FkpCascais (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 505: | Line 505: | ||
Could somebody keep an eye on the [[Michael Husbands]] article? I don't know anything about him, but there have been a lot of suspicious edits recently, I'm not sure if the edits are correct or not (other than the unsourced speculation), so if my reverts are wrong, then please revert me, otherwise, it needs to be watched. [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
Could somebody keep an eye on the [[Michael Husbands]] article? I don't know anything about him, but there have been a lot of suspicious edits recently, I'm not sure if the edits are correct or not (other than the unsourced speculation), so if my reverts are wrong, then please revert me, otherwise, it needs to be watched. [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I'll do it.--[[User:EchetusXe|EchetusXe]] ([[User talk:EchetusXe|talk]]) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
:I'll do it.--[[User:EchetusXe|EchetusXe]] ([[User talk:EchetusXe|talk]]) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Maybe it was Husbands himself? Trying to rewind time back to 2005 when he had a future in the game but was still a totally shit player? (hope he never reads this). Its probably the same nutjob he claimed [http://www.onevalefan.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29647&highlight=Michael+Husbands he could leap like a salmon].--[[User:EchetusXe|EchetusXe]] ([[User talk:EchetusXe|talk]]) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:03, 11 June 2009
Football Project‑class | |||||||
|
Season article guideline proposal
Looking at the talk pages over the past couple of weeks, the members of WP:FOOTY had quite a few discussions over things related to season articles. So, SonjiCeli and I thought it would make sense to team up and suggest a collective proposal for a guideline on season articles. Our proposal can be found here.
We tried to stay as close to the well-established "best practises" as we could. However, there is still a chance that we might have missed something or included something controversial, so any comments - either here or on the talk page of the proposal - from as much members of this project as possible would be gladly appreciated. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- About the "standings" section, or what I would refer to as the League Table. Try to avoid the use of the clumsy templates and provide a standard wiki format table instead. Also please consider dropping all the background colours. Some of the ones proposed on your page are way too dark; and they add nothing that the explanatory text doesn't do better. - fchd (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wording fixed. As for the colors, the hues are (except for some shades of blue) in use for a couple of years now, so we just inherited them. Which doesn't mean that they cannot be changed, of course. It would help if the colors being "way too dark" would be specified more exactly, though, as "way too dark" is a relative statement. As for the general table format, this is one of the possibly controversial issues of the proposal, so let's wait for significantly more input on this before deciding what to do. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Richard about the use of the league table templates. Get rid of the templates and use a wikitable instead. – PeeJay 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Richard and PeeJay. The templates are overly complicated and inflexible. There's a mention of colours, font sizes etc above at #Redundancy in table, if people haven't seen it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Richard about the use of the league table templates. Get rid of the templates and use a wikitable instead. – PeeJay 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wording fixed. As for the colors, the hues are (except for some shades of blue) in use for a couple of years now, so we just inherited them. Which doesn't mean that they cannot be changed, of course. It would help if the colors being "way too dark" would be specified more exactly, though, as "way too dark" is a relative statement. As for the general table format, this is one of the possibly controversial issues of the proposal, so let's wait for significantly more input on this before deciding what to do. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm the lone voice here, but I have nothing against the templates in standings and results. Not only it looks "neater" and "more appealing", but it is much easier to work with them. The main advantage is seen in league table where you have less things to calculate on your own, and it's easier to change positions, especially when you have 30+ league articles to edit in one day and you need as much spared time as you can get. Plus, when editing, templates use less rows and it's therefore easier to deal with them. I know that some users have trouble in loading the page with a lot of templates, but other than that, I don't see any other disandvantage. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but can someone here explain to me arguments why there is so much opposition regarding templates?
As for the colors, I think they are useful. Yes, now league tables look like the inside of a disco, but this many Europe spots offered and relegation spots being used need to be notified somehow. Especially because the text on the right hand side of the table is barely readable. Also, the tables really look "boring" and "empty" without the colors (just take a look at any English standings table during the punishment in late 80s), while I think that the spots should be more visible as they are very important in overall standings.
Anyway, this is just my honest opinion and I hope I will not be crucified for this. I would just like some more explaining regarding these two subjects discussed here and maybe I will see the other, negative side of that. SonjiCeli (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Especially because the text on the right hand side of the table is barely readable". Indeed. And the reason it's barely readable is 1) because (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong on this) the template makes it appear in microscopic font size, contrary to the Manual of Style which says you're supposed to have a really good reason to use anything other than normal font size (or it used to, anyway); and 2) because of the low contrast between the text and (some of) the coloured backgrounds. WP:MOS#Color coding would indicate you need to make the text readable, rather than relying on the colours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was bold and changed the size of Template:Fb cl2 qr to 92.5%. Hope it's more suitable now. As for the colors, in order to create a more appropriate scheme: Where is the point in the given scheme when things start to become hardly readable? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll also pile in and say get rid of the table/results templates; they are a nightmare to use, involve the creation of thousands of other templates to make them work, and make the pages massive due to all the coding required. Wikitables are much simpler to use. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- That font size is much better. As to colours, and purely from my particular variety of colour vision, the black text at that size is OK on all but the darkest red, when it looks a little faint. The blue text is difficult both on the darkest red and on the darkest blue. And I can't distinguish the lighter red background colour (demotion playoff) from the darker grey (ordinary team alternate stripe), which makes me wonder whether people with monochrome displays would be able to, but that doesn't matter so long as there's nice clear text to tell me what the invisible colour-coding signifies :-) But that's just me: Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles gives links to software you can use for checking colour and contrast, but I don't know if they're any good. Thing is though, there's no inherent meaning to all these shades of blue or whatever: people with standard colour vision and non-monochrome displays will still have to read the words to find out what the colours signify. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll also pile in and say get rid of the table/results templates; they are a nightmare to use, involve the creation of thousands of other templates to make them work, and make the pages massive due to all the coding required. Wikitables are much simpler to use. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was bold and changed the size of Template:Fb cl2 qr to 92.5%. Hope it's more suitable now. As for the colors, in order to create a more appropriate scheme: Where is the point in the given scheme when things start to become hardly readable? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
@Struway2, Number57 and everybody else that think the same: How are standard wikitables simpler to use than templates? As I stated earlier, the only thing that might be the problem (only to those with weaker Internet connection) is the space being used. With other "arguments" I cannot agree because:
a) templates are extremely simple to use. The biggest difference between the using of templates and wikitables can be seen in league standings. IMHO, wikitables are much harder to use because you need to calculate everything on your own and that takes more time. If you think the other way, please explain why exactly is using the templates "nightmare" for you.
b) once you have created club templates (and the huge number of them has been created so far), your work is done and all you have to do is to update.
c) it seems that font size can be modified after all, while the colors could easily be changed. We just need to reach a consensus which ones to use. SonjiCeli (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- With the exception of goal difference, you don't need to "calculate anything on your own" when using wikitables. The "nightmare" of using the templates is that some of the stuff in them is meaningless. Compare and . To me, the latter is much easier to understand and update, whilst in contrast, for the template version, you have to understand what is meant by {{Fb cl2 qr |rows=1 |s=2009-10 |c=UEL |r=QR2 |nt=3 }}. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Everything in templates has its meaning. It is just different way to write it. In my opinion, the latter version you put is less understandable because you have exactly 8 numbers in a row without explanation inside the code what it actually means. That can be very confusing in some parts of the season and takes more time to update it because you have to check every time if you added the correct numbers to correct columns.
