Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WPF WT:FOOTY

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive
v t e

Following on from a similar scheme over the summer, it could be a good idea to list articles that are the subjects of repeated transfer speculation etc. in order for us to keep on top of it. GiantSnowman 10:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope Akpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at 3RR. GiantSnowman 10:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi protected for 2 weeks. Number 57 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. GiantSnowman 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ryan Nelsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - QPR have confirmed Nelsen has agreed to take charge at Toronto FC BUT he has not left the club yet and could still play against Spurs at the weekend. JMHamo (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, could somebody take a look at this now? I don't think the article should be updated until he's confirmed as leaving the club, as I said, he's still with QPR and could play this weekend. JMHamo (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Craig Davies (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Should move to Bolton for £300,000 but contract negotiations can break down.--EchetusXe 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one appears to have gone through without any problems. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Tom Ince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Has been moving nearly everyday for a month now to Liverpool - still at Blackpool.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even gained a squad number at one point I see ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've semi'd this one too. Number 57 09:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Vegard Forren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - according to the IP's his has moved to Liverpool, but nothing is confirmed yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has now signed for Southampton. --- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from my usual dickish behaviour, am I being particularly unpleasant by refusing to use images supplied by Christopher Vose simply because he requires attribution of his photos when they're used? The copyright he's chosen to use in the commons allows for that. The images are good. But does this mean that we must use the images? Am I correct in removing them from articles on that ground? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you for what it's worth. BigDom (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image use policy says that all photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page. There was a little discussion here. U+003F^? 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the negative qualities you describe, you're probably doing the ethical thing. Mr Vose seems convinced that under CC-BY-SA he can stipulate the precise manner of attribution. If he is correct, Wikipedia policy would suggest that we politely decline the offer to use the images, and if he is incorrect, then unless I'm missing something else we can use the images without the relatively intrusive means of credit. To do so against his wishes would be somewhat unethical.

We should inform him that the images won't be used in the way he has specified, and ask whether he is happy for us to use them as we would any other image, or would instead prefer them deleted. The Commons G7 isn't quite as liberal as our own, but should still do the trick if necessary. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has just restored my removal and likely re-introduced WP:OVERLINKs that I removed at the same time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit that it is rare that photographers stipulate that their work must include attribution, there is precedent. I list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayelet_Zurer as just one example. Why are other photographers given attribution, while mine are not if I have requested it in exactly the same manner? Thus far, I have supplied six images, five of which were far more recent photographs, and one (Anton Peterlin) had no photograph at all. I intended to supply images for all members of Vancouver Whitecaps FC that required it, and the odd one from an opposing player. Ordinarily, I have a watermark on my images, but I removed it for the ones to be used by Wikipedia, as I thought a note below the picture, as tradition in Wikipedia, would be fine. —Christopher Vose (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether you should or shouldn't be given attribution or not. You should. That was the way you released your work to the commons.

Our questions here are twofold:

1. Should we include your images when you expect to have your name follow the image. The opinion of project members to this point is no. There is no expectation that any Wikipedia article use your image just because you have provided it. There is an expectation that Wikipedians can choose not to use your images. There is no reason that you should force your images on any particular article, demand that we use them and expect us to credit you for them at the same time.
2. Am I being a dick, in this instance. Again, it seems that the editors who have weighed-in to this point agree that I'm not and am dealing as they would with the images.

We can't speak for other projects or how images are used in articles in those projects. There's certainly no expectation that we do things the way that the project responsible for those projects do things. I can tell you that several guidelines are not being followed in that article, but have no intention of fixing them at this point. Suffice it to say, on behalf of Wikicommons, thanks for the wonderful photographs. On my on behalf, I don't think it's necessary to use them. I'll let other editors state whether it's necessary to use them. I don't plan to remove the images at this point as that's too much of an edit war. I'll let other editors do that for now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks like a case of self-promotion by the photographer and I would seek to avoid it as I feel it goes against Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration. As such (and based on the comments above), I've removed the photos. Number 57 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe it is better to have a photograph of a football player, than no photograph of a football player (for example, Anton Peterlin). I also believe the recent photographs are more useful than old ones. For example, Jacob Lensky now has a shaved head and sadly for him, seems to be going bald anyway. The photo you've replaced it with has him with a full thick head of hair. All I asked for was the same respect to my work as other photographers who have supplied Wikipedia with photos, such as the example I listed above. —Christopher Vose (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied several photos to Wikipedia, but I have not demanded my name appears beneath them on the articles they are used on. Number 57 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not actually "the same respect as other photographers" but actually something equivalent to what looks like a one-off case; if you look though thousands of football player images on Wikipedia you are unlikely to see any such attribution on the infoboxes themselves, I have certainly never seen such attribution before and I had 20,000+ page views in December. If the project decides to reject this insistence of such attribution then I would imagine there are only two courses of action, the editor backs down or the images are ultimately not used and subsequently deleted, although I have to say I am completely neutral as to which line of action is followed. C679 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - many (semi)pro photographers upload their images under appropriate GFDL but with their name plastered all over the image name, e.g. "Thierry Henry - photograph by Joe Bloggs.jpg". Nothing we can do about that, other than rename them I suppose.... Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with how a user names the file. Most readers don't see that. It's not particularly in the spirit of things to insist that your credits be used whenever the image is used in an article and then insert the image into the infobox of player articles, which is what's happening here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue here is that some photographers ask for credit and get it, but my work is not judged to be equal to their contributions. It's also quite insulting that you'd rather use no photo or an inaccurate one than one of mine. I had heard that there was a lot of negativity on Wikipedia, but still wanted to contribute. I just wanted to be treated as well as other photographers are. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this issue, but I think the thing that is unusual here is that the photographer asking for attribution every time the image is used is the same person introducing the images to Wikipedia articles. I don't think an editors sought to use these images without attribution (which would be unethical), so I don't understand why you think you're being treated unfairly. I think good-quality images improve the articles, but I also understand that this case looks like a photographer seeking to promote his own work. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I removed your attribution at first. I didn't realize that you had released your images with that request. I simply thought that it was self-promotion. When I realized that this was the case, I removed the images to avoid the self-promotion that way. I don't think I'm treating you unfairly now that you have corrected my misunderstanding. Thanks for not suing me for copyright infringement.

You do understand that we don't have to use the photographs that you provided if we don't like the terms under which you're providing them, right? I don't think that this is at all unfair. You made the rules for how they were to be used and we are choosing not to use them because we don't like the rules. I'm not sure how that's negative. If your terms were payment of $1 per month per image, would you say that we would be required to use them that way? In football terms, if you bring the ball to a scrimmage and then state that the rules are that only you are permitted to score with it, then would you expect anyone else to play?

