→Sheffield United rogues: comment lol |
Knepflerle (talk | contribs) →Proposed major change to Football squad system: four point plan |
||
Line 432: | Line 432: | ||
::::::::This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion, but in my experience, it is highly reliable for match reports and statistics, and less reliable (or unreliable) for nationality and place of birth. There are Greek and Japanese language alternatives which while I struggle to translate them to English, the statistics appear to match. [[User:Jogurney|Jogurney]] ([[User talk:Jogurney|talk]]) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion, but in my experience, it is highly reliable for match reports and statistics, and less reliable (or unreliable) for nationality and place of birth. There are Greek and Japanese language alternatives which while I struggle to translate them to English, the statistics appear to match. [[User:Jogurney|Jogurney]] ([[User talk:Jogurney|talk]]) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
With regards to nationality, that is one of the rare areas where a primary source is not only suitable, but preferable. A club is not going to antagonise their own employee by getting that wrong. By contrast, media are generally national organisations. With positions, all I can say is two words: [[Steve Palmer]]. [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] ([[User talk:WFCforLife|talk]]) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
With regards to nationality, that is one of the rare areas where a primary source is not only suitable, but preferable. A club is not going to antagonise their own employee by getting that wrong. By contrast, media are generally national organisations. With positions, all I can say is two words: [[Steve Palmer]]. [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] ([[User talk:WFCforLife|talk]]) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
===Alternative=== |
|||
Four point-plan: |
|||
* Flags are supposed to refer to sporting nationality, so let's reserve them for precisely that: use them only for players with international caps. This way every flag has a specific, verifiable and uncontroversial interpretation as a true sporting nationality. We can discuss whether this applies to just full caps, full caps + U21, etc. |
|||
* To indicate other passport/nationality information re quota requirements, use a non-flag character - †, *, ♦, whatever. This then doesn't require any flag identification on the part of the reader, and/or having to know which countries count towards which quotas. |
|||
* (A more extensive, long term project) Recategorise players according to birthplace and national team representation, rather than unverified and ill-defined "nationality" |
|||
* Remove categories such as "Xian footballers of Yian ethnic origin" and any categorisation based on surname-related original research. |
|||
[[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Merry Christmas! == |
== Merry Christmas! == |
Revision as of 17:11, 1 January 2010
Football Project‑class | |||||||
|
Flags in club player lists: three questions
Two questions should be raised about the inclusion of a flags column in Template:Football squad player: to what end, and on what grounds.
To what end? Not only is it entirely incidental to a player's membership of a team and his role, it is, in many instances, largely incidental to the player: Adam Miller has always lived in England, and always played for English clubs, but on account of a grandmother from Norn Iron, and an U18 call-up, he is shown as being N Irish: this is of no relevance to his club, but appears on that club's article. Far more relevant to a player's role in a team are his experience, age, height, salary, pace etc, but we don't mention those (most are unverifiable in most cases, or not easy to describe succinctly: I am not proposing their inclusion).
And on what grounds? Apart from the fact that displaying flags without the name of the country, contrary to what is mandated at MOS:Flag, any regular visitor to these pages will know that it can be a contentious issue, involving sensitive ethnic issues and the pride of many contributors, difficulties when a player declares for another country or countries change their boundaries, and much uncertainty (and many editwars) where a player takes out a new passport, plays in unofficial internationals, or is selected for a squad but doesn't get onto the pitch (among other scenarios).
So a widely used template presents, in a prohibited manner, an image that (often unclearly) represents information that in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the key subject matter of the article, and is often contentious. Which leads me to my third question: can we really defend that state of affairs? Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have always felt that the only legitimate use of flag icons is to represent national teams. Not to represent player/coach/manager nationalities, and not to represent team locations (or leagues?) such as Real Madrid C.F.. But I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's informative to the reader to see the nationality of club players and coaches. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it more informative than all sorts of information that we don't give? What difference does it make whether Carlisle United's left back is English or Scottish? Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. If reliable external sources routinely used flag icons like this, then I'd be happy to see the same on Wikipedia. That's why I have no problem with flags used for Olympic, golf, and tennis results, for example. But are they routinely used for football team squads? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it more informative than all sorts of information that we don't give? What difference does it make whether Carlisle United's left back is English or Scottish? Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's informative to the reader to see the nationality of club players and coaches. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll re-state my comment from another topic: why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden? Flags in the team templates convey at-a-glance very useful information about a team's international makeup, which a lot of people find very informative. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- "why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden?" - because the problems are not being addressed, particulary those related to WP:OR and WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it is only informative if it is undoubtedly correct. Cases such as that in the discussion immediately preceding this one illustrate that often it is not uncontrovertible.
- Is it at a glance info? Would you confidently distinguish the flags of Netherlands and Luxembourg, or those of Slovenia and Slovakia? If you see the flag of Moldova or Armenia, do you instinctively recognise it as such? Many people wouldn't: that is why MOS:FLAG insists that country names should accompany flags.
- Yes, I could, and if I couldn't I'd move my mouse over the flag and watch the country name pop up. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not everyone uses Wikipedia from computers with a mouse. There is a massively growing mobile internet readership, where this facility is not always possible, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I could, and if I couldn't I'd move my mouse over the flag and watch the country name pop up. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it relevant, useful info? If a player is nowhere near his national squad, then where he was born is no more relevant to his role in the team than is whether he was born as the oldest child in his family. Kevin McE (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly relevant to leagues where there is a quota on foreign players. Players who don't play for international teams are still counted as foreign players if they were born elsewhere. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mouseover gives the country name if there is any confusion over which country is being represented. Removing the flags from squads would not add any utility to the encyclopaedia and would remove at-a-glance information that many people (including myself) find useful, especially in South American football where there are quotas on foreign players. King of the North East 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Removing unsourced original research based on hidden, non-standard criteria which oversimplifies complex issues is increasing the encyclopaedia's utility. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The case of Adam Miller above is far from isolated, and is a clear case of where we are misleading readers. We have oversimplified this person's nationality status with the use of one flag, when the reality is more complicated and cannot be reduced to an "at-a-glance" colourful box.
The only excuse we ever hear for the misuse of flags is their "at-a-glance" nature, when actually we need to acknowledge that complex issues such as nationality can not be explained "at-a-glance".
In most instances more worryingly, these flags are actually examples of WP:OR - they claim a "sporting nationality" for players who have never played for a country, against this project's guidelines. Editors are coming to their own conclusions on a player's "sporting nationality" based on a birthplace in an almanac or a mention of a parent's nationality in a newspaper article. However, this player may have other national eligibilities we do not know about, or may choose a country of heritage over that of birth, or may naturalise to another country in the future, or... the possibilities are manifold, and yet Wikipedia editors feel able to decide for them by slapping a flag next to their name based on their own whim. This widespread plague of original research must stop. Knepflerle (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Miller's sporting nationality be English anyway, as the last representative team he featured for was England National Game XI? --Jimbo[online] 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we inventing criteria anyway? How are our readers even supposed to know what our criteria are? Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do our readers know that a flag represents "sporting nationality" and not anything else?
- Do our readers know how Wikipedia determines "sporting nationality" when they read an article?
- Do any reliable sources define "sporting nationality" in this way, using the same criteria (England C appearances etc)?
- Can readers find out what sources we've used to determine someone's "sporting nationality", particularly when they haven't played for a national representative team?
- Do readers even realise that in most cases no sources have been used?
- Do they realise that in most cases of complex nationality, editors just pick the flag according to their own criteria and whims?
- In summary: in the vast majority of cases, a flag slapped next to a player's name is an unsourced oversimplification based on unrecorded criteria, often not even satisfying our own concept of "sporting nationality" - a criterion our readers don't even know we use.
- This is an encyclopaedia - we cannot dump WP:V by the wayside just so our articles look a bit more like Football Manager Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not unrecorded criteria though as the majority of the articles written on footballers have some sort of reference stating who they have played for, especially those born of one nation, representing another national team which differs to that of their birth. What's so unverifiable about that? --Jimbo[online] 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Miller case is completelly right the way it is. He has choused to represent N.Ireland on international level, so he should have a NIR flag, if he decides to represent another nation, the flag would be changed, despite having all other ties linking him with England... I agree with KingoftheNorth about flags, they are allways used in all football websites (the ones that don´t use them are much penalised because of that), and I think, despite all debate about the meaning of sports nationallity, that most, if not all, people know what they represent. And it is not thru that they are not relevant for clubs, couse the main competitions in wich the clubs compete have usually a foreign players limits, so it is very usefull to know their nationalities. Removing the flags would be a major minus, just as having to add the country name next to it... FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how a player's international career can be relevant at club/national level. When you add a sporting nationality to a player you can no longer see if a player is foreign or not at clublevel or if he has an EU passport. It doesn't matter which country a player represents at international level for EU labourlaw. How many South Americans and Africans would there be playing football in the EU if non of them had an EU passport? Aren't these EU passports much more important for clubs and players at clublevel? A few years ago the minimumwage for non-EU players older than 23 years in the Dutch Eredivisie was ca. 340.000 Euro a year, for EU players of the same age it was ca. 16.000/17.000 Euro, the minimum wage.... User:Cattivi|Cattivi]] (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Place of birth isn't always relevant for a player's nationality. Jus Sanguinis versus Jus soli Cattivi (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both last opinions are right. But, for instance, Siniša Mihajlović allways had a Serbian flag next to him despite being comunitarian (he was a holder of both Italian, making him UE citizen, and Serbian) and being born in what is today Croatia. But, the flag was right, because he was Serbian, and played internationally for Serbia. I don´t agree about making the "birth place role" for non international players because people today are much mobile and there are more and more possibilities of other nationalities being born in different countries (without talking about national minorities...), so there must be some flexibility about it, but this is another debate.
- I think that this discussion would be reasonable somwhere where editors don´t know much about football, but here I see so many excellent editors that the flags are 99% (if not 100%) correct, having a hands countable number of wrong (or discussible) flags in a thousands of players. I am in favour of making some roles about this (some club pages indicate separately the non national, or comunitarian, players after the squad list, or with *), but I still think their removal would be a major minus. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just trying say that I agree with all JonBroxton, KingOfTheNorthEast and Jimbo say. It pretty much covers completely your first question: "On what purpose?". You are wright about the WP:FLAG principle, I do remember the recent national teams debate here. If adding the flag country name next to it would be the only solution, then, what else can we do? Because, not having the nationality of the players in the squad lists would be "unbeleveable". FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of Kevin McE's points above, and in general I'd be happy to excise flags altogether from footy bios if that's what it'll take to end this. The value gained is limited compared to the potential for confusion and the constant need for original research to ensure "completeness" when it comes to flagging people by "footballing nationality" even where that's never been a consideration for a given player professionally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RFC time? This needs deciding once and for all. Most of the flags in current use are unsourced, ignoring WP:V, and the invention of our own in-house concept of "sporting nationality" (unused elsewhere, so probably WP:OR) is leading to editors trying to give every player one, single nationality, no matter how complex the situation, according to their own syntheses of nationality law and sources.
