnowman:, it would be good to get an official consensus on this essay instead of a few editors treating this like it's policy. Kingjeff ( talk) 19:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I came across the page WWK Arena, which seems to be named wrongly as WWK is a sponsorship name. Should it be moved to Augsburg Arena or Impuls Arena? -- SuperJew ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
While on the topic, what about the Frankenstadion? It kept that sponsor-free name until 2006, before it was renamed to easyCredit-Stadion (deal with DZ Bank) until 2012, when it was renamed to Grundig-Stadion. Now this past July the city of Nuremberg could not find a new sponsor, so it currently is know as the Stadion Nürnberg ( [34], [35], [36], [37]). Should the stadium be renamed to the most current, sponsor-free name? Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm just wondering, do penalties count towards the goals tally? In a statistics box, a player I'm editing scored a goal in the match then during penalties scored another, should that be counted as 2 goals in the statistics box? CDRL102 ( talk) 13:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It was penalty shoot-out I meant yes that's OK then, thank you. CDRL102 ( talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Massive edit war going on at the moment which I want to play no direct part in. It is, however, being reported by Sky Sports News, Eurosport, The Independent and The Guardian. Are these not reliable enough sources? Spiderone 10:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey All We have a new bot that detects potential copyright concerns. You can sort them by WikiProject. Here is the link to the list for WP Football. Of course follow up requires some common sense as it could be the source copying from us. Ping me if you are interested in more details. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if someone competent could make kit images for Birmingham City F.C. They're pretty basic Adidas, so the same patterns or something similar probably already exist, but I can't do the colours with any degree of accuracy. See home and away. Many thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 10:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone take a look at some Irish season articles like 2015 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season. Should we really list what kits were worn on what match (for all matches), a list of what matches were broadcasted, and so on? Qed237 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Whilst we have Leeds United F.C. and Category:Leeds United F.C. players, the wartime guest category is at Category:Leeds United A.F.C. wartime guest players. I'm not sure whether this was an oversight when the categories were moved, or whether it was deliberately kept at that title because Leeds were A.F.C. at the time of the war. I ask because the difference is causing Leeds wartime players to be flagged up in the missing categories bot run, so it would be good if the category were renamed. Personally I am in favour as I think we should use the current name of the club for all related categories, but I just wanted to check whether there was a reason why this wasn't changed, or any objections to doing so. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)