While I finally understood your point earlier today, and want to be clear that I'm sorry for breaking your original terms of use, I want you to understand our point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I and my work have been treated unfairly. Walter Görlitz used several of my contributions inappropriately, by deliberating removing attribution on images that required their presence. Several days later, I learned of this, corrected this oversight, and asked that he cease and desist in using my work in violation of the permissions granted for its use. Furthermore, the suggestion that I offered my work simply for my own promotion offends me. I simply wished for my contributions to be used with the same stipulations that other photographers were allowed. It has been suggested that that what may be okay for some Wikipedia pages is not okay for others. I don’t understand that. Are not all photographs created equally? But it has become clear to me that the small group of people who have responded to this, feel that it is better to provide misinformation through an old, outdated photograph, or none at all, than one with the terms that I have asked for. It’s a sad state of affairs where people can bully, intimidate, misuse, and misrepresent freely without the fear of consequences. But then again, this is the internet. As always, all I wanted to do was contribute, to provide information, in this case being a visual medium, while being afforded the same treatment as my peers. I guess that was too much to hope for. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry that I remove the attribution of your work from the captions. I explained why I did it and I trust that this issue has now been resolved.

As for the rest, you're dead wrong. We would love to use your photographs, but not under the terms your insisting on. You didn't just want to contribute, you wanted to be contribute and be widely recognized for your contribution. No one is bullying you. You brought your ball and your terms. We don't want to play under your terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I failed to address your point: "what may be okay for some Wikipedia pages is not okay for others" is completely a misrepresentation of the facts. No one has stated that if we use your image that it shouldn't be attributed to you. Let me say that again, in bold, so that you don't miss it: no one has stated that if we use your image that it shouldn't be attributed to you. What we are saying is that if you want to be attributed, a few of us don't think that we want to use your photos.

We are not saying that we don't want to use your photos because they are of poor quality. On the contrary, they are of a very high quality.

We are not saying that we don't want to use your photos because we prefer old and outdated photographs. On the contrary, updated photos are always appreciated.

A few of us who edit football articles are saying that we would prefer to use photographs from any photographer who insists on being identified in any way whenever the image is used whether that is with a watermark or with a copyright that requires attribution.

This is not treating you poorly at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some photos on Wikipedia allowed to have attribution, while mine are not? Why am I being denied something that others are given freely? And most importantly, two world wars and one world cup, England, England! (that represents the end of the issue for me regarding the accidental attribution removal) —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All images can be allowed to have attribution, including yours, if the copyright you choose states that.

You are not being denied attribution. You are being denied to have your images used because we don't like your terms.

In the words of Basil Fawlty, "Don't mention the war!". I'm Canadian and I live in your community. I wear the same team colours as you do. If I happen to meet you at a Whitecaps game, I'll gladly buy you a beer and explain this issue to you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, out of curiosity what is acceptable to this, well, I don't know what to call it, project, group? Collection of like-minded thinkers? A mark in a photo? Would that resolve the issue or is it required to be a clean photo with no marks, no credit, nothing? As if it was found on the street and scanned by an anonymous person? I also would like to know why others are allowed credit. The closest I've come to an answer is that they're a different part of Wikipedia. Hardly sounds like an appropriate answer. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tha actually makes it worse. You could use my photos and attribute them, as you (Wikipedia) have with others, but choose not to, either because of me, personally, or my work. In the case of Anton Peterlin, you would rather use no photo than to treat my work with the same respect that has been afforded to other photographers. Congratulations, I'm been given a strong reason not to contribute to wikipedia. At least until such time that my work is viewed with the same respect as other wikipedia contribtors. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented us with a false dilemma. The choices you have provided are not the only possible options. You have missed the one option that I and everyone else has stated: we don't like the terms that you have provided. I even went to great lengths to state this and disprove your two stated options.

Congratulations! You've just learned that if you try to stipulate how your images are used, you may not have them used at all. Do you want me to walk by 375 Water Street on my way to the Skytrain and see if Mr. Lenarduzzi would like to use the images instead? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wast just following precedent established by previous photographers who had contributed to Wikipedia. And incidentally, at last year's media day, the Whitecaps had used one of my photos of Martin Rennin on a cheat sheet for the media to recognise him! Since then, they've occassionally used my work in the match day booklets, web site, and at half time on big screen for those mobile phon trivia contests they run. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were following the precedent set here. No one is denying that you did that. No one is denying that you uploaded the images. No one is denying that they're good images. No one is denying that the images, when used, need to be attributed to you. No one is denying any of that. Stop saying that we are. It's a non-starter.

What you steadfastly seem to forget, or choose to ignore, or are completely incapable of comprehending is that we don't want, desire, or in any way fell compelled to use images with that sort of attribution. We are fully in our rights to refuse to use any image for any reason. In other words, you can't force us to use your images and you shouldn't feel slighted when we don't use your images. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use a lot of 'us' and 'we's. I cancertainly see that the few people that frequent this page either agree or are indfferent. But people don't contribute for editors. They contribute for viewers. You may not wish the photo, but what gives you the right to speak for any poor sod who looks at Anton Peterlin or anyone else lacking a photo? You're saying its better to have no photo. I disagree. You and a small group of fiends seem to agree. Does that make it right? If so, looks like you've got a nice little kingdom in this corner of the internet. —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I got tired of using a more neutral term since it didn't seem to me that you were reading what I wrote.

We in this case means the majority of editors who have commented here to this point don't like the terms. Two don't care one way or the other. See WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certinly took you a long time to get ired of using neutral terms. You began using 'we' in your opening paragraph. —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Another logical fallacy. This time equivocation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entire argument is the reason why we use Free images, preferably where the author releases without restriction as I have done several times over because I frankly don't care and am not seeking to promote either my real name, or any business venture or personal vested interest - only factual and accurate representations of whatever topic I am dealing with. Christopher - your attribution is in the summary of the file. You should be listed as the Author, and your Permission should state that the image, when used in any further reproduction of the webpage, should be attributed to you. However the correct way for this attribution to take place would differ depending on the medium. For instance, a book may have a simple summary of image rights at the front or back of the book and the relevant artist. You generally do not get to stipulate that your name has to be presented in a particular fashion any more than you have any right to demand your name be presented in a particular font - and if you did attempt to force such a policy on any subsequent usage of your image, then the publisher could simply opt not to reproduce the image at all.

Here Gorlitz is siding with the option of not reproducing your image at all, rather than have a directly un-notable attribution on biography of a living person.

The instance of "Moti Kakayon" being referenced to on the main page of the article is actually incorrect policy. I can't see any justification for leaving an un-notable name on a notable persons page. If you look at the pages that the image is used on the related foreign wiki articles you will see that actually they do not actively refer to the photographer on the main page. [1][2] Koncorde (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen numerous examples of it over the years, but it's a hard thing to track down. It's not like it's a term that can be searched eaily. As for notability, when does one become notable. I've had my work published in newspapers such as The Vancouver Sun, The Now, on club web pages such as Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Los Angeles Galaxy, CD Chivas USA, Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders FC, Middlesbrough FC, Wellington Phoenix FC, in club booklets given out on match days, by over a dozen universities in a variety of mediums, online news agencies, among other places. I don't know what I am at this stage. Am I to photography as Anton Peterlin is to football? Am I less? Am I more? —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not notable by wikipedia standards any more than I am (and I've been published in The Guardian, PC Zone Magazine etc in a professional capacity). The only direct reference to you would really be this promotional page [3]. Having your photos reproduced does not confer notability unless the photo is in itself something notable (and not merely of a notable person).