- The project needs its priorities in order, and these articles brought under the same policies as any other article. This is an encyclopaedia - everything is secondary to information integrity. Real people do not come with one single flag attached to them à la Football Manager, and articles should not pretend otherwise. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're making an ENORMOUS mistake if you do this. Most of the flags in current use are NOT unsourced, because the source is either 1) the place of birth, or 2) the country the player represents internationally, if it is different from his place of birth. For the tiny percentage of articles where there is some kind of difficulty or point of contention, then that player's article will go into the necessary detail. It's really not that hard. As I have said repeatedly on numerous topics, the nationality of players is VERY important in terms of indicating a team's makeup, showing the percentage of non-domestic players in leagues where there are quotas on such things, and so on and so forth. I think this entire argument is utterly absurd, and will be a significant backwards step on soccer articles in terms of the information provided to readers, not an improvement. --JonBroxton (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- MOS:FLAGS specifically says not to use flags simply to indicate place of birth, and only a tiny fraction of the footballers we cover have played for a national side. Furthermore, in the modern game (at least in Europe post-Bosman) the nationality of the players therein is actually of no consequence to the running of the club, any more than in any other profession. It's rather a throwback to the days of quotas that it's even a consideration, really. In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Birthplace is neither sufficient nor necessary for nationality - read ius sanguinis (for example, being born in Switzerland does not give you Swiss nationality - read Swiss nationality law), so straight away we are using a false criterion and misleading readers by assigning nationalities we have no true evidence for. Most flags in articles are unsourced - where's the link to the source on 99.999% of these "nationalities"? In difficult cases the player's article may go into detail, but everywhere else in Wikipedia he will appear with just one flag next to him, assigned by some editor's original synthesis, and readers are being misled. "Information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists." - exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Has an RFC been opened yet? If so, please provide a link. FWIW, I agree with the removal of these flags. Most of them are indeed a violation of WP:OR. The arguments for at-a-glance value are ignoring this fact. It's not useful, even at-a-glance, if it's not correct and verifiable. The bigger reason that I support their removal is to end all of the wasted time bickering about them. I've only been working on soccer related articles for 6 months or so, but I've already been involved in a few spats where some editor decided to change a flag based on a technicality I wasn't aware of. Near edit wars usually erupt at that point and we end up creating a new topic here to "have it out" over the matter. Let's just get rid of them. In at least 90% of the cases they're used, they're not verifiable at all. They need to go. Please point me to the RFC so I can add my thoughts there. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists." - exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Birthplace is neither sufficient nor necessary for nationality - read ius sanguinis (for example, being born in Switzerland does not give you Swiss nationality - read Swiss nationality law), so straight away we are using a false criterion and misleading readers by assigning nationalities we have no true evidence for. Most flags in articles are unsourced - where's the link to the source on 99.999% of these "nationalities"? In difficult cases the player's article may go into detail, but everywhere else in Wikipedia he will appear with just one flag next to him, assigned by some editor's original synthesis, and readers are being misled. "Information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- MOS:FLAGS specifically says not to use flags simply to indicate place of birth, and only a tiny fraction of the footballers we cover have played for a national side. Furthermore, in the modern game (at least in Europe post-Bosman) the nationality of the players therein is actually of no consequence to the running of the club, any more than in any other profession. It's rather a throwback to the days of quotas that it's even a consideration, really. In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're making an ENORMOUS mistake if you do this. Most of the flags in current use are NOT unsourced, because the source is either 1) the place of birth, or 2) the country the player represents internationally, if it is different from his place of birth. For the tiny percentage of articles where there is some kind of difficulty or point of contention, then that player's article will go into the necessary detail. It's really not that hard. As I have said repeatedly on numerous topics, the nationality of players is VERY important in terms of indicating a team's makeup, showing the percentage of non-domestic players in leagues where there are quotas on such things, and so on and so forth. I think this entire argument is utterly absurd, and will be a significant backwards step on soccer articles in terms of the information provided to readers, not an improvement. --JonBroxton (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the opponents of flags are overstating the case somewhat. The vast majority of players have unambiguous nationality and to pretend otherwise would illustrate a willingness to ignore reality in pursuit of a specific objective (eradication of flags, or "all the pretty colours in the squad lists" in rhetorical language). I don't know (or care) much about obscure 4th tier players in any country but I do know and care about football in South America. The claim that the use of a flagicon to denote nationality (of South American players) is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is verifiably false. The argument that we need to remove flags that are not accompanied by text is countered by mouseover.
- As I said before the use of flags allow the reader to quickly identify the foreign quota players in a squad without having to click through the whole squad list to find them. The problems of duel/ambiguous nationality could be easily overcome through improvement of the current squad template to allow the display of 2 flags or allowing it to display footnotes. Eradication of this useful at-a-glance information because of a very small percentage of ambiguous cases, instead of finding a practical solution would be a classic case of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. King of the North East 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with King of the North East. Removing valuable information such as this is counter-productive to the entire project and will be enormously detrimental to the many, many people who find this information useful. I mean, really, out of all the thousands and thousands of soccer players who have a flag icon by their name, what percentage of them has any kind of controversy. 5%? 10%? Even at the most, you're still removing 90% of the unambiguous, non-controversial information on the page, which to me is unneccessarily draconian and akin to cuttng your nose off to spite your face. Also, can the editors who repeatedly accuse pro-flag editors of simply wanting "pretty colors" on the page knock it off. It's demeaning to those of us who work VERY hard on keeping soccer articles up to date. We just think it's pointless to remove useful, informative, important information because there are a few controversies here and there which, in reality, don't take that much effort to work around. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC
- It's not "valuable information" or "useful, informative, important information" when it's unsourced, based on incorrect assumptions and original research. It really, really isn't - it's misleading. Knepflerle (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with King of the North East. Removing valuable information such as this is counter-productive to the entire project and will be enormously detrimental to the many, many people who find this information useful. I mean, really, out of all the thousands and thousands of soccer players who have a flag icon by their name, what percentage of them has any kind of controversy. 5%? 10%? Even at the most, you're still removing 90% of the unambiguous, non-controversial information on the page, which to me is unneccessarily draconian and akin to cuttng your nose off to spite your face. Also, can the editors who repeatedly accuse pro-flag editors of simply wanting "pretty colors" on the page knock it off. It's demeaning to those of us who work VERY hard on keeping soccer articles up to date. We just think it's pointless to remove useful, informative, important information because there are a few controversies here and there which, in reality, don't take that much effort to work around. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC
- You've pretty much missed the point entirely there.
- The use of flags is not the problem per se - it's this Wikipedia-only invention of "sporting nationality" (and then ignoring this definition and inventing others on a whim, as in the Paraguayan/Ecuadorean case above), the lack of sourcing for 99.999% of assigned nationalities, the misuse of criteria such as birthplace as an ersatz nationality, the compulsion to assign one nationality to players eligible for several... the problems are manifold, and arise whenever you try and simplify these issues to one flag, one word, one country, one whatever. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues come from trying to boil down birthplace and team representation information into one definitive nationality - the information can be sourced, but the "Wikipedia nationality" invented from it is often not.
- The claim that this is a "uncommon" problem is bogus on two accounts - it appears on these pages with disturbing regularity, and a lot of cases only fail to arise because they've never been properly researched anyway. Very, very few players with a flag have represented a national team, and for the vast majority of those we know nothing more about their nationality than their birthplace - which in many cases tells us nothing anyway (see ius sanguinis).
- This constant appeal to needing "at-a-glance" information is void and destructive - but "information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Nationality is just not reducible to "at-a-glance". Mark players who are counted as foreign quota for a given competition with a 1 or * or something, if you like. Knepflerle (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I accept that using Jonathan Santana when Jonathan Santana would be more accurate is not right, that why I suggested modifying the template to allow more than one flag. The fact that you want rid of flag usage is clearly demostrated by your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases. Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do, it's not up to me to use 1 or * or something, if I like. There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports (detailed below), trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases, refusing to accept that some/many people find them useful and refusing to consider alternatives to widescale removal looks a lot like an agenda driven position. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases" - unfortunately, you've now even started ascribing positions to people which they don't even hold - I've never even said that. Improving the template would alleviate some, but not all, of the problems.
- "Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do" - that's why I brought the discussion here so that a community consensus could be found. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiables though for all editors.
- "it's not up to me to use 1 or * or something, if I like" - now there's a genuine example of a simple suggestion being rejected without due consideration.
- "There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports" - I am at WT:FOOTY, which sport should I be talking about?
- "trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases" - this is not the only reason, as is crystal-clear to anyone else reading what I've written.
- "refusing to consider alternatives" - I'm not - none have been presented yet, just the same old claims about needing "at-a-glance" information (be it sourced or not)
- "looks a lot like an agenda driven position." - I'd love to know what subvertive "agenda" you believe could be some sort of hidden motive. My motive is improving the articles by making sure the information they contain is reliable, sourced and unambiguous. Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- - and it should be pointed out that your unfortunate and unwarranted personalisation of the issue in your last post is inaccurate - I am hardly alone in having reservations on this matter: [1], [2], [3], etc. Knepflerle (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- - You accuse me of personalising the issue, but I'm not the one constantly using rhetorical language like "bogus", "void and destructive", "same old claims", "pretty colours" to diminish other peoples point of view and making suggestions in the language of personal advice, neither did I suggest that you were alone in having reservations. In my post yesterday I showed that nationality can be sourced in reliable publications such as BDFA, and that it would be fairly simple to amend the squad template to clarify ambiguous cases. You did not respond to either of these points and carried on going on about WP:OR. It's clearly not an OR issue if nationality can be easily sourced in reliable publications. King of the North East (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between using language which dismisses or diminishes the arguments of others and simply making up arguments for one's opponents. I would note that you've done that again here. It has been repeatedly stated that nobody on the "source or die" side of the nationality argument is proposing that the issue of nationality be banned from inclusion in articles: the point is that current convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be. And indeed, because this applies to the vast majority of the articles that we cover, simply amending the template isn't enough. We should be discouraging the default inclusion of nationality in these templates, and our guidelines should be amended to specifically specify where and when nationality is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will overlook the accusation that I am "simply making up arguments for one's opponents...that you've done...again here". I think I've remained pretty calm in discourse with the guy and it is not unfair to accuse him of going on about WP:OR, he's linked to it 7 times so far in the discussion. As for your points about the issue we are on pretty similar ground. I agree that "the convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be" and would say that the statement accurately describes the rest of the encyclopaedia too. The issue is clearly visible in virtually any Wikipedia biography. Even the Manual of style for footballers promotes the use of an unsourced assertion of nationality:
- Adrián Hernán González (born 20 November, 1976) is an Argentine football midfielder...