- And no, you don't have to know what that row means if you want to update. Once it is put in the table before the start of the season, you don't change its position or code. To conclude, wikitable is simpler to write, but more difficult to work with it. The templates are more difficult to write, but you can solve that problem with just copy/pasting the previous season's table and editing it in an appropriate way.
- So if I read correctly between the lines – the problem is not the fact that templates are used in general but rather the fact a junkload of subtemplates is being used? Holy moly, if this is the only concern, it can easily be addressed. I agree that ClaudioMB took it a little to far with the team and partially with the competition templates; in fact, this is bad design. A lot of the fb templates are not needed in my opinion as well. But there is no reason to put them all into a bag and flush them down the toilet altogether.
- Secondly, we are using a medium that derives in its origins from a simple calculator, so tell me one good reason why we shouldn't use the feature of built-in calculation. Further, the average non-hacking human responds better to key-value pairs than to a vast amount of "unreadable" and unexplained code. If you want to have a significantly higher amount of undos/reverts/fixes just because another IP user f***ed up the code for the league or results tables once again, go for a wikitable-only solution. (I hope the irony was readable in the last sentence.)
- Thirdly, the proposal is also about a unified look of those season articles (at least as much as possible). This goal is much more easy to reach if the basic structures are pre-defined.
- Finally, it is also a question of page size. I conducted an experiment in two of my sandboxes. Sandbox 1 contains a conventional wikitable and Sandbox 2 holds a set of fb templates as they are currently in use. You may have a look at the code sizes via the history of both pages. Sandbox 1 has a total size of 3,627 bytes while Sandbox 2 is only 1,831 bytes. A template containing wikilinks should lie around 2,500 bytes. Given that there are already enough wikitables for information like stadia, managerial changes and what not which can take the season articles up to 50,000+ bytes, we should spare as much direct table structures as we can.
- To sum it all up - let's go with a templated solution, but without included team and competition templates. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I say keep the team templates. It keeps how the club's name appears in the table consistant all-around. I can think of several examples off the top of my head in Latin American clubs where teams' names are commonly written in different ways: Boca Juniors & Boca; River Plate & River; Sport & Sport Recife (the first is how the club is referred to domestically, while the second is how it is referred to internationally); LDU Quito & Liga de Quito; America & America de Cali; America & Club America (the previous America is in Colombia while the second is in Mexico); Defensor Sporting & Defensor. In all those cases, the club's name can be referred to either way, but the first one is the more correct to refer to the club.
- But, if there are problems/complaints about the competition templates, just an idea to improve them or an alternate solution. Personally, the only problem I see is making sure the codes are consistent... but that seems like something that can be solved easily. Digirami (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
While we're going back to the drawing board for the league/results tables - any opinions on the other sections in general and the goalscorers in particular? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- One place I think would could start is change the width of the table headers from 33 to 25. I think that is a very simple way to make the tables smaller since, personally, 33 is a bit too much.
- One other idea I have is to make the parameters in codes like {{Fb cl2 qr |rows=1 |s=2009-10 |c=UCL |r=QR2 |nt=3 }} easier for people to know what they are editing, without referring to the documentation. Instead of "s", use "season"; "competition" instead of "c"; "notes" instead of "nt";... and so forth. Essentailly make it more along the lines of the codes used in the infoboxes. Digirami (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is my first foray into this discussion but I am one who is disappointed by the inflexibility of the templates which the so call "consensus" has embarked as the only method of display. Also it is causes wrong displays and conflicts with reality. As in the case with Ukrainian Premier League 2008-09 in the standings display the "Qualification and Relegation" is simply WRONG! - And the editors some of them admins are forcing Futurism (WP:FUTURE) and biasness into the article and their insistance that the templates are "god". For example - Metalist, Vorskla and Metalurh D. have all qualified the Europa League but because the admins insist and using the template and incorrect designations rather than stating only the known fact as displayed in Correct Ukrainian Premier League Standings (as of May 26, 2009) there is bullyism and threats by the admins. Yet the displayed standings reflect only if Shakhtar Donest'k wins the Ukrainian Cup. Slightly biased which is against the neutrality that site is supposedly thrives on.
I appreciate your insight Soccer-holic, and SonjiCeli into trying to better the current schematic with the color schema which I thought worked well during the Ukrainian season but I contend that the Qualification and Relegation column IMO should only be used when in fact that is known fact with such designators as (Q) in the team column which now duplicate confuse not only those editting the standings but those who are trying understand why the (Q) is in the team column as well. Also if the standings are referenced do the these references sources also have these team designors (C). I don't see anything the Ukrainian PFL web site that, which is the official referenced source that has (C) or (R).Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the above, I think what you mainly have is a conflict of editing. Someone doesn't quite know the rules to UEFA qualification for Ukranian clubs and are just assuming, incorrectly as you say, otherwise and it messes everything up.
- But at the same time, you raised an interesting point in the (Q) and (R). If you have a column and color scheme to show who qualifies/is relegated to a competition or level, the (Q) and (R) seems redundant. (C) on the other hand, doesn't seem redundant since, as someone pointed out in a previous discussion, the team who tops a table is not necessarily the champion. Digirami (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be more than that. The {{Fb cl2 qr}} is deficient in displaying only Europa League. That template is asking for specifics which are mandatory. So I've been using {{Fb cl3}} . Which to no surprise the admins have quickly designated that template for deletion. Luckily someone else is using that template - So not so fast with the heavy handed deletion action! And the excuse by the admin why not to use {{Fb cl3}} ? Its not friendly and their browser can't display the standings? Surely I'd have a reason about incorrect data representation in the article as removal and not such a poor excuse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am well aware of so called champions stripped of their title at some later date because of their sins. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Last I checked, "|r= " is not mandatory. So you can have it just display "2009-10 Europa League". The only problem is that is there is no competition template, you have to make one. That's easy, and I took care of it for you.
- And it has nothing to do with champions being stripped of their titles. American (North and South) leagues, have multistage tournaments that require several tables. The primary exception in the region is Brazil. Digirami (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Last I checked, "|r= " is not mandatory. So you can have it just display "2009-10 Europa League". The only problem is that is there is no competition template, you have to make one. That's easy, and I took care of it for you.