Other examples would not help your case, they would also be wrong to be included in wikipedia in that format or with any other watermark or notice of copyright or ownership. It invalidates the whole principle of being able to reproduce a free service and (in my experience) would be removed. Koncorde (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, in Wikipedia terms, defined. Specicially, about people. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw my two cents in: Christopher Vose, you don't really have the right to insist that your name appears every time the image is used. Your name appears when users go to the image description page, and that is enough per the licence you have uploaded the image under. – PeeJay 11:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If an image, hosted by one source, in this case Wikimedia Commons, has a description indicating that it is my work, embedding it on another Web Site, such as Wikipedia, would be usage without attribution. No different than ABC embedding an image link to a photo on ESPN. —Christopher Vose (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on one of the images I read: "This file is from Wikimedia Commons and may be used by other projects." In the Summary section there is a link: Reusing this file. It seems that two editors here seem to think that this means reusing outside of the various Wikipedia projects and the wording on the English link page seems to confirm this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload on Wikimedia Commons but you don't want the images used on any other website, what was the point in uploading to Commons in the first place? – PeeJay 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commons article on "Credit lines" is quite clear in what is expected. Its final section in particular relating to attribution only referring to the actual file, not its presentation on web pages. Koncorde (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is now edit warring to remove the images (and in some cases other changes). I don't want to edit war with the editor so if others feel it's important, they can revert the changes that are being made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let him take his images, just repair any other amendments. It is clear the important thing to him is the attribution to him in a prominent position on the page, and not the contribution to wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the commons is intent on keeping is half-dozen images. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Firstly, yes, this was handled atrociously. Secondly, so far as the Wikipedia project is concerned, we have WP:CREDITS, which states that our position on credit for copylefted images is that it should only be included on the image page itself. Any concerns over that guideline should have been referred to the guideline's talk page, rather than brought to the peanut gallery and treated as a personal spat. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked a similar question here some months ago, but no one answered, so I'll give it another try: the Copa América article here on en.wiki reads The tournament was previously known as sup Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones (South American Championship of National Teams). South American Championship of Nations was the official English language name. Now, let's focus on Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones: if you take any South American source from the Sudamericano era, it will read "Campeonato Sudamericano de Football". For example, see here, the official Peruvian FA book on the 1927 edition: "Sudamericano de Football". I don't want to bore you linking all the sources, you can take a look at the AFA annual Memorias here (you can also check page numbers here). Additional sources can be found on the online version of the Jornal do Brasil on Google News, on 1926 issues of the Chilean magazine Los Sports, and others (if you want a more detailed list, I can provide other sources). What I think happened was: user JorgeGG writes "de Selecciones" on es.wiki. Everyone copies it, the mistake spreads worldwide. No one probably looked for South American original sources, they took for granted that es.wiki had the right answer, something that, in this case, was not true. You should correct en.wiki's article (we already did on it.wiki) from de Selecciones to de Football (not to mention the "official English name" issue). Could you please give me a feedback? I think this is quite a relevant issue. Many thanks. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should change it in the article on en.wiki, with the edit summary "see talk for rationale" and then copy-paste your explanation here to a new section on Talk:Copa América. My impression of this project, is that when no-one replies to you, it is because no-one disagrees with you (or have no clue :P ) Mentoz86 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have edited the article, adding a partial list of sources to explain the reason of the edit. I hope we have solved this problem. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the article to its current name from the full version of the name. The article has tons of links to the old name and it would take too long to do it manually. Is there anyway to have a bot do this? I have no previous experience doing something like this so wasn't sure where to go to ask. TonyStarks (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use WP:AWB for these kind of edits. GiantSnowman 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only links that need fixing are double redirects, i.e. redirect pages that link to the old name, like ES Tunis. There is a bot that does this, but I don't know how often it runs; personally, I do fix the double redirects myself manually if I move a page. If you choose to do it yourself, what you do is: go the the old name page and click on What links here in the LH sidebar; any page that shows up in the list with (redirect page) after it needs editing to redirect to the new page instead (there are only 6).

Anything linking directly to the old name will just redirect to the new one in the normal way (see WP:NOTBROKEN). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot's been round and fixed the double redirects, so there's nothing left for you to do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been discussions re this article as to whether it should include stats for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. It seems this was not organized by UEFA so some view this as 'not an official European tournament'. It is recognized by FIFA however. Anyone any views on including stats for this tournament or excluding?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Granted, this tournament was not organized by The FA, UEFA nor FIFA, yet the latter does consider it a "Mayor title". Its being the official predecessor to the UEFA Cup, which is mentioned, does add to the merit of including it. Now, for consistency purposes, this decision will also affect the Football records in Spain and Football records in Italy articles, since both also include ICFC, while the other winning countries (Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Hungary) do not have "Football records" articles. Finally, this issue has been long debated int the Spain article and the consensus was to keep it. I vote to also keep it here. There is already a note saying: "Although not organized by UEFA, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is included here under UEFA as it is the official predecessor to the UEL."--Coquidragon (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just three days to go until the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations and I am reminded of last year's article improvement drive on the nations involved in the cup initiated by User:Bar Code Symmetry.

The goal is to get all articles to C-class (except South Africa, Ghana and Togo, which are already at C-class). The drive ends on 10 February, the last day of the tournament. If you enjoy improving national football teams, then consider joining the national teams task force. Below is a list of teams in the 2013 ACoN with class icons.:

Ideally, I'm looking for four people or more to help (at least one person per group, I'll be the fourth if needed). Please add your name and your chosen group below, if participating. Change the class icons when appropriate, and strike finished teams. Happy editing, C679 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise that task force still existed. Hack (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to seek help from Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement. GiantSnowman 17:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a realistic goal could be to get the South Africa article past B-Class. Hack (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. I have brought the Burkina Faso article up to start-class, so there are no longer any stubs. Thanks, C679 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY STARTS BATMAN! But seriously that is a lot of starts. This should be very fun. I might not be available to help with this one as much but for people who will have time and considering... trust me. This will interest you very much. Lots of knowledge to be gained from doing this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four team articles per person should be fun! I've made many improvements to Ethiopia over the past few weeks. I don't know where to go from here on Ethiopia, its now pretty close to or at C-level. There is not much else that can be added as they have never qualified for World Cup and this is the first time they have qualified for ACN since 1982. If you guys can take a look and tell me what parts need improvement, I would appreciate it. I was concentrating on the prose. I could use help and criticism improving the formatting and tables. Zambia, hmmmm... let see. OMG! It's almost empty. What have I gotten myself into? — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a C. Nice one. -Koppapa (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't contain my excitement! The Zambia vs Ethiopia match has ended (refresh) A historic event in African Football. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 'List of foreign players playing in [LEAGUE]' are generally considered notable; what about 'List of [NATIONALITY] playing abroad'? e.g. List of Israeli footballers playing overseas, List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers, List of Estonian expatriate footballers... GiantSnowman 11:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indonesian expatriate footballers ended as a unanimous delete back in 2011. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, List of X nationality expatriates might be notable, while List of Y nationality expatriates might not be notable. (this and this is a good example.) WP:LISTN states that such lists are notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and I believe List of Norwegian expatriate footballers would pass WP:LISTN (in addition to List of Norwegian expatriate football managers, given our recent success in the Football Championship :P) as long as Norwegian sources are "independent". I don't know about other obscure countries, but there should be sources for those somewhere. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, agree that they can be notable if the subject has received significant third-party coverage - which none of these have. PROD/AfD I go... GiantSnowman 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates don't get much traffic, so I just thought I'd ask here if anyone would like to contribute to a discussion I started. Please head to Template talk:English football seasons. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline for dealing with edits made to replace Spain with Catalonia? I just marked it as vandalism since I'm tired of seeing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mentioning the region in the prose constitutes nationalism or vandalism. For example, if I were writing an article on a player from Basildon, England I'd open the prose with "Born in Basildon, Essex", and if I were writing an article for a player from Barcelona I'd write "Born in Barcelona, Catalonia". If someone were replacing Spain with Catalonia in the infobox I'd agree with that constituting nationalism, but not this. As a compromise, could the text in the article you refer to be expanded to include both region and country, so "Born in Sant Carles de la Ràpita, Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain"? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar shitstorm happened a while ago over the use of the term "Northern Irish" in biographies - nationalism really is a pain in the derrière. If I remember right, the solution was to only use "Northern Irish" if there was a third-party source using that particular term. If I can find a link to this discussion, I'll post it here. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Northern Ireland isn't in Ireland at all, whereas Catalonia was certainly part of Spain the last time I looked. In the case of the particular diff Walter highlights I don't see anything wrong with it, c.f. Matty's comment regarding Basildon, Essex; only if the edit appears to be presenting Catalonia as a separate nation should we really care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I come to you today to promote my ideas of how lesser known football players/teams etc pages should stay on Wikipedia no matter how well known they are. Right, you admins/moderators or whatever seem to take a dim view on the lower leagues of football and the players that are associated with them. Me, I beg to differ, I find them very interesting and recently I have been making pages for players which you may have not heard of, but others may have and it might be interesting for them but all of these pages are being taken down for no real reason. I am quite frankly shocked an astounded by your guidelines which state something along the lines of "They have a lack of importance" surely any new page or edit benefits Wikipedia. I mean, I don't get it, It's not like Wikipedia have a cap on the maximum amount of pages that are created so why are you requesting to delete me page my pages and perhaps other peoples pages, all they are doing is benefiting Wikipedia and not causing any harm whatsoever. I hope you admins can change the guidelines to make any football players/teams etc. no matter what league (maybe let pages/edits concerning football as low as the English Isthmian Premier stay on Wikipedia and not get taken down or blocked).

I would also like to point out that I am deeply surprised at how you don't accept new pages about the League Of Ireland players. I created Sean Gannon who is a young but established League Of Ireland footballer and the page remarkably got taken down! Now, Sean Gannon was requested for deletion by a user called 'Ariconte' and no offense to he/her but with a bit of research it seemed like he/she didn't have a clue about Football (this is not a personal attack at all, I respect Ariconte, I'm just pointing out it seemed like he/she didn't have much experience in football) so I wasn't sure if Ariconte even new what he/she was deleting. However with some reassurance from user 'GiantSnowman' and realising that Ariconte had been an admin for 8 years, I cautiously took the deletion on the chin and did not contest the block knowing I would get know where so this is why I came here to promote my case. I am hoping admins like 'GiantSnowman' and the 'Rambling Man' and possibly 'Writ Keeper' who I have grown fond of recently, I going to support my case here as I think I have a valid case as Wikipedia is going no where in terms of football with this current appalling state of the lower leagues of football and especially lesser known footballers.