- The category structure is also based on inferred nationality which could be seen as a violation of WP:EGRS. None of the "source or die" side (as you call them) would suggest amending the manual of style to take the form of Argentine born<ref></ref>, Argentine registered<ref></ref> and nobody is suggesting the replacement of Category:Argentine footballers with Category:footballers for articles that are not meticulously sourced. Although it would be easily possible to argue for these positions using our myriad policies and guidelines. You would admit that the player positions (DF, MF, FW) are often ambiguous (in the case of wing backs, utility players etc), are never meticulously sourced and far less self-explanatory to the casual observer than the use of flagicons. Using similar arguments the current squads could be stripped down to a list of names and squad numbers. I believe that the alternatives to wide scale removal of information from squad summaries should at least be considered. Improved display capacity, use of footnotes or textual rendering instead of/or alongside Vexillological. I would have no great opposition to the replacement with text (as long as it is done in a way that is accessibly displayed), although even this step would not address any of the "source or die" issues. If we come out of this discussion with a clearer, sortable and multifunction template using text without/text alongside flagicons, at least we would be improving the encyclopaedia rather than endlessly debating the wide scale removal of content. King of the North East 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will overlook the accusation that I am "simply making up arguments for one's opponents...that you've done...again here". I think I've remained pretty calm in discourse with the guy and it is not unfair to accuse him of going on about WP:OR, he's linked to it 7 times so far in the discussion. As for your points about the issue we are on pretty similar ground. I agree that "the convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be" and would say that the statement accurately describes the rest of the encyclopaedia too. The issue is clearly visible in virtually any Wikipedia biography. Even the Manual of style for footballers promotes the use of an unsourced assertion of nationality:
- There is a big difference between using language which dismisses or diminishes the arguments of others and simply making up arguments for one's opponents. I would note that you've done that again here. It has been repeatedly stated that nobody on the "source or die" side of the nationality argument is proposing that the issue of nationality be banned from inclusion in articles: the point is that current convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be. And indeed, because this applies to the vast majority of the articles that we cover, simply amending the template isn't enough. We should be discouraging the default inclusion of nationality in these templates, and our guidelines should be amended to specifically specify where and when nationality is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- - You accuse me of personalising the issue, but I'm not the one constantly using rhetorical language like "bogus", "void and destructive", "same old claims", "pretty colours" to diminish other peoples point of view and making suggestions in the language of personal advice, neither did I suggest that you were alone in having reservations. In my post yesterday I showed that nationality can be sourced in reliable publications such as BDFA, and that it would be fairly simple to amend the squad template to clarify ambiguous cases. You did not respond to either of these points and carried on going on about WP:OR. It's clearly not an OR issue if nationality can be easily sourced in reliable publications. King of the North East (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I accept that using Jonathan Santana when Jonathan Santana would be more accurate is not right, that why I suggested modifying the template to allow more than one flag. The fact that you want rid of flag usage is clearly demostrated by your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases. Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do, it's not up to me to use 1 or * or something, if I like. There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports (detailed below), trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases, refusing to accept that some/many people find them useful and refusing to consider alternatives to widescale removal looks a lot like an agenda driven position. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would note as the last editor to the bio MoS that I am in fact strongly opposed to the "Xian footballer" designation without a concrete reliable source. I used "source or die" as a nickname deliberately to present my own side in a self-deprecating manner so as to not necessarily favour this approach. I do not consider the category argument to be a reinforcement of your position; rather, it is simply one which has yet to be properly resolved (as with the "other sports" argument below). The "widescale removal of content" argument has already been lost: project-wide consensus is that we do not keep unsourced biographical detail indefinitely while it waits on reliable sourcing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- How can you use a source like BDFA on nationality issues, when their definition of nationality is clearly different from Wikipedia. (Espinola, previous subject on this page has 2 flags) In my opinion all flags should be added (There could be a lot of them in theory, this will be very difficult if you want it to be reliable) or non Cattivi (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Other Sports
The idea that flags denoting sporting nationality is a football specific "problem" is easy to counter. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and thats just a selection of team sports, there are also individual sports such as tennis and golf and motorsports to consider. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Where has anyone said this is football specific? Knepflerle (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was countering the statement that "I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances" from the 2nd post in this section. This is clearly not a football specific issue with at least 8 other team sports using flagicons to denote nationality in current squad templates. The issue should be raised elsewhere as it clearly goes beyond the scope of WP:FOOTY King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ummm, the issue already has been raised centrally, which led to the current state of WP:FLAG. Lots of projects are in outright violation of that guideline, but the people here may or may not be interested in fixing articles outside of the football domain. The issue is not whether the current WP:FOOTY convention is wrong (it is): it's coordinating the work to fix it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would using the word Ex: Mexican in the squad templates instead of solve the problem about WP:FLAG? FkpCascais (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not all of them, by any distance. Flags are just an indication of the larger problem we have with ascribed nationalities, something which takes up roughly 50% of all WT:FOOTY discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement, what with 50% of this page being used to discuss the problems with WP:ATHLETE and all! King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not all of them, by any distance. Flags are just an indication of the larger problem we have with ascribed nationalities, something which takes up roughly 50% of all WT:FOOTY discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the chatter about individual articles and the friendly banter about Irishmen who may or may not have played for Honved in 1911 makes up the margin of error. :) But seriously, this is far and away the biggest unresolved problem discussed here. ATHLETE discussion basically always ends with someone pointing at the GNG. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Whither now?
A week has passed since the last comment, but clearly several people do not believe that the current position is tenable. So do we simply allow the issue to drift away, eventually be archived and forgotten about, or is there enough groundswell of opinion here to formally propose that some change be made? Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think a formal declaration is necessary. Right now, a lot of articles over-use and misuse flags. This should be addressed directly on our most high-profile articles, and the guidelines and examples set out by the WikiProject should be looked over to ensure that they don't recommend such things. The only really problematic thing in my mind right now is that the squad template still expects flags; it's maybe worth formally proposing (by RfC) a change to that template to drop the nationality parameter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I would vehemently disagree with that proposal. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- As an aside, I want to commend Kevin McE for being especially bold and removing the flags from the infoboxs (not the squad lists, just the infobox... calm down) of well over 250+ club articles. Given that work, I'd at least like to drive for a consensus now that this is the way it should be done in the infoboxes across the board (again, not the squad lists, just the infoboxes... stay calm everyone). Can we at least agree on that one and put that point to rest? If we agree on this one, we can update the club template with some clarifying text not to use flags in the infobox. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that had been agreed a long time ago? Flags in infoboxes next to places of birth and clubs have never been acceptable, not only for violation of WP:MOSFLAG, but also because it screws with the row alignment in the tables? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean removing nationality flags next to managers names in club infoboxes. Well, he certainly worked hard, but I still completely disagree with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that had been agreed a long time ago? Flags in infoboxes next to places of birth and clubs have never been acceptable, not only for violation of WP:MOSFLAG, but also because it screws with the row alignment in the tables? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose that we introduce a key similar to 1, or the more subtle 2. In a perfect world this key would be built into the template, so that it automatically updates to reflect the nationalities used.
There is a legitimate question as to if and where nationality should be used. However, in some leagues nationality directly affects eligibility to play. Therefore this change would continue to be useful, even if the consensus is that clubs not in such a league should not reference nationality at all. WFCforLife (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) -Can't be bothered to log in (it's Matt91486), but I'd definitely say that the second of the two is preferable if we feel like a key needs to be included. 24.118.120.150 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both are fine. FkpCascais (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Alternate proposal
I have made some test changes to {{Fs2}} (documentation) to display like this. We could request the same changes to {{Football squad}} or start rolling out the superior multifunction Fs2 template. King of the North East 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I like the basic idea, but that's going to cause a formatting/layout nightmare when you get to players from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Can't we use the FIFA Trigramme? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can easily be done. I'll try it out. King of the North East 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just swap the word in the navbox to change the display like this. King of the North East 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Much better. I like it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm against the triagramme as a method of "explaining" the flag. Some are okay, some are useless. If we're going to expand on the flag icon (which I'm weakly opposed to, with aesthetic preference for a key but not really being bothered), it should be done fully, i.e. in England format. Tough cases make for bad law. I'm sure the half a dozen sentence-long countries can be dealt with appropriately. WFCforLife (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Useless how? They are FIFA-approved abbreviations, not some random three-letter code plucked from thin air. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- So what if they're official. If I don't know what the flag means, how is a three letter acronym I don't understand going to help? Either the flag is good enough alone, or its not. But if it's not, we shouldn't introduce a second thing that may or may not communicate the information. WFCforLife (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Useless how? They are FIFA-approved abbreviations, not some random three-letter code plucked from thin air. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- In summary, strong preference for the Barcelona variant of {{Fs2}} over the Banfield one, weak preference for a key instead of that. WFCforLife (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (edited WFCforLife (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
- I'm against the triagramme as a method of "explaining" the flag. Some are okay, some are useless. If we're going to expand on the flag icon (which I'm weakly opposed to, with aesthetic preference for a key but not really being bothered), it should be done fully, i.e. in England format. Tough cases make for bad law. I'm sure the half a dozen sentence-long countries can be dealt with appropriately. WFCforLife (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I support Gnevin's proposal to resolve WP:V, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to deal with the question about communication of information. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. One of these solutions plus Gnevin's solution takes care of all the concerns that have been presented. As has been said below, I prefer just to depend on the alt text as you mouse over the flag, but as this may not comply 100% with WP:MOSFLAG depending on interpretation, if adjustments are requested (during an FA review for example), I think WFCforLife's key/legend suggestion is my preference. I'd rather not inline a bunch of country names (or three-letter-abbr.) in the table. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Much better. I like it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just swap the word in the navbox to change the display like this. King of the North East 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can easily be done. I'll try it out. King of the North East 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A Third Proposal
Adding a key or adding text for the country name or abreviation doesn't address the problems stated above which were: 1) edit wars when there is disagreement over the nationality of a player, 2) the fact that "sporting nationality" is a Wikipedia invention, 3) the fact that there's no way to provide inline citations for these "sporting nationalities", and 4) the fact that readers have no idea that the flag represents their "sporting nationality" and not necessarily their actual country of birth.
I propose a more direct solution to the problem. Remove them. We can slay this beast in one shot by modifying {{Fs2}} to ignore the "nat" parameter. I tried this out on a club page (by removing all of the "nat" parameters myself) and it looked fine. One ironic thing I noticed in my experiement is that all of the columns are labeled except the "sporting nationality" column, so when you remove it, the table actually looks natural still. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose an outright ban. In countries or competitions where nationality is relevant to eligibility, it must be displayed, even if the eligibility rules are a figment of FIFA's imagination.
- Neutral on the suggestion that they're removed from clubs where this isn't relevant- I have strong conflicting views for and against it.