Revised color scheme
I altered the color scheme a little bit in order to improve the accessibility issues. The full scheme can be seen here; an example implementation can be found here. Please comment. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thing that should go is having the non-colored rows alternate from white to gray. I would prefer to keep it to it's default color: white. Digirami (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. – PeeJay 09:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Purely personally) that is better, though I still find the blue text (team names) a bit blurry on the darker red. And I'd agree that the non-coloured rows don't need to alternate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that could be done to reduce the number of colours is to just use two shades, that is, not 4 blue but only 1 blue for the Play-off round and another one for qualification, same for the CL, one for the group stage and another one for the whole qualification, the text will disambiguate which round they get into. chandler 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- And what ever happened to using yellow? I remember when qualification to competitions like the now Europa League or the Copa Sudamericana used a yellow hue. I'm sure the blue text would be easier to read on that color background. Digirami (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- And I successfully removed that part of the Fb team code that makes the rows alternate colors. Digirami (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that could be done to reduce the number of colours is to just use two shades, that is, not 4 blue but only 1 blue for the Play-off round and another one for qualification, same for the CL, one for the group stage and another one for the whole qualification, the text will disambiguate which round they get into. chandler 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Purely personally) that is better, though I still find the blue text (team names) a bit blurry on the darker red. And I'd agree that the non-coloured rows don't need to alternate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. – PeeJay 09:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about a generic color for Europa League and Champions League - especially when we dont know what stage the team is going to qualify?? The alleviate the problem that we had in the Ukrainian Premier League this season where teams did't know where they wwould qualify until 5 days after the season completed. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Israeli football
Is the second and third tier in the Israeli football league system really fully professional leagues? Rettetast (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, they are not. I think here we have the confusion of some countries considering professional and semi-professional to be the same thing (in contrast to completely amateur). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated a relevant article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Abutbul. Rettetast (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While creating stub articles for Scotland internationals, I stumbled across the above category, which appears to be in a bit of a state. Maybe fair enough to have results by decade in that early period, but results by year seems a bit nonsensical when England were only playing one annual match against Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the category itself is fine, although some of the articles need merging/expanding. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I was meaning, it's a perfectly reasonable subcategory, but some of the articles are overlapping. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
AC Milan
Right on today AC Milan announced departure of Carlo Ancelotti and his replacement with Leonardo Araujo. There is only one problem: Leonardo has no UEFA Pro coaching badges, so he can't serve as head coach in Italian Serie A (technically he could not do this even in Serie B, because he has no UEFA A badges as well, but only UEFA B). It is still unclear how the club will solve this, probably they will legally appoint either Filippo Galli or Mauro Tassotti as head coach, with Leonardo as assistant. In addition, Ancelotti's replacement will not take over before July 1, and there is still no official statement from the club. Since a lot of unexperienced users who are probably unaware of this are changing the head coach name in the infobox with Leonardo, can you please help me with this? Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- on the TV coverage they said that he was expected to take those in the summer on a manager course, or something. And because its the off season they'll (the italian FA) probably allow it. chandler 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- A side note - See Gareth Southgate#Management career for an example of a manager without the UEFA Pro license who's been allowed to manage a top flight team for over three years. Nanonic (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Italian laws are different, I can tell you due to my experience. I can give you a number of recent examples of Serie A managers without coaching badges - Roberto Mancini during his spell at Fiorentina, Marco Giampaolo during his spell at Ascoli - and all of them appeared as assistant managers, with another club employee legally serving as head coach. As a note, both managers were later fined because they were actually serving as head coach without having the required badges. --Angelo (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- All sources, including highly notable ones such as the Guardian, quoting Adriano Galliani himself, confirm that Leonardo is indeed the new manager of A.C. Milan - these are both from official and reliable sources. I see no sources whatsoever that state otherwise, and as both notable sources and television channels (such as CNN's World Sport) all around the world have confirmed this, it must be included in the articles concerned. Your personal assumptions or opinions have no relevance to the topic at hand and is inconsequential to published and reliable sources. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not mentioning personal assumptions or opinions, but facts. The fact is head coaching positions in Italy must be covered by people with a UEFA Pro license; if a head coach fills or even just acts as head coach in a Serie A team without proper badges (patentino in Italian language), then he is subjected to being disqualified, as it happened with Marco Giampaolo during his spell at Ascoli, where he was disqualified for two months because of having only a UEFA A license. Considering Leonardo has just UEFA B license, I think there is nothing to mention. What the sources report is just what Galliani said in the aftermath of today's game. --Angelo (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, if a reliable source reports something then we are not permitted to question its vericity ourselves. If Leonardo is indeed not permitted to act as head coach then I dare say that a reliable source will point this out in due course. For now, we have to go with what the club has announced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is a usual situation in France. In fact, some head coaches/managers don't have diplomas,and their clubs appoint assistant who have them. So they are legally managers/head coaches but not de facto.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, if a reliable source reports something then we are not permitted to question its vericity ourselves. If Leonardo is indeed not permitted to act as head coach then I dare say that a reliable source will point this out in due course. For now, we have to go with what the club has announced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently he will be exempted from requiring a UEFA Pro license in his first season because he is a former FIFA World Cup Winner, but this will take validity only after he will take the UEFA A license on the 17th of July. This is at least what he said in the press conference. Something weird, actually, but apparently legal. --Angelo (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Flags in managerial changes
I am currently having problems with Serie A 2008–09, as User:KyleRGiggs is continuously (WP:POINT) adding flags in violation of MOS:FLAG despite multiple warnings. Can we discuss this here? I also invited him to open a discussion instead, but all I've received is this. Thanks in advance. --Angelo (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with you Angelo, there are far, far too many flags splattered across articles, and this is/was one good example of that. Why does every single reference to a player or manager need a flag? - fchd (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) Can you point out exactly what part of the MOS:FLAG he is violating?; 2) Why are you just taking issue with the Serie A? Putting flags in the managerial changes section has been common practice for a while, so the majority of users must think there is no MOS:FLAG violation. So, I refer you to point number 1 since you wanted to open a discussion. It could very well be that you might be interpreting it incorrectly. Digirami (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- As to 1), I'd suggest probably MOS:FLAG#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason and definitely MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. As to 2), I can't speak for why Angelo is taking issue with the Serie A: probably because it's on his watchlist. But in general, I'd have thought that the majority of users don't know there is a MOS:FLAG, and they add flags because either they think pages look boring without them, or because they see them everywhere and assume it's the right thing to do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the international nature of the sport, it seems that MOS:FLAG#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason is not being violated. The media covering the sport often address players and coaches/managers by their nationality, too. Every news article I read seems have a main sentence like "the Argentine coach..." or "English striker (random name)..." to address a player, especially for the first time in an article. I guess putting flagicons in tables (I would never support it in prose) is our way of doing something like that. That same thing also happens with teams.