So, Admins I am hoping you will agree with my and join my plea to change the guidelines of editing and creating new pages of lesser known footballers and teams etc and making it so these less notable players and other edits to lesser known football leagues STAY on Wikipedia and do NOT get deleted. I am pretty sure that the 'GiantSnowman' (who by the way is a top guy who takes an interest in less notable players, like me, - for example Exeter City player 'Elliot Chamberlain') likes his football and will hopefully see where I am coming from and user 'Rambling Man' (who was the person who told me to come here and present me case) will understand where I'm coming from. I hope all these keen football editors who are admins will support my case and take action. There will be those people who take a dim view on the lower leagues of football and they will just brush past this case but for those who care about football and its lower league players etc. thank you for reading my case and I hope you support my case and will take action.Boomage (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short - regardless of what level of football somebody plays (World Cup final or semi-pro non-leaguer or whatever!) as long as they meet WP:GNG they will be considered notable. GNG says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Let me/us know what lower-level player(s) you think meet the GNG and we can help find sources and improve the article. It could also be an idea to create a draft in your userspace so that you can work on it & improve it before releasing it into the WikiWilds. e.g. if you wanted to create an article on a player called John Smith, then you could create a version at User:Boomage/John Smith. GiantSnowman 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is being pointing out has been a problem here for a long time and has yet to be solved. Us old timer (those of us here before polices were rampant) that understand our main goal here at Wiki are frustrated with the growing exclusionary polices here. We have a big problem when it comes to inclusion - on one hand we have our policy on notability that has gotten more and more exclusionary - this is in direct contrast with our mission statements saying "We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" that is seen at the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation main pages. Not all is perfect here - all you can do is try an conform to our misguided policy on this and educate yourself on how to combat this problem - see - Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion. If you have any questions pls just ask me.Moxy (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need more articles on English lower league teams and players. But it's ridiculous someone like Sean Gannon can't have an article when every League 2 player can. Adam4267 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Gannon meet GNG? GiantSnowman 22:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. But do the majority of League 2 players meet GNG? Adam4267 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No but they play in a fully professional league. Anyway I am surprised at how the League of Ireland is not even considered fully-pro. I barely follow Irish football but when I do, I see a league that is, to me, a lot more professional than leagues we have listed as fully-pro like the Myanmar Premier League or the Indian I-League. If someone would just take 10 minutes out of their life to prove how the League of Ireland is fully-pro then we would not have this problem which seems to now occur every month now with Irish players. If we can prove that the Myanmar Premier League is fully-pro then surely we can prove Ireland to be professional. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fully-pro. The thing I disagree with is that, we have already made exceptions basically saying we'll completely and utterly disregard and ignore GNG if players who aren't notable play in a fully-pro league. And the majority of players who have never played higher than League 2 in England don't meet GNG. The thing is we're never going to get League 2 removed because the nunber of English editors on here wouldn't agree to it. So leagues in which players have similar GNG should be included IMO. I would say the LoI is slightly more notable internationally and obviously it is the top flight league in Ireland which is an English speaking country. The only difference is the amount of money players earn. And I don't see how that effects GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish league is definitely not fully-pro - though I would rather see it be granted 'automatic' notability status then the myriad of stubs we see from Burma, Malaysia etc. Do the majority of League 2 players currently meet GNG? No. Could they? Most definitely. That's what WP:NFOOTBALL, imperfect as it may be, is getting at - this player plays in a league of a certain standard and so it is presumed they will have the coverage to back up notability. GiantSnowman 23:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that reasoning though. The majority of League 2 players don't meet GNG. Therefore they aren't notable and shouldn't have an article on wikipedia. The reasoning that "they might be notable in the future" isn't good enough IMO and I've seen it shot down on AFD discussions before. Certainly on players who could go on to be much more notable than your average League 2 player. Whilie I'm not against these players having articles, I think it's only fair that Leagues who meet a similar standard of GNG have the same rules applied. Otherwise it's just nationalistic bias towards countries with more vocal editors. And it's not just England, the Scottish First Division meets GNG now and I don't think thr League of Ireland is less notable than either the Scottish First Division or English League 2. Just look at Shamrock_Rovers_F.C.#First-team_squad. Almost every player has an article anyway. They're one of the bigger clubs in the league but it still illustrates the point. Adam4267 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,Firstly, Moxy I think you are missing the point, I know you can't just put anyone on Wikipedia like obviously you cant't put me on Wikipedia! We are talking about professional association footballers here not just anyone and I am campaigning for these footballers and leagues to be able to be allowed on Wikipedia. I noticed someone else was campaigning to get the K league allowed on Wikipedia and you remarkably rejected his case, you can't keep rejecting us, directing me to all this WIkipedia Commons and the Sandbox rubbish, No, I am campaigning to get lower league footballers/teams etc to be put on the Main Wikipedia site where EVRYONE can view it, I'm intrested in all this Wikipedia Commons and Sandbox rubbish. Now, GiantSnowman, I appreciate you are glad that I'm campaigning but I am slightly disappointed how you have been a tad blunt in your're response and playing it by the book (AKA playing safe and its looks unlikely so far that your're going to take action) I presume you are an admin and why don't you get follow admins involved, You and I seem to know football well, why don't you bring fellow colleagues involved and help support my campaign as think I have a very, very valid and this could be the breakthrough that Wikipedia needs to kick start its football on the less notable leagues. Thank you for reading. Regards Boomage (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody being an admin does not matter; if you want to change anything on Wikipedia then you need wide consensus reached through discussion and agreement. We have discussed footballer notability time & time again and nothing has really changed. It is something that certainly needs looking - however, any change is likely to make the rules stricter, not looser. GiantSnowman 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomage, professional footballers do generally get kept. It's those which have only played on a semi-professional or amateur basis and who have not been subject of news coverage that are eligible for deletion. It seems like you are a little confused saying "We are talking about professional association footballers here not just anyone and I am campaigning for these footballers and leagues to be able to be allowed on Wikipedia". Such players are on Wikipedia. If your Sean Gannon is a professional footballer and he has played in a fully professional league (or at senior level for a national team) then he is eligible for an article. Extending notability to guys who play football at the weekends as well as being a milkman between training sessions is not going to happen, with good reason. C679 23:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason? Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. C679 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam4267 I don't think you have done enough research in to the lower tiers of English Football, it is appalling (no offence guys), there is no information on there career, references out of date, mistakes are being made and there is a significant lack of information on these players and nothing being done about hence my campaign. Also, I agree, Sean Gannon should have 100% stayed and once again it brings me back to point about does Ariconte know what he/she is doing? he/she seems to have no football knowledge however, I could be wrong and I acknowledge that. This is no personal attack whatsoever on Ariconte, I respect him/her but It's just unclear if he/she put any research in before putting Sean Gannon up for deletion when he clearly should stay as he has League Of Ireland experience. Thank you for Reading. Regards Boomage (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone - anyone - should do research on notability before putting up for deletion, per WP:BEFORE. GiantSnowman 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this was done in this case, the nominator would have found very little online in the way of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the opinion that any player who has played more than, say, 50 games in a top-flight division that isn't fully pro should qualify - but then, they will usually pass WP:GNG at that point. The same would happen for a player who had played a similar amount, or more, for a team in a grey area league (ie, a non top-flight one), like the Blue Square Bet Premier. But I'm well aware this would never wash. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really see the point of this discussion, what is the difference between "lesser known" and "does not pass GNG"? If there are sufficient, significant, reliable third party sources documenting a given player's career then regardless of the level that they play they are notable and can have their own article.

For example, a player at a very low league plays for a team that regularly throughout his career qualifies for at least the first round of the FA cup and he scores goals that knock out league teams. There are likely to be numerous sources documenting this and so there is a good chance he passes GNG. However, his team mates, although they played in the games are unlikely to have received such specific coverage and so would not. The level of the player is irrelevant to whether they should have their own article, as is whether they are professional or not, it is all about notability.

A player playing professionally in a fully professional league and in the top tiers of this league is much more likely to be inherently notable, but there is no lower band at which there would be no way a player could have an article simply because of the level they play at, it's just that it is increasingly unlikely that sufficient sources of the type mentioned above would exist for any such player. If anyone is concerned about having their work deleted, they can create the article in their user page and ask for it to be assessed before being promoted to the main space. If you can find sufficient sources then there won't be a problem. I guess in summary, I am saying a player cannot be "lesser known" whilst at the same time being notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that some editors simply don't bother looking for sources of information and will solely vote based on the fact it's a lower league player - in fact, I've seen one say that he/she can't be bothered to check if the article passed GNG or not (in this case, it did) because it failed NFOOTY - which is the wrong way around. Lesser known is kind of ambiguous - but a player can be lesser-known, but still notable (for example, how many League 2 players could people name, without being fans of a League 2 club? And that's a fully pro league.) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO if a player can't be proved to meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG then they are simply too obscure to merit inclusion, it's as simple as that. Players in the Isthmian League Premier Division (as suggested by Boomage) are not generally known to anyone outside their own team's fanbase (unless they happen to have played at a much higher level, in which case they'd pass either NFOOTY or GNG anyway) and I don't believe players at that level really merit a place on WP.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomage I will remind you that it states at the top of this page to be polite, accusing experienced Wikipedians of not knowing what their doing isn't productive. In relation to this conversation it seems to be all about serving your agenda (Boomage's comment at AfD:"Do you know what, why don't you delete it! It took me an hour to make but I understand I can't say much to contest it. That is why as you may have seen I am trying to get admins on my side to get change these guidelines to allow less known footballers and less notable teams to STAY on Wikipedia and NOT get deleted. Hopefully, in the near future, Jordan Clement will be back on Wikipedia in no time at all."), not about improving our guidelines. Getting footy admins on your side all of whom currently disagree with you doesn't create a consensus we have 100's of members. As for the League of Ireland isn't fully pro, as an Irishman I wish it was. The case could have been made in the early 2000's that it possibly was but certainly not now, the league has gone backwards despite the clubs progressing further in European football. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, another interminable discussion about the GNG and our somewhat over-strictly applied rules on professionalism. The fact is that while we have the odd edge case of a notable player being deleted due to strict interpretation of FPL, the line is roughly where it should be: most players who aren't on the list exempted by FPL simply don't have enough non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to hope to write remotely comprehensive and accurate biographies on them (as demanded by BLP), while most of those who are exempted do (including Football League Two, with an average attendance higher than several of Europe's top-flight professional leagues). We can argue about where exactly the bar should be, but the general consensus is that we've gotten it about right and that makes it vanishingly unlikely that we'll radically change it in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means express your opinion on the matter (and on the prospect of yet another one of these discussions), but please don't claim a "general consensus" when you know full well that there is precious little.