- Regardless, editors must a
gree refrain from petty disputes such as the one which derailed the first Seattle Sounders FC FAC while we are discussing the matter. There is a clear willingness to do something, but without a bit of goodwill, there will be no consensus. WFCforLife (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as well. It's a huge part of the sport. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. matt91486 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Verifiability is a huge part of Wikipedia. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose an outright ban. There has to be a way of presenting this valuable information properly without resorting to a blanket removal. Taking this information away will be a massive step backwards in terms of the useful information provided to readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose an outright ban. 1) isn't even a reason for removing basic data. 2) No it is not. 3) The reason for these anomalies are painfully obvious. 4) I think the average reader has more intelligence than you give them credit for.--EchetusXe 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, with the rider that a simple, keyed, indicator of those players whose eligibility is restricted is included. In essence, whether a player is French or Malian makes no difference per se to his playing rights, it is whether he holds EU nationality. Showing the holder of a French passport as Malian (because of having been capped by that country) detracts from the understanding of the selection issues in a league where a limit is placed on use of non EU nationals. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the final solution (i.e. even if flags are kept), the suggestion of adding a key for EU passport holders in those circumstances is a very good one.WFCforLife (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS?!? You want to remove flags from squad lists? WHY? How is that possible justifiable? Eightball (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I care less that 0.5% of contentious flags might lead to debate than that 99.5% are clear cut and add valuable information. Leaky Caldron 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- <sigh/> Exactly 0% would lead to debate if we could focus on enforcing verifiability. I don't see how the information can be considered valuable if it's not verifiable. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - removing flags from squad infoboxes is nonsense! GiantSnowman 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose you think verifiability is nonsense as well and that original research makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Of course you don't. Please defend your opposition with something more than "it's nonsense". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people - including me - are feeling is that this whole discussion is unneccesarily draconian. The wholesale removal of information from Wiki in this way is not the way to go. You talk about verifiability; when I say that a person's nationality is verified either from his place or birth or the country he represents internationally, someone comes in with something about something in Swiss law about jus sanguis (I don't remember the term). OK, that's Switzerland, but what about the other 211 countries where that is not a law? It seems that every time someone comes up with a good reason to keep the nationality indicators, someone shifts the goalposts again. It seems to be me to be very simple; you have the nationality of the country in which you were born, unless there is a clear, verifiable source that the player has a different nationality, or has subsequently played for another nation at international level (like, say, Preki). What's OR about that? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Skotywa but you sound like a broken record; how do you intend on verifying player's nationalities? Demanding certified copies of their passports to be sent through? GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't make this about me. Is your point that it is okay to have some unverified information on Wikipedia because it's hard to verify? Good luck getting anything like that past WP:FA review. My motivation here is based on experience. The bar for WP:FA is going up, and these squad lists with unverifiable nationalities listed will stand in the way of articles being promoted. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who cares about article quality here? (I'm not, here are some examples from above: [4] and [5]) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not making this about you at all - but you have presented a "problem" with no solution. 99.99% of nationalities are completely uncontentious, I don't see the issue here to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true. I started this section "A Third Proposal" with a (gasp) proposed solution. I even gave reasons for why I thought it was a legitimate solution to the problems raised in the conversation above. Please stop trying to guess my motives or what I'm thinking. It's fine if you disagree with the proposal, but how about suggesting a different solution to the identified problems rather than ignoring them. It may be that 99% are uncontentious now, but that will only be true until they go for WP:GA or WP:FA promotion. That's when Wikipedia as a whole has the opportunity to enforce verifiability. It's currently true that 100% are unverified, whether they're contentious or not. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Finding sources for player's nationalitis isn't an issue - club profiles, stats websites etc. etc. - so I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here...GiantSnowman 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion here for you now because you've chosen not to read it. Please start at the top with Kevin McE's comment that started this off and catch yourself up before repeating again, "I don't understand". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Miller is English - as confirmed by a reliable source... GiantSnowman 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh well, you've got it all sorted out. Awesome. Thanks. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about then. Oh wait... Gillingham F.C. still says he's from Northern Ireland (with no source). If I change it back to England with no source, whoever wanted it to be Northern Ireland will come here complaining or start an edit war. It should be obvious that the problem is bigger than Miller. Other examples of contentious player nationalities have been discussed. Please, don't stop reading after the first comment. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um no, the source I have provided is from Gillingham F.C. and quite clearly states he is English...GiantSnowman 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um yes, click the link to go to the Gillingham F.C. (which I provided) and you'll see that according to Wikipedia he's Northern Irish. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well Wikipedia is wrong and I've changed it :) GiantSnowman 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is not so much that Wikipedia was wrong, but that Wikipedia (or at least its template for football squads) totally lacks the capacity to communicate the subtleties of nationality. He has represented N Ireland in international football: he was born in England, speaks with an English accent, and has only ever played professionally. His employers use one definition of nationality, Wikipedia has until now used another, the concept of sporting nationality. Is your proposal that we abandon that? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but in 10 days, it will be changed back because not everyone will know to come to this discussion to find out where you got your information from. Your change is a perfect example of what many of us hope to eliminate here. Unfortunately, providing a source in your edit summary is not sufficient. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gnevin's suggestion (which we actually agree on - shock! horror! ;) ) below should hopefully prevent this. GiantSnowman 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, Gnevin's suggestion solves WP:V, but it's completely seperate to the flag hater/waver problem. WFCforLife (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gnevin's suggestion (which we actually agree on - shock! horror! ;) ) below should hopefully prevent this. GiantSnowman 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well Wikipedia is wrong and I've changed it :) GiantSnowman 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um yes, click the link to go to the Gillingham F.C. (which I provided) and you'll see that according to Wikipedia he's Northern Irish. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um no, the source I have provided is from Gillingham F.C. and quite clearly states he is English...GiantSnowman 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh well, you've got it all sorted out. Awesome. Thanks. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about then. Oh wait... Gillingham F.C. still says he's from Northern Ireland (with no source). If I change it back to England with no source, whoever wanted it to be Northern Ireland will come here complaining or start an edit war. It should be obvious that the problem is bigger than Miller. Other examples of contentious player nationalities have been discussed. Please, don't stop reading after the first comment. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Miller is English - as confirmed by a reliable source... GiantSnowman 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion here for you now because you've chosen not to read it. Please start at the top with Kevin McE's comment that started this off and catch yourself up before repeating again, "I don't understand". --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Finding sources for player's nationalitis isn't an issue - club profiles, stats websites etc. etc. - so I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here...GiantSnowman 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true. I started this section "A Third Proposal" with a (gasp) proposed solution. I even gave reasons for why I thought it was a legitimate solution to the problems raised in the conversation above. Please stop trying to guess my motives or what I'm thinking. It's fine if you disagree with the proposal, but how about suggesting a different solution to the identified problems rather than ignoring them. It may be that 99% are uncontentious now, but that will only be true until they go for WP:GA or WP:FA promotion. That's when Wikipedia as a whole has the opportunity to enforce verifiability. It's currently true that 100% are unverified, whether they're contentious or not. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not making this about you at all - but you have presented a "problem" with no solution. 99.99% of nationalities are completely uncontentious, I don't see the issue here to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't make this about me. Is your point that it is okay to have some unverified information on Wikipedia because it's hard to verify? Good luck getting anything like that past WP:FA review. My motivation here is based on experience. The bar for WP:FA is going up, and these squad lists with unverifiable nationalities listed will stand in the way of articles being promoted. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who cares about article quality here? (I'm not, here are some examples from above: [4] and [5]) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Skotywa but you sound like a broken record; how do you intend on verifying player's nationalities? Demanding certified copies of their passports to be sent through? GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think what a lot of people - including me - are feeling is that this whole discussion is unneccesarily draconian. The wholesale removal of information from Wiki in this way is not the way to go. You talk about verifiability; when I say that a person's nationality is verified either from his place or birth or the country he represents internationally, someone comes in with something about something in Swiss law about jus sanguis (I don't remember the term). OK, that's Switzerland, but what about the other 211 countries where that is not a law? It seems that every time someone comes up with a good reason to keep the nationality indicators, someone shifts the goalposts again. It seems to be me to be very simple; you have the nationality of the country in which you were born, unless there is a clear, verifiable source that the player has a different nationality, or has subsequently played for another nation at international level (like, say, Preki). What's OR about that? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)I don't understand this sourcing rationale. Squad lists should always have the club's official site verifying them. If that club gives a nationality, you would assume it's correct because they, y'know, actually employ the bloke. I do quite a bit of work with featured lists. If you use the book to source 40 entries, on 40 consecutive pages, you don't inline cite each page seperately. WP:V is about ensuring that everything that is potentially contentious is verified. It does not mandate that we insult the reader's intelligence. WFCforLife (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent point, and honestly, I'd say that simply sourcing the club once at the top of the squad list is sufficient. However, when facts are challenged (as they often are on this very talk page), what should be the prescribed solution? What if the club page doesn't specify? Should inline citations be required then? What if another source contradicts the club? Should a third party source be favored over the club website? These are the types of things I'd really like to see solved with this discussion rather than calling it all nonsense and we'll talk about it again in 1-2 months (that is not an exageration). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to make the same point. I picked a random Prem team - Everton - and went to their official site. John Heitinga is confirmed as being Dutch[6]. Seamus Coleman is confirmed as being Irish[7]. John Ruddy - who is nowhere near his national team - is confirmed as being English[8]. Let's jump to League 2. Torquay United. Elliot Benyon, confirmed as English[9]. Mustapha Carayol confirmed as English[10]. And so on and so on. This is why I absolutely disagree with a blanket ban, because most of this information is NOT just pulled from thin air. Rather than deleting it, we need to come up with a way of adding citations for nationality to the squad templates, which will then remove all the problems. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- If there is a reliable source more suitable than his club which contradicts it, for instance the national assocation of a country he has played for, or a reliable source directly quoting him as saying he is B rather than A, then we should go with that. If no nationality is given, you are correct to say that we should not make one up, and therefore shouldn't give one at all. I'm simply saying that if the club gives a nationality, that satisfies WP:V. WFCforLife (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to make the same point. I picked a random Prem team - Everton - and went to their official site. John Heitinga is confirmed as being Dutch[6]. Seamus Coleman is confirmed as being Irish[7]. John Ruddy - who is nowhere near his national team - is confirmed as being English[8]. Let's jump to League 2. Torquay United. Elliot Benyon, confirmed as English[9]. Mustapha Carayol confirmed as English[10]. And so on and so on. This is why I absolutely disagree with a blanket ban, because most of this information is NOT just pulled from thin air. Rather than deleting it, we need to come up with a way of adding citations for nationality to the squad templates, which will then remove all the problems. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Why are people voting, this is very simple lads....
Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here . Quote from Five pillars
WP:RU removed a the "Irish flag" (see WP:RUIRLFLAG) against WP:CON to keep as it was against WP:OI Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's because it was Original Research. Are you suggesting that wikipedia have invented Ireland, Northern Ireland, and 200+ others?
- (correction), actually, that simply isn't true. They removed it per copyvio, and correctly do not use the flags I have given because for rugby it WOULD be original research. WFCforLife (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect, the official flag of the IRFU can not be use as per copyvio, WP:RU were using an invented flag for Ireland which was removed as per WP:OI and against the WP:CON at the time, an invented Pacific Islanders rugby union team flag also fell to the same sword. If WP:V and WP:OR can't be met here then the flags should go, CON or no CON. WP:5P is very clear! Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to reread WP:Civil. Anyway my suggestion below addresses my concerns Gnevin (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I mean this with the greatest of respect, but what the fuck are you talking about? WP:V and WP:OR effectively say the same thing- that we shouldn't just make stuff up. There is no disagreement whatsoever about the need to source. WFCforLife (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect, the official flag of the IRFU can not be use as per copyvio, WP:RU were using an invented flag for Ireland which was removed as per WP:OI and against the WP:CON at the time, an invented Pacific Islanders rugby union team flag also fell to the same sword. If WP:V and WP:OR can't be met here then the flags should go, CON or no CON. WP:5P is very clear! Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time or patience to scroll through this massive debate, but has nobody noticed that when you scroll over a nation's flag in the squad templates, it tells you what nation that is? GiantSnowman 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Several people brought that up earlier (including me), but were told that it wasn't a valid point because some people don't use mice. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
I'd like to suggest that {{Football squad player}} be changed to included a field called reference. If the reference field is left blank the nat field will not display. A third optional parameter could be added to make these changes optional but include the pages in a hidden category Category:Football clubs with unreferenced squad information Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I like that idea a lot. It can be used to link to the player's bio on the club's official site, thereby confirming his nationality, or international team affiliation. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is a very good idea; but rather than linking to 25 individual profiles, could we not just link once to the the 'Current squad' page of the team's official website? GiantSnowman 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The template wouldn't care about the reference. The quality of the reference is a matter for this project to discuss else where Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, fair enough! GiantSnowman 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of this. I have two goals that are motivating me to not let this conversation wither and die without anything being done: 1) I want a solution that will eliminate the constant conversations that go on here disagreeing about a player's flag, and 2) all articles should aspire to become WP:GA or WP:FA at some point, and this is starting to stand in the way of that progress. I think this suggestion satisfies both so I'm on board with this one. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone was doubting your motivation, Skotywa. Your adherence to WP's values should be commended, and your work especially on the Sounders article has been excellent. We just needed to find some user-friendly middle ground, and with this I think we have. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- If this goes ahead there are two options as I outlined above.