- As for MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names... If you do use a flagicon to emphasize nationality for a good reason, how would you accompany that with the country name.?(I can't think of a good way off the top of my head to do that in a table like managerial changes, or perhaps goalscorers). Digirami (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Use {{flagcountry}} instead of {{flagicon}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- As to 1), I'd suggest probably MOS:FLAG#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason and definitely MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. As to 2), I can't speak for why Angelo is taking issue with the Serie A: probably because it's on his watchlist. But in general, I'd have thought that the majority of users don't know there is a MOS:FLAG, and they add flags because either they think pages look boring without them, or because they see them everywhere and assume it's the right thing to do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) Can you point out exactly what part of the MOS:FLAG he is violating?; 2) Why are you just taking issue with the Serie A? Putting flags in the managerial changes section has been common practice for a while, so the majority of users must think there is no MOS:FLAG violation. So, I refer you to point number 1 since you wanted to open a discussion. It could very well be that you might be interpreting it incorrectly. Digirami (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The violated parts of MOS:FLAG are 'Do not solely decorate' (only two coaches in Italian Serie A were foreigners this year, and one season ago there were no foreigners at all), 'Do not use too many icons' (30 icons for 15 managerial changes, Serie B would be even worse) and 'Accompany flags with country names'. As already stated above, 'Do not emphasize nationality without good reason' might be a debatable one, personally I think emphasizing nationality for managers just makes no sense (all sports have an international nature, but Serie A is just the league of Italy) but it's merely my opinion. I have taken issue with Serie A only because I have Serie A and Serie B articles in my watchlist, whereas Premier League and La Liga (just citing the first two ones in my mind) are not. --Angelo (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- So essentially, we need to draw the line between using a flagicon to decorate or to use to indicate nationality of a coach, and possibly of a player or club (and also when to use a flagicon in football articles). Because the way I see it, if it is decided to not to put flagicons in something like the managerial changes section, people might question the point of having them in any other section of various football related articles, like rosters, goalscorers, etc (who knows). if they think it violates MOS:FLAG. Digirami (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not the same: flags are shown to represent the football nationality of players. Managers do not share such concept, since they don't play in an international football team, so listing also their nationality is merely decorative and does not add any relevant information to the article. --Angelo (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- So essentially, we need to draw the line between using a flagicon to decorate or to use to indicate nationality of a coach, and possibly of a player or club (and also when to use a flagicon in football articles). Because the way I see it, if it is decided to not to put flagicons in something like the managerial changes section, people might question the point of having them in any other section of various football related articles, like rosters, goalscorers, etc (who knows). if they think it violates MOS:FLAG. Digirami (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Missing goalscorer
A shot in the dark, but I'd be incredibly grateful, not to mention impressed, if someone could find out who scored the other Blackpool goal in this game. Roy Calley's book on the history of the club incorrectly lists the score as 3–1 to Leeds City, with George Beare scoring the visitors' goal. As such, I can only list 49 of the club's 50 league goals in Blackpool F.C. season 1909–10. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- www.allfootballers.com credits Walter Miller with 14 league goals, compared to the 13 in the season article, so that may be the "missing" goal. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Not sure how "P. E. Miller" became "Walter Miller", but maybe that will come to light in the future. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. I didn't look far enough down List of Blackpool F.C. players. Walter Miller only played six games for the club, in 1910–11, and didn't score any goals, so I think it's P. E. Miller that AllFootballers should be listing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Not sure how "P. E. Miller" became "Walter Miller", but maybe that will come to light in the future. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Gerry Wolstenholme has revised a lot of Blackpool stats after the publication of the Breedon book. Stanley Matthews went from 391 league appearances for Blackpool to 389 (Michael Joyce football players records first edition in 2002) Now there are only 380 matches left. P. E. Miller is now called P. C Miller (only 4 league matches in 1908-09) Cattivi (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- link Cattivi (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now there are only 380 matches left. Not sure what you mean by that? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think he meant that the playing apps for Matthews have been revised from 391 to 389, and then again to 380. GiantSnowman 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's what I meantCattivi (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- His league appearances total for Blackpool is listed as 379 here and here. Either way, his article still has 391 as the total. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- 379 was probably copied from one of the first editions of Hammonds Players records books (I've got the 1984 edition and the latest one) At the moment it's 380 (allfootballers.com and the football league match by match booklets) Tomorrow it could be 379 or 381 you never knowCattivi (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- His league appearances total for Blackpool is listed as 379 here and here. Either way, his article still has 391 as the total. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's what I meantCattivi (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think he meant that the playing apps for Matthews have been revised from 391 to 389, and then again to 380. GiantSnowman 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now there are only 380 matches left. Not sure what you mean by that? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WWW.allfootballers.com lists 3 Millers who played for Blackpool: P. Miller (a winger) in 1903-04 (3 games, 0 goals), P.C. Miller (full back) in 1908-09 (4 games, 0 goals) and Walter Miller (centre forward) (31 games, 14 goals in 1909-10 and 6 games, 1 goal in 1910-11). Walter also played for Sheffield Wednesday, West Ham United and Lincoln City, as well as for clubs in Scotland and Wales. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Walter Miller's profiles for Wednesday and West Ham are at [2] and [3] respectively. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good work. I suppose I'd better create articles for the three of them so that I can link to them accordingly and save myself from going any more scatty. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Playing for a pro team against semi-pro opposition
OK, we need consensus on this matter once and for all. Here's the problem - if a player playing for a professional team in a fully-professional league makes one solitary appearance in a cup competition against semi-pro opposition, is said player then notable? I only ask because a couple of AfDs (Eddie Ancalet and Dominic Merella spring to mind; the former played 19 mins while the latter played only 14, both in the FA Cup against non-league opposition) have resulted in the articles of two otherwise non-notable players being kept. So, even though voting is evil and wrong and all the rest of it, I thought we could have a wee vote and discussion anyways. Voting for 'players are not notable' means that you think that a player who plays for a pro team against semi-pro opposition is NOT worthy of an article; voting for 'players are notable' means that you think that a player who plays for a pro team against semi-pro opposition IS worthy of an article. Oh, and for anyone a bit slow out there, 'discussion' is where we can all 'discuss' the matter. Cheers! GiantSnowman 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Players are not notable
- GiantSnowman 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- EA210269 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Angelo (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Players are notable
- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Qwghlm (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- EchetusXe (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
I think the answer depends on the context of the competition. If a semi-pro or even amateur club makes it into the finals of a major competition like the UEFA Champions League (didn't BATE Borisov do this recently?) and a pro club plays against them in those rounds, I think players from either team should be able to pass WP:ATHLETE. I'm not so sure that FA Cups (especially in the qualifying rounds) should do the same. Jogurney (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think, players that didn't even play a full game, as in this example, are not notable full stop, whatever competition they played in. EA210269 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that footballers with only substitute appearances in a fully-pro league are not likely to be notable, but WP:ATHLETE says otherwise. Jogurney (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The answer, as I have said repeatedly, is to ignore things like WP:ATHLETE and whether one club or the other is fully-pro, but to rely on the general notability guidelines and require multiple, non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources before any subject merits an article. - fchd (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- A common sense approach might also be usuful. Does 14, or 19, minutes of "fame" warrant a wikipedia article? EA210269 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In principle, I would say appearance against semi-pro opposition does not confer notability, but maybe there should be a threshhold of competition beyond which the semi-pro nature of opposition seeks to be a barrier to inclusion. If any of Nantes' 2000 French cup winning team made their debut in that final, it would be churlish to disqualify their article on the grounds that part time side Calais RUFC had had an extraordinary run to the final. Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the luck of the draw of the FA Cup, it seems unfair to me that a player's appearance for a professional team against a semi-pro team would not be counted, when if the balls had been drawn out in a slightly different order, they could have well faced a pro team and be included. At least 48 League clubs & plenty of professional Conference clubs make up the 80 who take part in the First Round of the FA Cup - with by far the majority enjoying pro status, a few so semi-pro clubs in the mix does not in my view make appearances in it from that stage onwards non-notable. Qwghlm (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It all depends how literally people take WP:ATHLETE. Since games between pro and semi-pro are not that common, this means we are only dealing with players who have only played a single game or part-game at a pro club, or a couple at most. So the question is more "are players who have played a few minutes for a pro team notable"? Had I participated in the Merella AfD I'd have said delete. The sum total of coverage in the national press about his pro career appears to consist of "Defender Kevin Nicholson came to the home side's rescue when he blocked Dominic Merella's late shot in the last 10 minutes", which to me does not class as "significant coverage". Oldelpaso (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two points on taking WP:ATHLETE literally: First, it means we don't have to decide at a subjective level how many minutes played at a fully-pro level constitutes notability :-) And second, it avoids the pitfalls of recentism. Years ago, a player gets injured within minutes of making his debut, even in the top flight, and he'd get a couple of lines in the match report, probably focusing on how much his team were handicapped by his injury, and a paragraph in the local paper when he had to retire. These days, there'd be any amount of press coverage, and if he's with one of the fashionable clubs, there'd be the sort of slushy personal feature that sadly are considered "significant coverage". His notability as a footballer has to be determined by what he did, not by the prevailing attitudes of the media at the time he did it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, that's not the way Wikipedia notability works. The general notability guidelines are the key, and if that means there is more people from recent times as opposed to the 1890s, that's the way it is. - fchd (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's precisely because WP:GNG falls down on accessibility of sources, either in terms of time or of place, that secondary criteria like WP:ATHLETE were introduced. People didn't think it was sensible that international players of years ago or far away were deemed less notable than Chelsea's latest 15-year-old schoolboy signing or a minor U.S. college's backup players, just because reliable non-trivial coverage was less readily available. If you or I don't like WP:ATHLETE doesn't really matter, but we can't pretend it isn't there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, that's not the way Wikipedia notability works. The general notability guidelines are the key, and if that means there is more people from recent times as opposed to the 1890s, that's the way it is. - fchd (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The slippery slope fallacy is a crap argument. Nevertheless I don't see this move advancing us anywhere.