The only consensus that I'm aware of on this issue is that the current guideline is easy to apply – in the absence of something which better reflects the GNG, NFOOTY does at least simplify most deletion discussions. But there is considerable disagreement over whether we should be putting simplicity ahead of a more considered approach. In my experience, those who see player articles as a respository of statistics tend to take one view, those who think that an article on a living person should be able to become a viable biography tend to take another, assuming no other bias (fans of specific teams or leagues included/excluded under the current system). And again, in my experience the majority take the view that the current system is outdated. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, All your views are deserved to be taken in to account but it really does astound me the view you take on this situation. 'DUCKISJAMMY' OK, maybe I shouldn't have asked admins to support me but, honestly, do you all disagree with me?! are you all Americans that generally don't care about the lower leagues of ENGLISH football?, and you say that there's no references for players that are not considered 'important' enough for a page. Well how come I got a significant enough of references for Jordan Clement (my deleted page) from big sports websites, and I can guarantee you that I could get a good amount of references for a player in the Isthmian Premier. I just get the impression that all you admin's don't really follow English football and are just Americans that just cannot be bothered to allow players from lower league because it would be too much effort. How can you say if someone scored in the FA cup from a lower league team, deserves a page but someone on the same team who didn't score, doesn't deserve one. That is unbelievable how you can say that, maybe take a look at you're comment again and re think your reply, I rub my eyes every time I read that post and check if you have really said that, that is how much it astounds me. User 'Arsenal kid700' stated that 'someone should just take 10 minutes of their time to change the guidelines to allow the League of Ireland on Wikipedia' and I really get that impression from you admins. One of you 100 members must stand up and be counted and not just play it by the book and agree with all your fellow admins who don't have a clue what they are on about and, quite frankly, don't know much about English football and probably live in America. Change the guidelines to allow leagues from the English football that are not as well known (I suggested allow leagues as low as the Isthmian Premier). 'DUCKISJAMMY' I see you noted that you are an Irishman, well, I doubt you know much about English Football in the lower leagues, so its a bit bias if 'DUCKISJAMMY' is disagreeing with me because he couldn't care less about my case. I want someone who I know takes an interest in the lower tiers of the English leagues to argue against me (GiantSnowman for example) not someone who doesn't know anything about the English Leagues. However, I respect and am interested user 'DUCKISJAMMY' that you are keen on the League Of Ireland and I will be happy to see that league become 'professional' on Wikipedia. User 'adam4267' I am pretty sure you don't take an interest in football as you wrote a blunt comment to me and you seemed to shovel 'arsenal kid700' comment right back down his throat and not even take in to consideration. Listen, I could protest more and name so many more unanswered questions in which none of you have answered but I'm not in the mood and it will save you from answering these very valid questions in which I have to ask you admins. Thanks for Reading Boomage (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomage - please do not make assumptions about people based on their nationality / location. Doing so will help get you taken more seriously. GiantSnowman 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who regularly watches Isthmian Premier Division football (largely Bury Town and Lowestoft Town), I do not believe that players at that level are worthy of articles - they are simply not notable enough (even though there may be a lot of material out there about them on Non League Daily or in local newspapers). I think the current guideline on players is the best we're going to get - professional football seems to be a very fair cut-off as far as notability is concerned, with the odd exception like Sonny Pike. Number 57 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"How can you say if someone scored in the FA cup from a lower league team, deserves a page but someone on the same team who didn't score, doesn't deserve one"....I'm pretty sure nobody's ever said that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's refering to Fenix Down's comments. C679 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomage our nationalities are irrelevant, but had you bothered to check a lot of the users who voted in favour of deleting Jordan Clement are English as are a lot of people who responded to you here, so I don't know where you got the idea we're all American. I also suggest you cease accusing or implying an editor who has helped promote a number of football articles to good article status of not knowing what he's doing, it's not in anyway helpful. Additionally as ChrisTheDude said above we don't create articles for footballers from lower league teams based on the fact they scored in the FA cup nor has anyone to my knowledge suggested doing so. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying: I am American. Born and bred. Still does not mean I do not care about the lower leagues. Anyway It does not even matter. My father is fully English and does not care about the lower leagues. Many English people dont care about it, so dont assume on nationalities. We all have things we like a follow and things we dont. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firstly, user 'ChrisTheDude' I think you'll find that user 'Fenix Down' said something along those lines. Secondly, its good to see user 'number 57' that you take an interest in one of the bottom leagues of English football and I respect you for that. Finally someone who follows the game in England. Perhaps you are right in this case I have took my campaign too far. However, It was only a suggestion I was making about the Isthmian Premier but there is no reason, in my opinion, that leagues like the Ryman league should not get recognition of any sort and are not deemed 'professional' enough to be allowed on Wikipedia. Who do you support then 'number 57', is it Ipswich? or is it one of the teams you noted above? I am interested. Finally, user 'GiantSnowman' I apologize about my comments concerning the location/nationality of the people I was noting. But all I meant was that I don't see any one who follows the English game here (obviously, apart from yourself and number 57) therefore, it would be bias to contest my campaign as they don't know enough about the lower leagues of English football. Thank you for reading Boomage (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great entertainment, absolutely great. Having specialists or enthusiasts for particular leagues can be beneficial but WP:NPOV is a big influence on our articles. Wikipedia:Fancruft is not sought after, regardless of where our editors are from or what their personal preference of teams/leagues are. So do you have any valid questions, Boomage? Thanks, C679 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point earlier that there might, and I stress that very much, be a case for GNG if there was a lower league player who made a habit of scoring goals in the FA Cup which knocked out league teams (and I meant by that that he did it pretty much every season) as he would doubtless have a significant amount of coverage in national newspapers and the like over a long period of time, whereas his teammates would only be at best mentioned tangentially and so would not meet GNG and so would not have articles. This was an attempt by me to highlight how GNG trumps WP:NFOOTY whilst also illustrating the lengths a player would have to go to achieve GNG the lower down the league he plays. Boomage has just read what he wants into it and thinks I said if one player scroes one goal against league opposition in the FA Cup then he definitely meets GNG and should have an article but if he doesn't then he definitely does not.