- I'm in favor of this. I have two goals that are motivating me to not let this conversation wither and die without anything being done: 1) I want a solution that will eliminate the constant conversations that go on here disagreeing about a player's flag, and 2) all articles should aspire to become WP:GA or WP:FA at some point, and this is starting to stand in the way of that progress. I think this suggestion satisfies both so I'm on board with this one. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, fair enough! GiantSnowman 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The template wouldn't care about the reference. The quality of the reference is a matter for this project to discuss else where Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is a very good idea; but rather than linking to 25 individual profiles, could we not just link once to the the 'Current squad' page of the team's official website? GiantSnowman 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We add the reference field and every flag from every club page disappears until a reference is added
- A major bot run is required to add the opt out to every usage of this template currently. Option 1 would be my preference as we shouldn't be excusing the lack of references Gnevin (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer option 1 as well. I'd say give it a day to ensure consensus before proceeding, and when you do I'd recommend referencing this conversation in your edit summary. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We'll need to be prepared for a massive influx of "WTF happened to the flags!!?!?!?!" messages when it happens. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Option 1 is fine with me; it would allow us to double check every player's nationality as displayed on the 'Current squad' section. I have had to correct a couple already today! GiantSnowman 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I support option 1, but a transition period of about a week is needed where the parameter is optional, and a bot goes around to notify the talk pages of articles affected, explaining how to use the new parameter. The typical user WON'T be a regular here. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No sure what you mean a week where the parameter is optional? Once we make the change it's active . I agree we need to notify people as many people as possible ,maybe even village pump? I'd also suggest a handy short cut with a summary like WP:RUIRLFLAG. Does anyone have a bot we can use?Gnevin (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I support option 1, but a transition period of about a week is needed where the parameter is optional, and a bot goes around to notify the talk pages of articles affected, explaining how to use the new parameter. The typical user WON'T be a regular here. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Option 1 is fine with me; it would allow us to double check every player's nationality as displayed on the 'Current squad' section. I have had to correct a couple already today! GiantSnowman 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We'll need to be prepared for a massive influx of "WTF happened to the flags!!?!?!?!" messages when it happens. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer option 1 as well. I'd say give it a day to ensure consensus before proceeding, and when you do I'd recommend referencing this conversation in your edit summary. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying we make two changes. One to add a parameter for the reference (that could be done right now, it would be entirely uncontroversial), and a little later, a second change so that the reference parameter does what you suggested—that leaving this parameter blank also blanks the nationality. In the meantime the bot notifies everyone, and gives us a little time to add the reference(s). Otherwise, we would be decreasing the likelihood of people adding references, which would be a bad thing. WFCforLife (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a good idea. When adding the ref parameter should we wrap in <ref>{{{ref}}}</ref> or leave this up to the user? Gnevin (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should be less of a reference and more of a link. Have a look at the squad list for Chicago Fire Premier. IMHO it should be a better-formatted version of that. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a good idea. When adding the ref parameter should we wrap in <ref>{{{ref}}}</ref> or leave this up to the user? Gnevin (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying we make two changes. One to add a parameter for the reference (that could be done right now, it would be entirely uncontroversial), and a little later, a second change so that the reference parameter does what you suggested—that leaving this parameter blank also blanks the nationality. In the meantime the bot notifies everyone, and gives us a little time to add the reference(s). Otherwise, we would be decreasing the likelihood of people adding references, which would be a bad thing. WFCforLife (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is unbelieveable. Player nationalities are HUGELY important, I can't even begin to fathom how someone would justify removing them. It is ridiculous and quite frankly is destroying my faith in Wikipedia as a remotely decent website. You guys are so caught up in the absurd bureaucracy of it all that you've completely forgotten how to make a decent article. Eightball (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pay no attention to Eightball. He clearly hasn't read the conversation since the consensus was actually to keep the flags and update the template so that they'll show when properly sourced. I've added this comment to his talk page attempting to explain this to him (since he's clearly not reading this page very carefully). --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Some examples User:Gnevin/sandbox, can't get the refs to work automatically , so that is a non runner. Let me know what you think Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- These look great. Excellent work Gnevin. I've made an adjustment to the note that appears at the bottom of the table. I hope you don't mind. Revert my changed if it's a problem. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think they look great too; one minor formatting thing - is there any way we could get the ref note to appear on the same line as the flag rather than below it? It's just a formatting/row height thing. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Referencing a nationality is all well and good, but it still does not address the two issues that started this thread: why is it considered relevant (lots of people have said that it would be unthinkable to omit the info, but without saying why this is so), and is our display of nationality, reduced as it is to only one nationality, too blunt to be accurate? Some editors might consider mouseover capacity sufficient to get around the insistence at MOS:FLAG that flags should be accompanied by the name of the country: if so, they should argue there for the removal of that stipulation, not simply consider these templates to be above the authority of the encyclopaedia's Manual of Style. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have actually tried to get that stipulation removed from MOS:FLAG, but the idiots on that talk page didn't seem to understand what I was asking for and the request never got anywhere! – PeeJay 18:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is broad consensus that if it is relevant for other sports, its relevant here. I can't tell if this is a general statement against the notion that we keep flags/nationalities, or if this is a legitimate but mistargetted complaint about the lack of discussion. If it's the latter, challenge weak or non-existant arguments in the places you see them. Calling them weak here will achieve little.
- The proposal is that we are going by nationality as defined by FIFA, and in cases where this is not obvious we either seek verification from another reliable source (such as the club, which will report the player's nationality to their association), or we omit it altogether. It may or may not be the ultimate solution, but it's a heck of a lot better than the current situation. And aside from my asertion that MOS:FLAG is completely superceeded by WP:ACCESS and doesn't have genuine consensus anyway, there are a couple of solutions in place to deal with the aforementioned fringe theory. Accepting Gnevin's proposal in no way whatsoever prevents us adopting the suggestions made by myself or King of the North East. WFCforLife (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
COSAFA U-20 Challenge
Is anybody able to provide a helping hand with the 2009 COSAFA U-20 Cup article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
European stats website - spam alert
I got a spam alert when trying to reference a source to the eu-football.info website (can't give a full link to it!) which seems to have a very useful national teams database, including historical line-ups. Anyone know about this spam issue and whether it might be based on a past problem, or can this site just not be linked to for the forseeable? Eldumpo (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Site is on the Global Spam Blacklist (as opposed to just en.wiki) here. Site was added based on this report. You can request removal from the blacklist if appropriate here. Camw (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is not temporary. I tried to add a link from this site one or two month ago.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Bon voyage
Hey guys, I'm going travelling in a week so I'm pretty much going to be off Wikipedia for a whole year - estimated return date is mid-December 2010. The only articles/tasks I consistently update/do are List of Bradford City A.F.C. players, List of Hamilton Academical F.C. players, and the AfD archiving here. If someone could keep an eye on these for me it'd be much appreciated! Oh, and if you need to contact me you can do so by e-mail. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- As you say, Bon Voyage. Your contributions will be missed. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a great trip!! Take care en route. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- See you later. Will be lots to keep up with in your absence! Cocytus [»talk«] 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- What they said. Have fun!! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck :) You have been a fantastic contributor to this project. Enjoy your break! --JonBroxton (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- We'll and I'll miss you and your contributions.Bonne chance. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a nice trip!--EchetusXe 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a great trip! We will miss you and your contributions. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I guess this week came at a good time, you get to acclimatise before you even get there! You'll be missed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a great trip! We will miss you and your contributions. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a nice trip!--EchetusXe 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- We'll and I'll miss you and your contributions.Bonne chance. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck :) You have been a fantastic contributor to this project. Enjoy your break! --JonBroxton (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- What they said. Have fun!! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- See you later. Will be lots to keep up with in your absence! Cocytus [»talk«] 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a great trip!! Take care en route. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Upgraded current squad template
It has been mentioned at WT:FOOTY a few times previously, but I thought I'd mention it again as a lot of editing time can be saved by merging the code for the football squad and the navbox using {{Fs2}}. I have made a blank version which can be found here. When this has been done there is far less work to be carried out per team once the dreaded transfer window opens again (tick, tick, tick...)
I have already upgraded the finest team in the land to the convertable navbox/current squad. King of the North East 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Something must be wrong with Wikipedia....that link goes to 'Boro! --ClubOranjeT 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- They put up a good fight against the second best yellow team in the world a few weeks back. WFCforLife (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, although I would suggest making the spacing between the trigramme and the position smaller. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I Agree with JonBroxton. But that is a major improvement in copyediting.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I've said before, the three letter code is a complete waste of time. Either go the whole hog and put the country name in, or don't bother. The acroynm is ludicrous and in very clear defiance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), a guideline that is indeed far less controversial than the one that initiated this entire debate. WFCforLife (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I Agree with JonBroxton. But that is a major improvement in copyediting.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2002-03 season articles
I am in the process of individual club articles for the 2002-03 season (see Template:2002-03 in English football. I would appreciate some help from editors with filling in results and squads (particularly if it is your team) using the style of the Manchester United F.C. season 2002-03 article. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks. 03md 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Watford one is on my to-do list. Although to be honest, they shouldn't be created unless there is an intention to make said article more than a bunch of stats. WFCforLife (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I shall get started on improving the Plymouth Argyle page, though I must say that I like WFCforLife's layout more! I'll focus on getting the table's done first and then add text with references when I can. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We need to try and establish consensus on the layout of the page at the Season article task force on the layout of the page. I like the Watford page layout but we have different setups on virtually every article in the 2002-03 category. 03md 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment the biggest sticking point seems to be that nobody wants to change the way their results are formatted. To be honest I don't think we necessarily need to agree on that one. Where we do need to reach consensus is on what a season article should cover (suspensions? loan deals? seperate stats for goalkeepers? routine coverage of finance, or only in exceptional cases, such as Watford this season and in 2002-03? what should the prose cover? etc). WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I'm quite comfortable with the collapsible style, but I'm not surprised there are many differences on other club pages because its down to the personal taste of the editor involved. Loan deals are fairly standard, but suspensions would probably be harder to find, especially if we're going way back (60's, 70's, etc). I see no problem covering finance in exceptional circumstances when details are readily available in the public domain, but otherwise its a bit tricky. I'll try to get a bit more done before I call it a night, didn't realise how long it took, but its worthwhile and satisfying. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment the biggest sticking point seems to be that nobody wants to change the way their results are formatted. To be honest I don't think we necessarily need to agree on that one. Where we do need to reach consensus is on what a season article should cover (suspensions? loan deals? seperate stats for goalkeepers? routine coverage of finance, or only in exceptional cases, such as Watford this season and in 2002-03? what should the prose cover? etc). WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We need to try and establish consensus on the layout of the page at the Season article task force on the layout of the page. I like the Watford page layout but we have different setups on virtually every article in the 2002-03 category. 03md 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I shall get started on improving the Plymouth Argyle page, though I must say that I like WFCforLife's layout more! I'll focus on getting the table's done first and then add text with references when I can. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Red Cards in Match Results
I'm hoping to achieve a consensus here to defuse a brewing edit war. Namely, should red cards be included in match results? I believe that they should, as they are an important part of a given match, both in terms of play and in terms of statistics. Additionally, while the major argument of opponents that I've run into seems to be that the particular template parameter red cards are entered into is "goals", I think that the parameter's name is simply a useful abstraction of the information that should be included within it and not necessarily an exhaustive list of what's allowed. Again, though, I'm hoping to achieve some sort of consensus on this matter so that a policy can be established for future match result articles and edits. cassius1213 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe that red cards should be included as they do not directly contribute to the result of the match. Match results are not determined by the number of red cards suffered by each team, but by the number of goals each team scores. While it is true that a player getting sent off may make it easier for the opposition to score, that is merely an indirect consequence of the sending-off. – PeeJay 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of including both red cards and yellow cards in match reports if the editor is willing to put forth the effort to make the whole page consistent. I can't stand pages that have card information for some matches and not for others. It either needs to be all or none for a given page. As long as there is an external link to a match report that includes the card information, there should be no problem with WP:V either. On club season articles in particular it is very useful when trying to determine when and where a player accumulated all of their cards. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on the context. If it's a match article, certainly (and yellows and substitutions too). If it's a season article I personally include red cards, but not yellow cards (or indeed substitutions). The fact that one team had nine or ten men may or may not have had an effect on the outcome of the game, and I believe it's up for the reader to interpret. Also, the danger of excluding reds entirely is that red cards against the team are pointed out in the prose, while red cards against the opposition are sometimes not, thus unwittingly introducing POV. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of including both red cards and yellow cards in match reports if the editor is willing to put forth the effort to make the whole page consistent. I can't stand pages that have card information for some matches and not for others. It either needs to be all or none for a given page. As long as there is an external link to a match report that includes the card information, there should be no problem with WP:V either. On club season articles in particular it is very useful when trying to determine when and where a player accumulated all of their cards. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Just to clarify, this discussion is about {{footballbox}} and {{footballbox_collapsible}} only. It is indisputable that yellow and red cards should be included next to players' names in articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final or 2008 UEFA Champions League Final, but the argument here is whether or not they should be included in the match summary templates in the "goals1" and "goals2" parameters. Sorry for the confusion. – PeeJay 10:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that consistency is key. If red cards are included for one match then they must be included on all matches.--EchetusXe 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Undecided. Adding the cards to match boxes can add helpful additional information, but sometimes – especially if there are a large number of yellows – it seems to add more clutter than additional knowledge. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that adding yellow cards to the match boxes would add unnecessary clutter. However, I still do believe that adding the red cards awarded in a match (when such information is available) would still add helpful information. cassius1213 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you're using {{footballbox_collapsible}} the clutter is not a problem. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that adding yellow cards to the match boxes would add unnecessary clutter. However, I still do believe that adding the red cards awarded in a match (when such information is available) would still add helpful information. cassius1213 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Undecided. Adding the cards to match boxes can add helpful additional information, but sometimes – especially if there are a large number of yellows – it seems to add more clutter than additional knowledge. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sheffield United rogues
I've noticed that two of Sheffield United's current squad, Jordan Robertson and Paddy Kenny, are currently unavailable as they are in jail and suspended for failing a drugs test, respectively. I'm not convince that the current layout of the club's squad section is laid out in the best way for this, but wasn't sure what would be better. Should there be a separate section, such as there is for players out on loan, for players on long-term suspensions? Dancarney (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You could replace the wording in the squad list with just
other=unavailable
, and then put a reference after the closing }} with an explanation of why they're unavailable and a source to verify it, along the lines of <ref>Serving prison sentence of xx months imposed in month-year for details-of-offence.{{cite news |......}}</ref>
- Or alternatively take the wording out of the player line entirely and have sourced footnotes at the bottom of the section, as I did in this version of Birmingham City F.C.