I don't see how deleting a perfectly decent article on people like Eddie Anaclet makes Wikipedia a better place. FA Trophy winner, played Conference play-off semi-finals and has played enough games at this stage in his career to suggest he'll be playing in the Conference for some time yet, possibly making it to the Football League again if he happens to play for the right team. This shows that he is already considered notable enough by vandals to warrant their attention.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can't possible think that just because an article has been vandalised, that then confers notability on the subject...GiantSnowman 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, but it shows people have been looking for information on the guy- even if they do insist on leaving an unwelcome mark on the page. It makes it likely that others wish to read about him and also suggests they may go elsewhere for that information if they find it absent on Wikipedia.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- They could easily have clicked on 'Random Page' looking for one to vandalise. But this is off the point. GiantSnowman 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that Page view statistics are a more reliable guide to whether people have been looking for information on the guy, althoug they certainly aren't a good guide to the notability of a player (eg. Ben Amos vs Guillermo Barros Schelotto) King of the North East 22:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- They could easily have clicked on 'Random Page' looking for one to vandalise. But this is off the point. GiantSnowman 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, but it shows people have been looking for information on the guy- even if they do insist on leaving an unwelcome mark on the page. It makes it likely that others wish to read about him and also suggests they may go elsewhere for that information if they find it absent on Wikipedia.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely it does matter who the opposition are in a Cup match? If the team had been drawn against better opposition the player probably wouldn't have played. There's usually a reason why the only game they've played is against lesser opponents- they weren't good enough to play against teams from their own league.
Having said that, a player that fails WP:ATHLETE but passes WP:N still should have an article- I'd say Eddie Anaclet is an example of that; there are multiple reliable sources in his article that are about him and not just passing mentions. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, Ancalet could pass WP:N (as the AfD resulting in a keep shows), but Merella seems to be struggling as a non-league player. If I consider nominating him for deletion again, will people support me this time? GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think Merella could fail under WP:IGNOREALLRULES, it does seem a bit pointy keeping the article based on the under 20 minutes of a match. --Jimbo[online] 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it dilutes the strength of WP:FOOTYN to say that somebody playing for a pro side against a semi-pro side in a cup competition is notable, but to hold the line that somebody playing for a pro club in a mixed league (eg conference national) isn't. You'd end up with articles for every player that plays for a fully pro club, irrespective of the competition. Then you would get someone else coming along saying what about X, he played in the same competition - surely he is notable? I think we need to hold the line where it is. Quite frequently a young player will be selected for a match against a semi-pro side in the cup precisely because it is weaker opposition that the pro side has been drawn against (ie they wouldn't have played if they had been drawn against a pro team). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on stats from Jack Rollin's excellent book Soccer at War: 1939 - 45, I've compiled a list of all of Manchester United's guest players from during the Second World War. However, they were all without full names – only initials – and while I was able to match a few articles to some of the names (thanks to anyone who categorised articles into Category:Manchester United F.C. wartime guest players), I was wondering if anyone here would be able to help identify a few more names. If you recognise a name, feel free to fill in the full name, along with any common nickname(s), and preferably link to the player's article if he has one. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. – PeeJay 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think if that category has been around since before the start of this year then all Vale players are already in there.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of players I recognise. One option is to manually search Neil Brown's site by surname, for any post-war matches. Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Added in Paddy Sloan, who is almost certainly the JW Sloan listed in the article. Qwghlm (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of players I recognise. One option is to manually search Neil Brown's site by surname, for any post-war matches. Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
User:FactFinder67
Can someone of our admins put the hammer (or at least keep an eye) on this newly created user? He has mostly been vandalizing Scottish league and cup articles in order to praise his Rangers. A warning has been issued. Thanks, a tired Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- A bit harsh giving an only warning. Incidentally, the "67", along with edits like this one, make me suspect that his loyalties aren't actually with Rangers... nonetheless, I think this was just a case of overenthusiasm and not vandalism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully pro leagues
Is there a comprehensive list of fully-pro leagues? The Hack 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues chandler 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- What about making this list an article: List of fully professional football (soccer) leagues? I think, it would be very helpful and informative. EA210269 (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Although professional football was introduced in the Netherlands in 1954, the first fullpro club was DWS in 1965. In 1964 there were still salary caps. Minimum wage: 1500 gulden a year for 12 players. 1000 gulden for additional players. Maximum wage 10000 gulden a year for 6 players, 5000 gulden for additional players. There was a 20% bonus for players serving a club for more than 5 years. Many Eredivisie players in the 70's were still semipro. Cattivi (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's clear that there is going to be a lot of gray area, so it's best to just go with the definitions that make the most sense logically on all accounts. Even with the "development" players in the MLS, it's pretty clear that it should still be treated as a fully-professional league. matt91486 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with a list such as this is that it overlooks the historical aspects. I expect that every (now) professional league, throughout the world, has evolved from being wholly/mainly amateur to fully-professional. There were amateur players in the Football League at least into the 1950s and possibly later. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Naming convention for not-easily-named matches
Over at Talk:Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) there is a debate over the form of article titles for matches which are notable, but do not have a formal title such as 2006 FIFA World Cup Final or a well-established nickname such as Agony of Doha. There doesn't seem to be a consistent name form - looking over the category for matches, it varies considerably, e.g.:
- Teams + scoreline: e.g. Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord, Australia 31–0 American Samoa
- Teams + scoreline + year: e.g. Germany 1–5 England (2001)
- Teams + versus: e.g. Bayern Munich v Norwich City
- Teams + versus + year: e.g. England v Scotland (1872), Hungary v Poland (1921), Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972
- Teams + versus + year + competition: Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final)
Including team names, and years, seem fairly elementary and non-controversial. Some additional thoughts:
- Putting scorelines in articles works in disambiguating that particular match amongst others, as well as emphasising the notability of the game - matches are generally remembered more so by their scoreline than by their date, in my experience.
- Putting the competition into the title is probably overkill - for example, England and Argentina only played once in 1986 and there is no need to disambiguate.
- Putting the full date into the title is probably overkill, unless the two teams played each other more than once in a year and the scores were identical in each.