To be honest, this debate is simply Boomage saying "I'm interested in this area therefore we should have articles on it", whilst everyone else merely points to the accepted notability guidelines. Boomage, if you genuinely feel that there is a given lower league footballer out there who would pass GNG, but you are worried for whatever reason that project members would jump all over it and delete it (although I have never seen that happen from anyone here) why not create the article in your userspace and then link to if here. This isn't just for unregistered editors and you will get feedback on whether an aritcle passes GNG from a source you might consider a little more neutral. That way you can see whether its just people on the project being too strict or whether there is a far wider consensus regarding notability. I am afraid I think you will find a similar response however as your rationale can't just be applied to English footballers but must be applied to all footballers across the globe. Still, I've been dying to get started on those tenth tier Swedish League players, so let me know if you have any luck. Fenix down (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I will continue this debate tomorrow, Fenix Down I was appreciating you're lecture until you made that, quite frankly, insulting comment/joke at the end - "Still, I've been dying to get started on those tenth tier Swedish League players, so let me know if you have any luck". You were (I'm not trying to be rude) out of order and I found your joke quite offensive actually. Whether you were trying to show off to your fellow admins or were just cracking joke is another question but I thought there was no need for that joke as you wrote a very impressive response to me, shame you ruined it be that insulting joke at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a debate ongoing, to address your initial point "Wikipedia is going no where in terms of football with this current appalling state of the lower leagues of football and especially lesser known footballers", Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and the appalling state of lesser known footballers is due to the corresponding appalling state on these individuals outside of Wikipedia. You also seem to misunderstand the role of admins, as their opinion on notability on an individual case carries no more weight than any other user. C679 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's so offensive? Yes it was tongue in cheek but why should you be given special dispensation to write about players in the lower leagues of one country and not allow the same of some one who wants to write about similar players that interest them in a other country? Personally whenever I see a lower league player up for deletion I apply what I like to call the Noel Bailie principle. This is a player who fails wp:nfooty on every count , a former semi pro playing in a non pro league who never got even one cap. However he did play over 1000 games for one club and is widely referenced in national newspapers and the like for this achievement. This is the sort of thing someone who fails wp:nfooty has to have done to pass gng in my eyes as the lower you go the wider the pyramid so the more you have to do to be notable. Fenix down (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down hasn't said anything insulting, yes sarcastic comments are generally unhelpful but he was just reflecting user's growing impatience with you. He gave you good advise about using userspace drafts so I suggest you take that on-board. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the assumptions expressed by the original poster here, this isn't worth pursuing any further, folks. (for what it's worth to anyone reading the archives, the majority of the most active WP:FOOTY participants are British, and most don't support top-flight teams.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as Arsenalkid said above even if a user is not from England, it doesn't make them less knowledgeable about English football then an English person or you Boomage. For example the majority of my football edits relate to Scottish football but by your rationale (Boomage) I'm not entitled to an opinion about it because I'm Irish. I have to concur with Chris this conversation has run it's course, it started out as serving one person's agenda, then turned into the undermining of users & now into some nationalist row. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism? Did someone mention that players in some Catalonia league should be notable because Catalonia is a country by itself to them?--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AK you knew what I meant, no need the make the situation worse. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why but for some reason I meant for that to be more "comical" than taken as something serious. Looking back now though I can see how that was not comical at all.

Changing the subject slightly, did anyone see Bradford's win tonight against Aston Villa? Going the Bantams. Hopefully, they can win in the final, it would be amazing if they did, they could get Europa league football.Boomage (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removes informations and adds wrong informations to a lot of articles about football (not just in English Wikipedia - look at the global contributions) from the same IP range

Last week:

• 92.36.208.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.208.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.219.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.219.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.223.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And now he came back as 92.36.219.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The same vandal seems to use a second range:

• 31.176.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.176.248.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some administrators who are members of this project and can look at all edits which where made from this ranges should keep an eye on it. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can request a WP:RANGEBLOCK (don't have the skills myself and they're often controversial). GiantSnowman 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a range block should be the last resort because there could be blocked other persons who edit from this ranges. Maybe the vandal could be scared off when the edits from his ranges are supervised by some administrators. Today he returned as 31.176.252.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both ranges were blocked after I reported the recent vandalism [4] [5] --Yoda1893 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the vandal returned today as 109.175.53.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There were also two vandal edits (with the same mode of vandalism) from this third range before: 109.175.60.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this template on an AfD.

Seems to have a lot on it, and most of it seems to fail WP:NFOOTY to me. Do you lot agree? Govvy (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be worth creating List of football clubs in Iran, listing them there, and redirecting. GiantSnowman 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at some of the clubs on here when they were up for AfD. I couldn't see anything on RSSSF to indicate that any of those clubs competed in the National Cup and so it would seem that none of these contributions (of which unfortunately there seem to be a lot) are notable. The only caveat I would add is that I am not sure whether RSSSF is showing the full season's results for the cup or just the latter stages. The only refs in the whole piece seem to be in season articles, but they are in Farsi so I am not able to tell what they refer to. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign footballers in the Iranian Premier League I thought this an interesting article, but the problem is lack of citation which is also clarification if these footballers are playing in Iran. Iran Pro League has some citation, might be able to use citations for the other articles. On Iranian football league system in the table there is Provincial Leagues with two links too, Isfahan Province League and Fars Province League. I don't see why those stubs are needed, it looks like they will remain stubs as it will be very hard gather information to fill those two articles. Shall we AfD them? Govvy (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching an anon edit the Template:MLS stadiums map for the past few weeks. I have observed it in three browsers in Windows 7 at home, the same three at work, and on my Mac at home. The anon's edits seem to place the text of several stadium names over the city points while mine don't. Is it a browser resolution thing or something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the other editor's preferred version, Gillette Stadium is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, nowhere near Boston. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering. Why is this template needed? Preferably it should be based on club and not stadium, right? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's common with North American sports articles. In the MLS, two teams share one stadium. I know that happens in some European leagues as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 teams sharing one stadium. Thats laughable. India has 12 clubs who share 3 stadiums. But on the subject: Everything looks fine, including the resolution but the location of the wording for Dicks Sporting Goods park can be placed better. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the previous revision? How does it look?