- Though from a WP:BLP point of view, it'd be good to add references soon, whatever format you use: it's a bit naughty whoever described them as jailbirds and drugcheats without sources to prove it, even if it is true :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- On loan to Her Majesty's Prison Service? Hack (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Blew family
Does anyone know if Horace Elford Blew and Frank William Elford Blew are related? Both were born in Wrexham, Horace in 1878 (or 1873, depending on which source you believe; [edit] the 1911 census states that Horace was actually born in 1879, but that shouldn't make any difference) and Frank in 1902. Since Horace was playing football for Wrexham in 1902, I find it entirely likely that they are father and son, but it is entirely possible that they are uncle and nephew. Can anyone confirm either way? – PeeJay 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- On a related note, a Horace Blew was Mayor of Wrexham in 1923 - do you reckon it's the same guy? GiantSnowman 23:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite likely! Blew had long since finished his playing career by then, and he would have been in his forties, making him a good age to be mayor of the town. And it's not exactly like "Horace Blew" is a common name! – PeeJay 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you though, 'Frank Blew' is much less common - and when I searched for him using speech marks to limit searches, they were all among the lines of "Frank blew out the candle"! GiantSnowman 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, nice one! I wonder if anyone here has a subscription to a site that provides access to the 1911 census. If we could find Frank Blew's birth records, that would be smashing. – PeeJay 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- As we waited, Dr. Frank blew on the pig call as if to announce, "Hungry lions, injured pig for dinner right here." A few moments later, Dr. Frank nudged me and pointed straight out. No more than 15 yards away was an intense pair of eyes staring right at me. I looked to the left and saw another lion pacing back and forth just five yards farther. She stopped, turned and gave us the biggest, longest snarl I have ever heard. GiantSnowman 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, nice one! I wonder if anyone here has a subscription to a site that provides access to the 1911 census. If we could find Frank Blew's birth records, that would be smashing. – PeeJay 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you though, 'Frank Blew' is much less common - and when I searched for him using speech marks to limit searches, they were all among the lines of "Frank blew out the candle"! GiantSnowman 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite likely! Blew had long since finished his playing career by then, and he would have been in his forties, making him a good age to be mayor of the town. And it's not exactly like "Horace Blew" is a common name! – PeeJay 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Even without a subscription it's possible to find they are father and son. According to the 1911 census there were six people with the name Blew, living in Denbighshire. There's only 1 Horace and 1 Frank with the correct age. 2 were head of a household Horace and Francis. When you do an advanced search: search for Blew, relationship to head of the household: son ,other people in the household: Horace Blew, you will get Frank as a result. Nellie was a younger sister, Mary (1881) was Frank's mother. This only works with rare names. Horace was mayor of Wrexham (Wrexham a complete record 1872-1892 page 92) Cattivi (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh cool, I didn't realise there was an advanced search option! Thanks, Cattivi! – PeeJay 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Club season article structure
I'd like to draw people's attention to this discussion, in the hope that with many ideas we can come up with a good model for season articles. WFCforLife (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposed major change to Football squad system
I made a proposal above which has started to take on legs. However as this change is so major I think it's fair to give this this suggestion it's own section which won't be hidden as part 5 of a major discussion. The nature of this change will be as follows . {{Fs player}} and others will be changed so that if a field called ref is not entered the flag will not display. For more see User:Gnevin/sandbox. I've split this up into several sections. If you disagree or agree with this proposal please indicate so here and not confuse the other sections. Please don't WP:Vote Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of proposal
- What's going on? I'm lost, sorry. --MicroX (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- This new squad template has a reference column. If a player does not have a reference then his country flag does not show.--EchetusXe 14:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous. If the squad list needs referencing, it should be referenced as a whole, not on a player-by-player basis. I also find it particularly petty that this change has been made just because people can't agree on a player's nationality. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that individual referencing for each player in the list looks odd/cluttered. Wouldn't one reference for the entire squad list be better/sufficient? Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If one reference can be used for the entire squad what is the harm in repeating it for each player? In most cases 1 ref will not be good enough for every player. Plus the use of individual reference puts the onus to comply with WP:V with the editor adding the flag where it should be. Also can we discuss this in the correct sectionGnevin (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If someone is having trouble determining the nationality of some guy that played for U-20 N. Ireland but lives in England, discuss the issue on his article. Most players don't have this minor issue; no need to revise an entire practice only because one player played for an under-20 national team.--MicroX (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- What? What practice are you talking about? The current practice of some times assigning nationality on a whim? At the end of the day all we are talking about is complying with WP:V Gnevin (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- The whole case was brought up because of Adam Miller's case. I think the nationality reference should be on the player article, not on every club article with a roster. --MicroX (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nationality and other facts should be referenced on both the players page and the squad page . Once again your pushing the responability of WP:V away from the editior adding the flag or contentious information and on to the reader to look for a references Gnevin (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the concern is that some assignments of nationality (even in the sporting sense) are contentious and should not require the reader to check the linked biography for references, does it make sense to require player by player referencing of nationality in a squad list? In almost every case, the assignment of nationality is uncontroversial (especially for players that have been capped at a senior level), so maybe it is more appropriate to reference controversial assignments of nationality on a player by player basis? That way, a single reference for a roster or squad list will sufficient in most cases, and extra player by player referencing is needed only when the assignment is controversial. Seems better to me than to drastically change the Fs template when the information is not controversial except in rare cases. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Adding the reference to all of uncontroversial players on a given page can be done in seconds with Copy and paste. Who decides what is controversial and what is not ? The simple fact is flags have constantly proven to be controversial within this project. References will solve 99.99% of these cases with out the need for a major debate all the time Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the sporting nationality of a typical player in a squad list is "likely to be challenged". Maybe a few cases, but certainly not many. The single reference used for most club articles' squad lists suffices in almost all cases, why add extra referencing which adds extra bulk to the section without compensating gains in usefulness? Jogurney (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- From the readers point of view they do gain usefulness. They gain the knowledge that some one hasn't just stuck a ref on the bottom of squad template as a Jack of all trades ref. The user gains the ability to check the reference for each player as they so wish and the also know the editor the checked the reference supplied and it is still valid and apt for every player . Gnevin (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ps perfect example Chelsea_F.C.#Players reference says nothing about nationality or position or number but [11] says it all Gnevin (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Defining a sporting/football nationality of a player is anything but controversial, except for a mere handful of cases - mostly emerging from UK, I'd say, because there's obviously no Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish citizenship, but just UK's. In cases like these (and only in such cases), a reference (if required) that can be just included directly next to the player's name. But, again, only if required. As Jogurney explains above, adding extra bulk to such a complex section makes just little sense, so I oppose the proposal. --Angelo (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the sporting nationality of a typical player in a squad list is "likely to be challenged". Maybe a few cases, but certainly not many. The single reference used for most club articles' squad lists suffices in almost all cases, why add extra referencing which adds extra bulk to the section without compensating gains in usefulness? Jogurney (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Adding the reference to all of uncontroversial players on a given page can be done in seconds with Copy and paste. Who decides what is controversial and what is not ? The simple fact is flags have constantly proven to be controversial within this project. References will solve 99.99% of these cases with out the need for a major debate all the time Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the concern is that some assignments of nationality (even in the sporting sense) are contentious and should not require the reader to check the linked biography for references, does it make sense to require player by player referencing of nationality in a squad list? In almost every case, the assignment of nationality is uncontroversial (especially for players that have been capped at a senior level), so maybe it is more appropriate to reference controversial assignments of nationality on a player by player basis? That way, a single reference for a roster or squad list will sufficient in most cases, and extra player by player referencing is needed only when the assignment is controversial. Seems better to me than to drastically change the Fs template when the information is not controversial except in rare cases. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nationality and other facts should be referenced on both the players page and the squad page . Once again your pushing the responability of WP:V away from the editior adding the flag or contentious information and on to the reader to look for a references Gnevin (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- The whole case was brought up because of Adam Miller's case. I think the nationality reference should be on the player article, not on every club article with a roster. --MicroX (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- What? What practice are you talking about? The current practice of some times assigning nationality on a whim? At the end of the day all we are talking about is complying with WP:V Gnevin (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- If someone is having trouble determining the nationality of some guy that played for U-20 N. Ireland but lives in England, discuss the issue on his article. Most players don't have this minor issue; no need to revise an entire practice only because one player played for an under-20 national team.--MicroX (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- If one reference can be used for the entire squad what is the harm in repeating it for each player? In most cases 1 ref will not be good enough for every player. Plus the use of individual reference puts the onus to comply with WP:V with the editor adding the flag where it should be. Also can we discuss this in the correct sectionGnevin (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that individual referencing for each player in the list looks odd/cluttered. Wouldn't one reference for the entire squad list be better/sufficient? Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous. If the squad list needs referencing, it should be referenced as a whole, not on a player-by-player basis. I also find it particularly petty that this change has been made just because people can't agree on a player's nationality. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- This new squad template has a reference column. If a player does not have a reference then his country flag does not show.--EchetusXe 14:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- What's going on? I'm lost, sorry. --MicroX (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
<- This is a bad idea. (Especially where debatable...) Establish and reference the player's nationality in the article and use it in templates without references. --Dweller (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I concur; the reference section in fs squad is totally unnecessary. The current system has worked fine for years, and I see no reason to change it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- None of the initial issues are addressed by this proposal. A single flag, although the reason for it can be justified and referenced, is too blunt a tool to describe the ethnic and personal identities of many people, and can be misleading. A player's national identity, in the majority of cases, is of little or no relevance to his role in the team, and can give a false impression (Mamady Sidibé has a French EU passport, and so although his nationality by birth and representative play is accurately described as Malian, he presents no work permit issues when playing for Stoke City). The Manual of Style is being flouted, and information irrelevant to team identity and selection is being posted in preference to matters that are relevant, such as age and contract length. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it a bad idea ? How difficult can it be to copy and paste a reference from 1 page to a other. Once again people here just want to ignore WP:V because it doesn't suit them. How you can claim a template and its flag which is being discussed pretty much week in week out is working fine is beyond me Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is a good reason that we don't list Tiger Woods as Dutch, Chinese and Thai in every golf tournament. You claim that the country a player is considered to be eligible for under FIFA rules is of little or no relevance, yet make a big deal about ethnicity, which absolutely certainly isn't. If ethnicity is a big deal (e.g. Croats in a Bosnian team, black players in a country noted for racist fans etc), it should be expanded upon on in the prose.