So I propose article titles of the format Team A x–y Team B (year), with an optional further disambiguation to Team A x-y Team B (date) if the year and scoreline aren't sufficient on their own. Others' thoughts are welcome... Qwghlm (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think Team A x–y Team B (year) will suffice; I doubt there are going to be two matches between the same teams in the same year which both result in a 'notable' match. GiantSnowman 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- On a related point, while it would be hard to argue that Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) was less notable than say, 2003 Football Conference play-off Final, I fear that by allowing articles for matches that don't have a name, we're opening the floodgates for a load of crud, i.e. people creating woeful articles for every match played by their team in whatever season we happen to be in. How do we prevent this and what are the notability criteria for a match article? --Jameboy (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- We've had AfDs on some single match articles. The usual bar is the usual one for Wikipedia. If the game is sufficiently notable, there'll be lots of reliable sources discussing it, in a non-trivial manner. (And doing so long after the event, too). It's hard to ascribe criteria, but usually the match will be a particularly significant one in the history of one or both of the participating clubs, something that will need to be demonstrated in the article, with RS to back it up. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a case of 'allowing' articles that do not have a name - these articles already exist. And Dweller is right - basic rules on notability concerning non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources, i.e. above & beyond a single match report - will adequately cover matches in this case. Qwghlm (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, the non-trivial coverage sums it up really. People are still writing about thta Liverpool v Arsenal match. I presume that there will never be any full, in-depth review of Aston Villa 1–0 Newcastle in the years to come. The bar for notability is already set higher than the week's news reports. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a case of 'allowing' articles that do not have a name - these articles already exist. And Dweller is right - basic rules on notability concerning non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources, i.e. above & beyond a single match report - will adequately cover matches in this case. Qwghlm (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- We've had AfDs on some single match articles. The usual bar is the usual one for Wikipedia. If the game is sufficiently notable, there'll be lots of reliable sources discussing it, in a non-trivial manner. (And doing so long after the event, too). It's hard to ascribe criteria, but usually the match will be a particularly significant one in the history of one or both of the participating clubs, something that will need to be demonstrated in the article, with RS to back it up. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- On a related point, while it would be hard to argue that Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) was less notable than say, 2003 Football Conference play-off Final, I fear that by allowing articles for matches that don't have a name, we're opening the floodgates for a load of crud, i.e. people creating woeful articles for every match played by their team in whatever season we happen to be in. How do we prevent this and what are the notability criteria for a match article? --Jameboy (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it depends on what makes the match notable notable. Germany 1-5 England was notable because of the scoreline. England v Scotland (1872) is notable because of the year in which it was played.
I think it should be team a v team b (year) or team a ?-? team b (year) as the standard.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Where the year disambiguation is unnecessary, it seems silly to use it, eg the Hereford-Newcastle game or the Bon Accord one. --Dweller (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I think standardising a convention is a bad idea. Matches notable for their score need the score in their title. Others do not. Some need disambiguation, using year will be normal, but the Eng / Arg example above is a good case of where that would be insufficient. I think that the standardisation should go as far as to set parameters to be chosen from - dates, if used, go at the end in brackets. Versus, if used, should be a simple "v". Which dash to use in scorelines. Etc. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Brechin City badly vandallised
Hi I've noticed that Brechin City's entry is badly vandalised and needs to be sorted out by some one who knows about the club. (3 June 2009) Biofuelsimon (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I could accept an article on an as-yet-unbuilt stadium being built by a Premier League team, but an as-yet-unbuilt stadium being built by a semi-professional team playing in the seventh tier of English football surely isn't notable? If it matters, note that, although the article claims the stadium will be ready for next season, in fact building work hasn't even started in earnest and the club will be groundsharing with Ashford Town F.C. (Kent) next season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be quite a bit of news coverage over the past few years, not just from local papers either; several BBC articles exclusively covering the stadium. I haven't looked in-depth but it probably meets WP:N. – Toon(talk) 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully professional leagues dispute
At WP:FPL, a user keeps adding the top three tiers of the Israeli football system to the list citing a foreign source. The Israeli Premier League is fully-pro. However, it's highly unlikely that the second and third divisions are, but I'm at as loss as what to do/how to resolve the issue. --Jimbo[online] 22:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, the last time I checked it was customary to engage in dialogue with the user in question either on the article talk page or on the user's talk page prior to bringing it up here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Whilst hunting around for something to swing this argument one way or another, I found this forum post which says that Hapoel Acre (who at the time were in Liga Leumit) "has always been considered a semi-professional team". Not sure whether this is meant literally (i.e. they really are semi-pro) or whether it's just supporters of rival teams who feel this way, but it's a little something to start with. If they really are semi-pro though, the fact they've just been promoted to the top flight is also interesting... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aha! According to this FIFA document, Israel has two professional leagues, which I guess refers to Liga Haal and Liga Leumit. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well I guess that solves the problem of players currently playing in Leumit, but next season (due to league restructuting), half its teams are moved upwards and it absorbs the rest of Liga Artzit, so from next season there will almost certainly only be one fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds about right to me. If we go ahead and add Leumit to the list, we'll have to add a bracketted note saying that it's fully-pro only up until this year (or whenever the switchover takes place). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well I guess that solves the problem of players currently playing in Leumit, but next season (due to league restructuting), half its teams are moved upwards and it absorbs the rest of Liga Artzit, so from next season there will almost certainly only be one fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability question
I don't know what constitutes notability for football related articles, but I came across this article in Special:NewPages: Celtic FC Result 10/08/2008. I've left it with a plain notability tag, but maybe it qualifies for speedy delete.
Also, the same user created Celtic F.C. season 2008–09. I would strike me as something that might already exist, or fit in somewhere else, or be called something else ... but like the above, I don't know. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't qualify under any of the CSD criteria but certainly not notable; I've Prodded it. – Toon(talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh. Contested without explanation by page creator, I've AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic FC Result 10/08/2008. – Toon(talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Folks. Quick note, we've got a football-related featured list (a pretty important one!) which has been nominated for demotion from its featured status. For those who are interested in helping out, see the criteria (which have been recently and quite significantly reworked) and then get stuck in. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Kenny Dalglish and Proactive
What do people think of my solution of including the Proactive agency/Paul Stretford trial info in the article? There's been a lot of back and forth on this but I still think it doesn't warrant a great deal of attention. I'd appreciate other's thoughts. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Listed in the Port Vale F.C. players category I went to expand it. Only when I went to write in the details of his career there I discovered hes not in any of my books. Can anyone do some research and see if and when he signed for Vale and what happened? In the area of 1902 apparently.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Michael Joyce doesn't mention Port Vale, takes him straight from Glossop to Plymouth. Doesn't prove he was never there, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Nominated English football champions as FLRC
I have nominated List of English football champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talk • contribs) 19:39, June 5, 2009 (UTC)
According to both Joyce and Matthews, Len Evans, Wales international goalkeeper, went somewhere called Svenborg in 1935 after finishing at Birmingham and before becoming trainer at Blackburn. Can anyone possibly tell me where Svenborg is, assuming that's the right spelling, and whether Mr Evans was playing or coaching or what he was doing there? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Svendborg is a Danish provice town. Once apon a time they had quite a football team. Today plays FC Svendborg in the Danish 2nd Division. kalaha 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Confederation Cup squad templates
Are Confederation Cup squad templates like this actually useful for Wikipedia? Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I say keep it - it's a top-level international comp, after all. GiantSnowman 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Confederations Cup navbox templates would support GiantSnowman's assertion. --ClubOranjeT 07:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Two of the footballers named Andy Aitken have been moved to (born xxxx) rather than (footballer born xxxx). Could an admin please revert these moves? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This needs a bit of sorting in the names, as they are unnecessarily long. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Needs an admin as the pages without the nationality in the title are already redirects to the existing page titles.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Bobby Campbells were moved by an inexperienced editor who seemed to think they needed the year of birth in the page name, I've moved them back to dab by nationality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Large flags in match articles
Regarding the use of flags in international match articles (e.g. 2006 FIFA World Cup Final), we have the small flag icons in the infobox and in the match details section, fair enough. But do we really need the large flags above the team line-ups as well? These are disproportionately large, unnecessary and patronise the reader. Does anyone have any objections to me removing these? --Jameboy (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- No objections, I'd also remove them from the infobox as well, they are just there for decoration. - fchd (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Dutch speaker?