I did notice that the "k" in "park" for Dicks was just a bit too far to the right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous revision is worse. The reader would think that the Revolution made a new state-of-the-art underwater stadium... only the Qatari's can make out-of-this-world stadiums. Also in the previous revision is was more harder to read some stadiums as some names were now over the dot. For the current revision I would just write "DSG Park" instead of the whole thing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange because I'm using Internet Explorer 8 and they don't overlap. I have my zoom level(bottom right hand side in IE8) set to 125%. What I have noticed is when I set my zoom level to greater than 125%, the text is larger but it also makes the page unreadable because all the standard infomation on the left side of the page(Wikipedia logo, Main page, Contents, etc..)and on the top of the page(Talk, Sandbox, Preferences, etc..) are written over each other, which causes problems when you're reading it. You might want to check if your browser zoom levels are set too high. Roberto221 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all strange. IE8 is marginally better than IE7, which is to say, not particularly good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with using a made-up initialism - do we have a source that calls the stadium "DSG Park"? If not, I'm not sure we should use it. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google has over 21,000 hits including Fox News and NBC, so that's the WP:RS taken care of. C679 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me; presumably if we have a line of the stadium's article stating "sometimes referred to as DSG Park" (or similar) with one/both of those articles as a reference, then that's good to go. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there was already a redirect in place and I don't know whether a reference is strictly required. However I have modified the lead and inserted the references so I guess you can continue building your maps. Thanks, C679 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if all players of Zaire who played at 1974 FIFA World Cup in West Germany had won the 1974 AfCON? I have seen a lot of them won the title with the same coach, but I don't know for all.--FCNantes72 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The names below aren't 100% as it's from a Congolese newspaper. It should be obvious who the players are though. Some names are in order, some aren't. It's a minefield.

TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more specifically verifiable source (or sources) than "from a Congolese newspaper", seeing as you're using the info to create another navbox? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11v11.com supports Mwanza Mukomo, Robert Muamba Kazadi, Emmanuel Etepe Kakoko, Mambwene Mana, Maku Mayanga, Mulamba N'Daye, Muntantu Kidumu, Mafu Kibonge, Raymond Tshimen Bwanga, Boba Lobilo, Ilunga Mwepu, Kabamba Nico, Kembo uba Kembo, Laurent Kalala N'Goie, Mafuila Mavuba, Dimbi Tubilandu, Tati Bungu, Wamunda Tschinabu, Muntantu Kidumu, Ngoyi, Marra, Ekofo Mbungu and Mwanza Mukombo having appeared in the 74 AFCON finals.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

The table above is created using information from Radio Okapi and was copied to a blog here, it's a list of people who the Congolese government are offering a civil service pension to because of their involvement in the competitions. "Tati Bungu" should be "Taty Mbungu". TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link reveals the following 24 names: Robert Kazadi Mwamba, Rio Ricky Mavuba Mampwila Sundu, Albert Mukombo Mwanza, Martin Tshinabu wa Munda, Albert Tubilandu Dimbi, Paul Kalambay Otepa, Lobilo Boba, Jean Kembo Uba Kembo, Joseph Mwepu Ilunga, Mana Mambwene, Kabasu Babo, Tex Mbungu Ekofo, NGoyi Kafula, Raymond Bwanga Tshinemu, Ndongala Diabonza, Kilasu Massamba, Ndaye Mulamba, Emmanuel Kakoko Etepe, Pouce NTumba Kalala, Mwape Mialo, Joseph Kibonge Mafu, Taty Mbungu, Albert Kidumu Matantu, Adelard Mayanga Maku.

The following are not mentioned on 11v11 from the above Kabasu Babo, Kilasu Massamba, Mwape Mialo, Ndongala Diabonza, Paul Kalambay Otepa, Pouce NTumba Kalala TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted that you had sources. But the point is, if you're creating a navbox that isn't just a reformat of sourced information from a competition squad lists page, the sources need to be included with that navbox. As they're complicated, it wouldn't be feasible to use the {{Squad maintenance}} template, as at e.g. {{Manchester United F.C. squad}}, so perhaps they should be listed at your new navbox's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this far too much? Do the Honours even need to be in the template? Govvy (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely; take {{Manchester United F.C.}} or {{Arsenal F.C.}} as examples of what should be included. GiantSnowman 16:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have informed Footwiks who seems to be the main contributor for it. I have seen those other templates, I just wanted a second opinion! Govvy (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure if it applies to templates, but do look at WP:CONTRAST! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, everything looks fine here. Like GiantSnowman said, the Manchester United and Arsenal templates are great examples. I use them a lot and they prove very influential. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Footwiks just said on my talkpage!

(I don't accept your opinion. If Manchester United or Arsenal's templete don't honous, Does FC Seoul templte also delet honours? Wikepidia is not military. I insist that templeate individuality be acknowledged and respected.)

Sounds like he doesn't care what other editors think! Govvy (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the excess information, this is not needed at all and is not standard on football navboxes. GiantSnowman 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template creativity - rather than template individuality - is a rather good point actually: we shouldn't do something because everyone else is doing it, we should do something because it's a good idea. I refute the idea that just because something is different, that automatically makes it wrong. The template individuality point doesn't really follow, because if a style works particularly well and receives near-universal approval, then it should be rolled out across the football team template spectrum. For the record, I've seen more than just the FC Seoul template in that style (see here for four in a row!). Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Can I have advice from one of you on Sam Magri. Does England U16, U17, U18 and U19 make him notable? Thanks JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this, I see he's played in the League Cup once for Portsmouth. JMHamo (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well to answer your question for future reference - youth int'l caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 09:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here - if a player moves clubs in January, his infobox should show that he left his previous club in 2013, not 2012. Even in countries with winter breaks, this does not cover the entire transfer window (the Bundesliga re-started on Saturday), so in some cases players are being listed as leaving a club in 2012 that they played matches for in 2013. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the league is 2012–13 season (German etc.) then we'd say he leaves in 2013; if the league is 2012 season (Sweden etc.) then he leaves in 2012. GiantSnowman 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always do the from/to dates as the day of the actual transfer, i.e. if a player were to leave a club today, the infobox would show his spell at the previous club as ending in 2013, and his spell with the new club as starting in 2013 too. Why shouldn't this apply to summer leagues (such as Sweden) too? – PeeJay 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think because the seasons are so distinct - 5 months apart - it would look like a player that moved in December 2012 was there for the 2012 season, which would be misleading. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. A year without text has to be understood as early as January or late as December. The article-text will explain therefore. -Koppapa (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PeeJay - the dates in the infobox should be the actual year in which the transfer, contract etc. happened - the season is irrelevant. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is against long-standing practice i.e. every single US article, probably every single Swedish article. Leagues with summer seasons have much more distinct seasons, showing '2011–2013' implies a player was there for 3 seasons even though they joined on 30 December 2011 and left on 1 January 2013...GiantSnowman 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a player transfers from one club to another, i.e. they're under contract to one club and are directly transferred to a second club, the years should be the year in which that move takes place.

However, if a player's contract with club#1 has ended in year#1, and they join club#2 in year#2, as might well be the case in countries with summer seasons, the years should be different. Note that in this case, the player isn't transferring from one club to another, they're joining the new club as a free agent, and one might expect prose and infobox to have already been updated to reflect their leaving club#1 in year#1.

This is consistent both with common sense and with the wording at the infobox documentation, which defines the parameter as "a list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club", not "a list of seasons in which the player has been available to play". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]