- Why is it a bad idea ? How difficult can it be to copy and paste a reference from 1 page to a other. Once again people here just want to ignore WP:V because it doesn't suit them. How you can claim a template and its flag which is being discussed pretty much week in week out is working fine is beyond me Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- None of the initial issues are addressed by this proposal. A single flag, although the reason for it can be justified and referenced, is too blunt a tool to describe the ethnic and personal identities of many people, and can be misleading. A player's national identity, in the majority of cases, is of little or no relevance to his role in the team, and can give a false impression (Mamady Sidibé has a French EU passport, and so although his nationality by birth and representative play is accurately described as Malian, he presents no work permit issues when playing for Stoke City). The Manual of Style is being flouted, and information irrelevant to team identity and selection is being posted in preference to matters that are relevant, such as age and contract length. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is the best proposal on the table. You can argue that it doesn't go far enough, but you can't possibly say this isn't a good thing. WFCforLife (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that this proposal is better than simply adding references to individual sporting nationality choices within a particular roster section that are "likely to be challenged". Instead, it is an extremely blunt approach to something that does not appear to be a widespread problem. In any case, I don't see a concensus for this proposal right now. Jogurney (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- If someone is determined to get rid of flags (and many people are), they will challenge any one that they see. Call them point-y Dicks if you must, but they can legitimately hide behind WP:V. There does seem to be considerably opposition to the last part of Gnevin's proposal. But I don't see any opposition to adding the proposed change to {{Fs end}}, and I don't see any reasonable opposition to there being an optional reference parameter. The opposition is to making the reference compulsory if you want the flag. If there is a chance that in future centralised discussion will force us to accept such a proposal, I would rather the optional parameter were already in place. I for one would take up the option. WFCforLife (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- What users here are ignoring here is WP:V . Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. While it would be extremely pointy, I or other user could remove every unreferenced flag and not be breaking the rules Gnevin (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- While I suspect that someone going about it in that way on a large scale would get themselves a block for disruptive behavior, Gnevin is right.
- What users here are ignoring here is WP:V . Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. While it would be extremely pointy, I or other user could remove every unreferenced flag and not be breaking the rules Gnevin (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- If someone is determined to get rid of flags (and many people are), they will challenge any one that they see. Call them point-y Dicks if you must, but they can legitimately hide behind WP:V. There does seem to be considerably opposition to the last part of Gnevin's proposal. But I don't see any opposition to adding the proposed change to {{Fs end}}, and I don't see any reasonable opposition to there being an optional reference parameter. The opposition is to making the reference compulsory if you want the flag. If there is a chance that in future centralised discussion will force us to accept such a proposal, I would rather the optional parameter were already in place. I for one would take up the option. WFCforLife (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that this proposal is better than simply adding references to individual sporting nationality choices within a particular roster section that are "likely to be challenged". Instead, it is an extremely blunt approach to something that does not appear to be a widespread problem. In any case, I don't see a concensus for this proposal right now. Jogurney (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we add the note about FIFA/sporting nationality (which is absolutely required), and add an entirely optional reference parameter, that does not hide flags if unused unless there is consensus that it should do so. There is a significant belief that one reference to a squad page linking to every player satisfies WP:V, something I partially agree with. Suggesting that a user cannot find their player from the squad list is a weak argument that borders on insulting their intelligence. Conversely, if a player's nationality isn't mentioned on his club profile page (example) then additional sourcing is required. In that instance it's not optional. WFCforLife (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would take a very literal reading of WP:V to conclude that any material which is challenged must be removed without an inline reference. I read WP:V as only requiring inline citations for controversial material (if an editor challenges the United States sporting nationality of Landon Donovan, they are just being disruptive and are deserving of a block). If the roster section of an article has a reference which covers every player and their sporting nationalities, why would it be helpful to reference each individual flag, rather than the section in total? Jogurney (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because in theory it shows the someone has taken the time to check the players details in the article and then added a reference, rather than the current pratice where by players details are just added and people assume the reference is up todate. It alouds indiviual references for difficult case, the reader the ability to click and check the players reference rather than a jack of all trades reference. Gnevin (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would take a very literal reading of WP:V to conclude that any material which is challenged must be removed without an inline reference. I read WP:V as only requiring inline citations for controversial material (if an editor challenges the United States sporting nationality of Landon Donovan, they are just being disruptive and are deserving of a block). If the roster section of an article has a reference which covers every player and their sporting nationalities, why would it be helpful to reference each individual flag, rather than the section in total? Jogurney (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- This seems a bit over the top. I don't see any reason not to add references to the nationality flags where there's some controversy about it. I don't think that requiring a ref for every nationality flag is necessary (although, I don't edit soccer player articles much, so maybe I'm just missing a somewhat regular controversy).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How the change would happen
If this change is accepted. The change will occur in the following way.
- {{Fs player}} and {{Fs start}} will be modified to accept and display a field called reference.
- A bot run will post a notification message on every talk page where the FS template system is in use.
- After X days a second change will be made to {{Fs player}} at that time any unreferenced flags will no long show . Also a possible change will be made to {{Fs end}} see below.
If you have any suggestions please post them hereGnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How long to give to add references
It needs to be decided how long we give the user before we make the second change to the FS system . This change will have a major impact on many articles so i'd suggest 30 days at least Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- If thirty days isn't long enough I don't know what is. 30 days is fine in my book.--EchetusXe 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thirty days from the date of notification sounds reasonable to me. The more time the better. To that end there's no harm in making the first change before we've decided on the exact timeframe/ configured the bot. WFCforLife (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification message
How should we word the notification message .I've no opinion on this at the moment Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that the "ref" field should contain a link to a player bio, team page, or other suitable example which verifies the player's nationality/international team eligibility, and (theoretically) ends the squabble about unsourced nationalities. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Shortcut and summary
How should we word the shortcut and summary .I've no opinion on this at the moment Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Change to Fs end
I'd also like to suggest {{Fs end}} should be modified so it displays the following text. Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. If you've any suggestions please post them here Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would put forward the following, which would go into slightly more detail.
- Note: Flags indicate national team which the player has represented, as is permitted under FIFA eligibility rules. Otherwise flags indicate place of birth. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.--EchetusXe 00:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, because WP:MOSFLAG specifically prohibits using flags to designate place of birth. The flag represents the country they play for internationally, or their confirmed nationality, which can be different from their place of birth. See [[Josh Wicks] for example. He was born in Germany, but is American. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- False. "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox". It specifically prohibits their use to designate their place of birth in those two areas only. Military bases and embassies are considered to be territory of the nation they pledge allegiance to, not necessarily the country that surrounds it. Thereby voiding your Josh Wicks example.--EchetusXe 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, maybe Josh Wicks was a bad example, but the point of the matter is that the flag should NOT represent his place of birth; it should represent his international team affiliation, or his nationality. Under your criteria, if Terry Butcher had never played international football, he would have the flag of Singapore by his name, which is clearly not the case as he just 'happened to be born there', and is in every other way English. Do you see where I'm coming from? --JonBroxton (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep reading ... under Biographical Use - "Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality" and under Use of flags for sportspeople "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality." Camw (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok fine, we use Gnevin's note.--EchetusXe 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- False. "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox". It specifically prohibits their use to designate their place of birth in those two areas only. Military bases and embassies are considered to be territory of the nation they pledge allegiance to, not necessarily the country that surrounds it. Thereby voiding your Josh Wicks example.--EchetusXe 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, because WP:MOSFLAG specifically prohibits using flags to designate place of birth. The flag represents the country they play for internationally, or their confirmed nationality, which can be different from their place of birth. See [[Josh Wicks] for example. He was born in Germany, but is American. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Flags have always been a thorny issue. In my opinion should be limited to nations players represented. Even then it can be confusing. Take Ladislav Kubala who played internationally for Czechosolvakia, Hungary,Spain, Catalonia and Europe. He was actually born in modern Slovakia. Potentially he could have six flags listed unless limits were imposed. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Under the proposed criteria, I don't see why he would have had more than one in a "current squad" template (and that one would have corresponded to the country he was currently associated with). Indeed, he may not have had one at all. WFCforLife (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this change should be made to Fs start instead, so that it goes before the squad list? That would meet the strict interpretation of MOS:FLAG, and is (admittedly ever-so-slightly) more likely to make someone think before they make a contentious edit. WFCforLife (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. I express no opinion on the larger proposal (the mandatory ref field, etc.). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Fs2 and other issues
- I believe that the use of one source that details the nationalities of the whole squad should be used in preference to a whole bunch of references to the same source next to each flag. The option of including a source already exists in {{Fs2}}.
- If the squad player has an article, what would be wrong with ensuring that his nationality is properly sourced there? The reference function could be used to clarify redlinked articles and debatable cases.
- I raised the issue of playing positions previously (GK, DF, MF and FW). These are far far less self explanatory to the casual reader than a flagicon let alone a flag/country name wikilink/reference. Individual referencing of flagicons looks like overkill when the aforementioned Wikipedia specific position codes are allowed to remain in the template without any references at all.