'Jeroentje is door hem neer geschopt. hij wou hem toen uitkappen maar jeroentje gaf de bal voor. Rhoon heeft toen met 7-1 gewonnen'
I'm re-writing the Nico Jalink article. Sadly it seems to have been deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia for that reason. Can anyone translate that for me as I am curious to know why?--EchetusXe (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- From my rudimentary understanding, it seems to have been an act of vandalism. Madcynic (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at it again the full text is: "Aangemaakt door 92.67.63.178. De inhoud was..."
- I imagine it therefore reads 'Content was... blah blah sacked 7-1 win'--EchetusXe (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Pavarotti and Modena FC - again
Hi all, I've been recently dealing with a disputed inclusion of a Pavarotti and Modena FC section within Modena F.C. by an anonymous user. Since the user seems to be definitely WP:POINTing his arguments against evidence, I would appreciate if you might join Talk:Modena F.C. and discuss the issue there. --Angelo (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I am not anonymous as I always use this same IP address. 2) You are lying about the scope of the previous discussion. The previous discussion, which did not even occur on Talk:Modena F.C, so I had no way of knowing about that discussion, involved whether Pavarotti was a PLAYER, not a SUPPORTER. So for you to threaten me telling me not to add information about a supporter because of a two year old discussion about whether he is a player is a flat out lie. How is someone supposed to know about discussion that doesn't even occur on the talk page??? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Simply not to have an account is to be anonymous. It could be anyone behind that IP. IP's can be changed by the IP provider at any time without warning to the user let alone anyone else. Anyway, I hope this dispute can be resolved sensibly. I know nothing about it so am I choosing not to get involved.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Corry Evans
Corry Evans made his full debut for Northern Ireland tonight against Italy, however he is yet to play in a competitive match for Man Utd, so is he now notable or as he plays for Man Utd does he still not qualify? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd think he's notable now, as long as reliable sources are used of course. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Andrew Little was in a similar position, as he played for NI before he played for Rangers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Same goes for Shane Ferguson; he's just come on now. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Andrew Little was in a similar position, as he played for NI before he played for Rangers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The Scott Brown affair.
Scott P. Brown (English footballer) Scott Brown (English footballer)
Both decided to go and play for Bristol City in 2004 and 2005 and both played for Cheltenham Town between 2007 and 2009.
Now one of them decided to get arrested in October 2005, it would be pretty embarrassing on our part to label the wrong one as the brawler.
However I believe its my guy (no middle name) based on the fact that in 2006 the BBC was still calling the three guys teammates despite P.Brown having moved on to Cheltenham by then. Also here is the face of the convicts, here is P Brown. White guys all look the same to me, but I'm pretty sure that the goalkeeper is not one of those 3 pictured.
I'm confident I have reported the correct Scott Brown as the one arrested, but with the chances of a cock-up so obvious I decided it best if I got confirmation here.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate a third opinion on Talk:CA Marbella#Famous players. Rettetast (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yugoslav First League in the 90´s
This may sound strange, but I´m really having a hard time to find the complete squad lists of the Yugoslav First League teams from 1991 until 2000. The Playerhistory website is incomplete. Can anyone help me? FkpCascais (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has placed scans of pages of certain years of the "Fudbal SiCG Alamanah" (published by Tempo) on the web. Here is one from the 02/03 version with a portion of the Vojvodina squad. I'm not sure if someone has copies of the actual almanacs somewhere, especially for the years you're looking for, but there are plenty of scans from post-2000 almanacs here and perhaps someone at that forum has older ones. Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thanx a lot, I´ll check the almanachs to see if I have some foreign players missing, since that is the main reason I need the squads, to complete my Foreign players list , but I think I have the seasons since 2000 pretty much covered. It´s becoming very anoing for me since without finding the 90´s statistics I can´t finish the list. The almanachs may also sometimes be inacurate becouse the majority of the times are published before the transfer window is closed... I thouth I had the list almost done, but I´ve founded missing a brazilian in the "great" Red Star, argentinians from Vojvodina... imagine the medium and smaller clubs... FkpCascais (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Very strange redirect
I don't get it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit history, it seems that Scottish Division Two and Scottish Second Division are different concepts - Division Two was the old second tier (which is now called the First Division), whilst the Second Division is the modern third tier. Takes semantics to a whole new level! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- When the league now known as the Scottish Premier League was first renamed from Division One to the Premier Division, the old Division Two became the First Division, much as how the Football League Third Division is now Football League Two. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Lennon
This Scottish player has recently died, but as far as I can see, he's only played in the semi-pro Scottish second & third divisions...can anyone prove his notability? Cheers, GiantSnowman 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I checked earlier that he didn't have an article after seeing the BBC story, but obviously someone has created it since then. This is definitely a WP:ONEEVENT story, so I'll prod it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The prod was removed without explanation, hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Lennon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed in this one - the idea that a player is notable by "passing" WP:ATHLETE with one appearance as a sub in a professional league, but isn't notable at all for their sporting career otherwise is fairly ridiculous. There's too much of a mentality that articles are either "football articles" or "non-football articles" around here, leading to the situation where "football articles" are judged exclusively on where they sit on WP:ATHLETE while "non-football" articles aren't allowed to be judged on minor sporting achievements at all. But we'll see what the AfD brings up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't going anywhere fast. Before I give in and take it to AfD, anyone fancy having a go at turning into a real article? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh boy, that thing really is an utter mess. I think it would be worthwhile to AfD this and complete English clubs in European football instead - the European Cup records only go up to 1966-67, and there's no mention of the Cup Winners Cup or UEFA Cup at all. The only question is, would we need all three competitions in one article, or would it better to split it (and therefore keep that article)? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that next to none of it is referenced (in either article), I wouldn't have a problem with a solution which involved liberal use of the delete key to be honest. But yeah, a merge there is a good place to start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like a notable player, and I thought you people might be able to sort it more quickly than I can. Thanks, or get back to me if I need to AfD it myself, or whatever. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- He is notable. He played in the fully-pro National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001), meeting WP:ATHLETE, and was even elected to the end-of-season All-Star team in 1986. The article does need cleaning up though. GiantSnowman 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Another notability question
I've come across this article about an amateur league in Ireland, which links to pages about all of its Senior teams, and many of its lesser teams. The linked articles say nothing more than that the team is a member of the LSL. Does Wikipedia really need articles on every amateur football league and team? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- My first impressions were that the league is probably notable enough but the teams most certainly aren't. However, the league article states that teams from this league enter the FAI Cup and other such competitions. Considering that a general rule-of-thumb for English non-leaguers is participation in FA competitions, should we apply the same logic here? And if so, to what degree? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Ramsay
As far as I was aware, Gordon Ramsay was only ever a youth player at Rangers...however, an article written by him in 2002 claims that he made two first-team appearances, saying "I played two first-team games, against St Johnstone and Morton. Both away and both shit in the sense that I played 20 minutes and 10 minutes." Can anyone verify this? Cheers, GiantSnowman 12:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a box in need of conversion, Template:1986 FIFA World Cup, and I'm having trouble figuring out the markup to prevent nested boxes from being broken. Any assistance would be appreciated, especially because I would then be able to make these edits properly on other templates. Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a go at this - it's a bit weird to nest the templates like that, but that can be sorted out later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hungaria FbC Roma
A copuple of players – Ferenc Nyers and Nicolae Simatoc are just two that spring to mind – played for a Hungarian club called Hungaria FbC Roma in the early 1950s. Seeing as these players also played at the top-levels of France and Spain respectively, I presume Hungaria FbC Roma was/is a notable club. Does anyone know if Hungaria FbC Roma is the correct naming convention, and if not, what is? And does anyone have any further details on the club? Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hungaria FbC Roma was an exhibition team who played some matches in Italy (sure), maybe in other countries (I don't know)? It was not an official team.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did it play any famous teams? And did it have any other famous players? Basically, would it be notable enough for an article? GiantSnowman 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I remember reading somewhere that the club was a team formed by hungarian players that escaped the communist regime, but I´m far from sure. You can find more players in the rsssf webpage, in expatriate players in Italy list, it says the players career, and I remember finding many hungarians that also played in Hungaria Roma. I´ll give you the exact web page when I find it, and you´ll have to check the entire list (borring,I know) to see another players that played there. Another thing is that I´ve founded in a sebian official website of Hajduk Kula, in the historic section that Ferenc Nyers played for a predecessor team, but I didn´t add this info to the players page becouse I don´t know if it can be used as a reference, and becouse it doesn´t mention the exact years that he spent in the club. FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it worths an article, due to the political background of this team, the players who played for it. I don't know which teams it played however. I think you should ask User:Necronudist, maybe he has some datas and informations about this. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I haven't :-) I heard about that team, but nothing much has been written about it. We're Italians, we don't care about history. What's on TV right now? :-P --necronudist (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah "Valentino Rossi", that´s why you´ve made the all-time Serie A players list, to remember the glorious PAST days of italian calcio... :))) . You said you´re gonna help me with my lists, and you only gave me one valiable name, O.Gazzari... FkpCascais (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- My girlfriend lives in L'Aquila, I have other things to think about. However, I don't like the way you're doing the list... it's not a well organized work, I'm afraid I would be only a danger. --necronudist (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the hungarian players and managers in Italy list [6]* . Christian, what you dislake in my list. Dont tell me again about the ex-Yu players. They are considered foreigners since 1992, a long way ago... Since you colabore with playerhistory website, you cold chek me the 90´s, and the Williams, brazilian Red Star player, help that I´ve already desperately asked :(. I´m a Great Mexican Earthquake survivor, you know... FkpCascais (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- My girlfriend lives in L'Aquila, I have other things to think about. However, I don't like the way you're doing the list... it's not a well organized work, I'm afraid I would be only a danger. --necronudist (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah "Valentino Rossi", that´s why you´ve made the all-time Serie A players list, to remember the glorious PAST days of italian calcio... :))) . You said you´re gonna help me with my lists, and you only gave me one valiable name, O.Gazzari... FkpCascais (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I haven't :-) I heard about that team, but nothing much has been written about it. We're Italians, we don't care about history. What's on TV right now? :-P --necronudist (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it worths an article, due to the political background of this team, the players who played for it. I don't know which teams it played however. I think you should ask User:Necronudist, maybe he has some datas and informations about this. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I remember reading somewhere that the club was a team formed by hungarian players that escaped the communist regime, but I´m far from sure. You can find more players in the rsssf webpage, in expatriate players in Italy list, it says the players career, and I remember finding many hungarians that also played in Hungaria Roma. I´ll give you the exact web page when I find it, and you´ll have to check the entire list (borring,I know) to see another players that played there. Another thing is that I´ve founded in a sebian official website of Hajduk Kula, in the historic section that Ferenc Nyers played for a predecessor team, but I didn´t add this info to the players page becouse I don´t know if it can be used as a reference, and becouse it doesn´t mention the exact years that he spent in the club. FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did it play any famous teams? And did it have any other famous players? Basically, would it be notable enough for an article? GiantSnowman 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Question regarding club appearances and league matches
Hi,
Would it be possible to have the "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only" message disabled for a specific player? In Brazil (and I bet in other countries, too) we usually count all goals a player has scored for a given team in every *official* match, regardless of whether it was for the local state league, one of the many national domestic leagues (there's no such thing as "the" domestic league in Brazil), or international leagues (Copa Libertadores, for instance).
What is happening right now is that .br users are simply ignoring that message -- and providing bad information to our readers. I'd say the vast majority of the pages concerning Brazilian football players are wrong in that regard.
Thank you for your attention.
Pedrovsky (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. In those circumstances I just write a note explaining the stats are for all competitions. I imagine that would be a pain the ass though for an entire countries worth of players huh?--EchetusXe (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I said at Template talk:Infobox Football biography 2#Question regarding club appearances and league matches, it wouldn't be hard to add a Brazilian = yes parameter which could be used to display a different message on those articles. The question is whether the Project thinks that having a different rule for Brazilian clubs is worth codifying. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- When the topic was last discussed at Template talk:Infobox Football biography/Archive 4#Why only league appearances?, the reasons for only including league appearances were 1) league stats were thought to be more readily available, both over time and geographically; 2) including cups would immediately open the door to "debate" as to what cups should be counted; so 3) for consistency, we should standardise on something for which the data is available and definitive.
- Do the reliable sources in Brazil really count everything, including Copa do Brasil, local cups if there are such things, all in together? for players at "big" clubs and smaller clubs? historically as well as now? Because if they do, then the reasons given above wouldn't apply to Brazil, and perhaps we should allow them a variation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only good sources I've found (Guardian's Stats Centre and Globo Esporte's Futpedia) report Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A and/or Copa do Brasil matches (it's easy to separate the totals for each). ESPN Soccernet reports some state championship statistics (e.g., the top level of the Carioca), but I don't believe it's complete. In short, I think it's reasonable to limit the infobox to Brasileiro Serie A (or Serie B, if anyone can find a good source for it) statistics. Jogurney (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
United States Confederations Cup templates
Should Template:United States squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup be deleted? Since Template:United States Squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup was created a day earlier. Go here to discuss.
Quick question
Robin van der Laan. Does anyone know whether I am supposed to write: "Van der Laan..." or "van der Laan..." when starting a sentence with his name? Do I just write "Laan...".
Help pl0x.--EchetusXe (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Robin van der Laan, Van der Laan, sorted Laan, Robin van der. --necronudist (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does article Trimi Makolli meet the requirement for WP:CSD acording to A7?
The player is not part of the senior squad, hes youth squad player, have not played any matches for the club more then a few friendly in the 2009 pre-season. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody keep an eye on the Michael Husbands article? I don't know anything about him, but there have been a lot of suspicious edits recently, I'm not sure if the edits are correct or not (other than the unsourced speculation), so if my reverts are wrong, then please revert me, otherwise, it needs to be watched. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do it.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it was Husbands himself? Trying to rewind time back to 2005 when he had a future in the game but was still a totally shit player? (hope he never reads this). Its probably the same nutjob he claimed he could leap like a salmon.--EchetusXe (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)