- King of the North East 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Re point 1 , I agree if one source can be used , then use it . However I don't understand why the 1 source can't be copied to each player as needed. Using the same source many times is common practice. So can you clarify why less referencing is better than more ? Re point 2, I can't edit Herzegovina add some controversial information and say well the reference is on Foča go look there, that is not how WP:V and WP:RS work or will ever work. The reference should appear beside the controversial information. Re point 3 it's generally very clear where the player's main position is. Where as nationality is highly controversial Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS can you give me an example of a refer that covers every player in the squad? I've yet to see it Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Here is one of many possible references that would cover every player in a squad. The nationality is no more controversial than playing position in 95%+ of cases. Jogurney (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree nationality is often uncontroversial, however there are far too many controversial flags incidences here ,on talk pages and edit wars. Where as I've never seen a discussion over a players position Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- This site is very interesting , however is the problem with [12] or Bray_Wanderers_A.F.C.#Current_squad Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Other sites have O'Connor as Australian (such as EUFO). I don't think the Guardian's site is the best source for most leagues, except it is unusual for providing English language coverage of leagues like the J. League and Greek Super League. I would hope that the editors who update the rosters on the club articles will pick appropriate sources for the league. It's not a question of lack of references, but the quality of the references. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- A side comment: If The Guardian is not reliable for Australian and other teams in the anglophone world and the mainstream of pro association football, why would it be somehow be reliable for other teams and leagues, whether or not the fact that the paper cover them at all is "unusual" for an English-language publication? Unreliable sources don't suddenly become reliable for things we have a hard time finding other sources for. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion, but in my experience, it is highly reliable for match reports and statistics, and less reliable (or unreliable) for nationality and place of birth. There are Greek and Japanese language alternatives which while I struggle to translate them to English, the statistics appear to match. Jogurney (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- A side comment: If The Guardian is not reliable for Australian and other teams in the anglophone world and the mainstream of pro association football, why would it be somehow be reliable for other teams and leagues, whether or not the fact that the paper cover them at all is "unusual" for an English-language publication? Unreliable sources don't suddenly become reliable for things we have a hard time finding other sources for. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Other sites have O'Connor as Australian (such as EUFO). I don't think the Guardian's site is the best source for most leagues, except it is unusual for providing English language coverage of leagues like the J. League and Greek Super League. I would hope that the editors who update the rosters on the club articles will pick appropriate sources for the league. It's not a question of lack of references, but the quality of the references. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- This site is very interesting , however is the problem with [12] or Bray_Wanderers_A.F.C.#Current_squad Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree nationality is often uncontroversial, however there are far too many controversial flags incidences here ,on talk pages and edit wars. Where as I've never seen a discussion over a players position Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Here is one of many possible references that would cover every player in a squad. The nationality is no more controversial than playing position in 95%+ of cases. Jogurney (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
With regards to nationality, that is one of the rare areas where a primary source is not only suitable, but preferable. A club is not going to antagonise their own employee by getting that wrong. By contrast, media are generally national organisations. With positions, all I can say is two words: Steve Palmer. WFCforLife (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Alternative
Four point-plan:
- Flags are supposed to refer to sporting nationality, so let's reserve them for precisely that: use them only for players with international caps. This way every flag has a specific, verifiable and uncontroversial interpretation as a true sporting nationality. We can discuss whether this applies to just full caps, full caps + U21, etc.
- To indicate other passport/nationality information re quota requirements, use a non-flag character - †, *, ♦, whatever. This then doesn't require any flag identification on the part of the reader, and/or having to know which countries count towards which quotas.
- (A more extensive, long term project) Recategorise players according to birthplace and national team representation, rather than unverified and ill-defined "nationality"
- Remove categories such as "Xian footballers of Yian ethnic origin" and any categorisation based on surname-related original research.
Knepflerle (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas everyone! Hope you all have a peaceful holiday! GiantSnowman 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Same to you and everyone else reading this.--EchetusXe 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Kerrea Gilbert, 07/08
Did Gilbert make in appearance for Arsenal during the 07/08 season? – Michael (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- No - see Soccerbase - he made six appearances for Southend, five in the league and one in the Cup. GiantSnowman 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Nationality issue #infinity
Hamilton player John Sullivan made his debut today, and Soccerbase said his nationality is Scottish, and so I've disambiguated by that. However, I have just found a source which shows he began his career in Ireland - so does anyone know if he is maybe Irish? Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Problem is John Sullivan is common name combination in both Ireland and Scotland and it might take some research to confirm. However a quick google search found these. This link say [13] says Sullivan is a Republic of Ireland youth international and this link [14] has a Sullivan of Bohs played for the Republic U-18s. Its dated just a few months before this Sullivan signed for Accies. Also listed at List of Scottish football transfers 2008–09 with Irish flag. Again listed as Irish at Accies site [15]. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I have moved the page to John Sullivan (Irish footballer). Can an admin please delete the now-useless redirect of John Sullivan (Scottish footballer)? GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Link gives further info about him [16]
Citation Needed for Germany
I was doing my editing rounds when I saw a note saying that the history section in Germany National Football Team didn't cite any refrences. Could the user who created that section please add citations to the history section. Thanks! --Micro101 13:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro101 (talk • contribs)
FC Barcelona early managers
Here we go, just to end this year, with another history question. Having found that Spanish newspapers ABC and el mundo deportivo have just given access to their previous issues online, I'm quite mad and just try to find new informations. I was able to find that Jim Bellamy managed the club from 1929 to 1931, and I was just looking at the Englishman Jack Demby[17], as it is said in the club website. In fact, it looks like he not English! It is more probably Richard Kohn, known as "Dombi". In the 11 August 1993 release of El Mundo Deportivo [18], it is said that "Ricardo Domby" is back at Barcelona, which he left in 1927, having coached "München", and played for Wiener AC. His name his sometimes written "Dombi" release of 17 December 1926 Note that Richard Kohn played for Wiener AC and coached Munich 1860 and Bayern from 1928 to 1933...Enough to correct links and add informations, guys? Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rotterdams Nieuwsblad 21-6-1935: Feyenoord engages a new trainer. Previous clubs include FC Basel, FC Barcelona, MTK, Bayern München, 1860 and Hertha (that was in 1924-25, source Michael Jahn, Hertha BSC Eine Liebe in Berlin page 409) Only known by the name Dombi in the Netherlands. He was referred to as a wonderdoctor because of his 'magical potions' to cure injured players. (He was a coach/physiotherapist) Another source that indicates that the club website is probably wrong
[19] The link is about one of his cures: a hot bandage ,a mixture of heated pure latex and paraffin Cattivi (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming me this Cattivi. I like the details, too. So I will be WP:BOLD and add all these informations to Richard Kohn "Dombi" article.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Informations added!Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming me this Cattivi. I like the details, too. So I will be WP:BOLD and add all these informations to Richard Kohn "Dombi" article.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, another problem: it looks like Conyers Kirby and Ralph Kirby are the same person. In the 28 August 1922 release [20] he is presented as the new CE Europa manager. It is said he played for Fulham, and won the Southern league with them. During the WWI, he played for military teams. On the 1 December 1924 release he left Europa for FC Barcelona [21] to replace Jesza Poszony. On the 11 December 1925, he joined Athletic Bilbao [22] and got in touch with el mundo deportivo by telephone. On the 28 May 1926, it is said he left Atletic Bilbao [23]. Moreover, it is said [24] in la Vanguardia release of 12 February 1924, that he acted as a referee in a match between his team Europa against an English selection. Any opinions?--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Back to Richard Kohn, sorry. I just found [25] on the 7 February 1926 of el mundo deportivo his arrival at Barcelona. He is called "Little Dombi", "Dombi Littles" and "Mr. Littles". According to the newspaper, he played for Wiener AC, and was the manager of First Vienna before coming to Barcelona. So he would have coached Hertha, then First Vienna, then Barcelona.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be WP:BOLD and merge Conyers and Ralph Kirby articles.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Wilkinsons at Sheffield United
The article for the first-class cricketer William Herbert Wilkinson (born 1881) claims that he played for Sheffield United and that his brother Bernard Wilkinson captained the club. While I can confirm (via allfootballers.com) that Bernie Wilkinson did in fact play for the Blades it would seem that that William didn't make it to the first team. What makes it interesting is that there is an entry for a William H Wilkinson who played a number of seasons from 1894 in the Football League for Rotherham Town and Lincoln City. allfootballers.com lists Bernie Wilkinson as having left Sheffield United for Rotherham Town so I was wondering if someone was able to confirm whether there was some link between these players... Hack (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if William H Wilkinson played in 1894 it's impossible that he and the cricketer are the same person, otherwise he would have been 13 years old. I suppose it's still entirely possible that the two footballers are related though. -- BigDom 10:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship
Could someone do the honours and TfD {{Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship}}. I'm a bit too busy at the moment. Cheers King of the North East 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found the time to do it myself (here) King of the North East 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC promoted to WP:FA
I'm pleased to announce that after two rounds of FAC review as well as two independent copy edits that Seattle Sounders FC was promoted to featured article status today. These are the edits for the promotion: [26] [27] [28] [29]. We just have to wait for a bot to update the article talk page and add the FA star to the main article (woohoo!). Many thanks to task force members George and Cptnono for their help responding to all of the comments and change requests during this process. Thanks to WFCforLife from this project for his help in the peer review and his comments during the FA review of the article. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Charles Okonkwo
Mr Okonkwo left a message on Jimbo Wales's talk today, saying:
I just found out that my name is missing in the list of ex super eagles of nigeria players. Eventhough am not the kind of person that takes such omission seriuosly, on second thought, if I played 37 times for my country I deserve to be in that list. I see a lot of players who played 3 or 4 games for Ngeria and they are on that list. My name is CHARLES OKONKWO, and my email is <redacted>. I live in welwyn garden city in the U.K. For futher and easy proof and pictures, check me out on facebook.
Regards,
CHARLES OKONKWO.86.129.189.1 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be related to Nigeria national football team. Would someone like to follow this up?
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Article is at Charles Okonkwo. We should at least ask him for his POB/DOB, club and international careers, coaching jobs. If he could provide evidences, such as newspapers scans, it would be fine. --Latouffedisco (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- And while I'm generally a trusting soul, we should ensure things are independently verifiable, as some people going by the name of Charles Okonkwo are a bit dodgy.--ClubOranjeT 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Looking on the internet, I've only found his facebook profile and a RSSSF link.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- It wouldn't surprise me at all if the poster were a journalist, hoping that posting on Jimbo's page might make us post false information. We know that what's there is true, so in the event that I were right we wouldn't be falling into that bear trap. If that is all we ever find, that is all we should post (and possibly consider deletion or merging). WFCforLife (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Looking on the internet, I've only found his facebook profile and a RSSSF link.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- And while I'm generally a trusting soul, we should ensure things are independently verifiable, as some people going by the name of Charles Okonkwo are a bit dodgy.--ClubOranjeT 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
User:189.24.146.199 seems intent on adding a gold star next to Ryan Giggs' name to indicate that he was named as man of the match at the 1999 Intercontinental Cup. I have removed the star with the rationale that the man of the match is clearly indicated in both the infobox and below the squad lists, making the star redundant. Furthermore, the anon has also been removing the flagicon from next to Giggs' name in the man of the match box, claiming that WP:FOOTY does not allow flagicons in boxes. Since this is clearly bullshit, I've brought this here to let you guys know that we may be heading towards a wheel war and the anon may need some sense talking into him. – PeeJay 23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think ytou're the one who needs some sense into you, mate. Stop trying to bend the policy to fit your will. Read the policy again. Check other articles and try to be helpful over here instead of a disruptive user who is trying to enforce his will. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I also would like to let you know that this user has decided to stalk me as you can see on 1968 European Cup Final. Now he's trying to create a new pattern to the article with no previous discussion. And I'm simply enforcing the pattern followed by every other similar article as you can see on 1967 European Cup Final, 1969 European Cup Final and so on. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, 1968 European Cup Final was on my watchlist, so I naturally noticed your inexplicable change to that article. If you want to follow any particular pattern for match articles, I suggest you take a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. – PeeJay 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Great article. Should be a feature one. But I'm failing to see those large flags that you're trying to add on 1968 European Cup Final and now on 1967 European Cup Final. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, 1968 European Cup Final was on my watchlist, so I naturally noticed your inexplicable change to that article. If you want to follow any particular pattern for match articles, I suggest you take a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. – PeeJay 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Football Trust
I've just created a basic stub for the Football Trust, I'm shocked that there wasn't an article in place already considering how much money they gave to English and Scottish clubs to develop stadiums. Please feel free to extend the article TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Goodison Park
Please could someone re-assess the Goodison Park article, it deserves more than a start class in my opinion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
West Ham v Arsenal
If anyone is interested this BBC article gives an account of the 1980 FA Cup Final and also details all of the player's career, as well as explaining what happened to them after they retired. I think it will prove quite useful for anyone looking to add to any of those articles.--EchetusXe 13:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)