Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Watford current squad

The current squad & loan section on Watford's page are listed in a wikitable. Should this be reverted to look like the general format or is it ok. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking back through the edit history, I see that this change was made by User:WFCforLife in August 2010 (by this edit:[1]), although I can't see that the change was ever discussed. The table is based on {{Template:Football squad player2}} rather than the conventional {{Template:Football squad player}}. As far as I can see, this template is only used on the Watford and Luton Town articles and a handful of clubs on the west coast of USA/Canada (see:[2]). There is an ongoing discussion about the use of the new template on the Vancouver Whitecaps FC talk page (here). I have invited User:WFCforLife to comment here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Incidentally, what's with the Alt. Text on many of the images on the Watford FC page? For example, if you hover your mouse over the image of Aidy Boothroyd, you see this "The head and shoulders of a man in his thirties. He has short hair and is wearing a black tracksuit top. A grass field and two sides of a sports stadium are visible in the background." As I say, what's that all about? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

First things first, you can't blame me for the Luton article, User:Cliftonian did that. As for the alt text, I'll look into it: alt text is supposed to be a literal description of an image for users who can't see it. It should only appear instead of an image, not when you hover over one.

My stance on the Watford squad section is that the current version should remain until a final decision has been reached on {{Football squad player2}}. Notwithstanding the Manual of Style, sortability etc, it simply looks better in the context of the article as a whole. As for the "undiscussed" jibe, while the aesthetics of the implementation on the Watford article were my own doing, the decision to use #2 was discussed when the aforementioned template was first implemented. —WFC— 06:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt text is a good thing. The standards have changed over the years but overall it is a good thing. It isn't meant for you. It is for those who have a disability. Browsers have changed, though, which means we actually have to do more work.

The "general" (commonish?) format of the tables we use isn't compatible with the current standards of FA/FL. Again, we will have to do more work since the bar was raised a long time ago. Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was recent consensus to go with the #2 version, or perhaps that related to the international squad list. Anyway I prefer the Watford one because it deals with the issue of 'nationality' in a better way. Eldumpo (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to both the template and the alt text issues:

1. The template was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Roster format. The outcome there was a general agreement that the new format is superior to the old (both in terms of general aesthetics / consistency and in MOSFLAG compliance) and should be rolled out more widely.
2. The use of alt text in the Watford article is exemplary. Would that all images had such excellent alt text as Boothroyd's image in that article. Daemonic Kangaroo, are you using Internet Explorer? It mistreats alt text as title text, which is a misfeature of the browser.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I seriously don't like that table if so few articles use it then clearly there is consensus that th other is better. As far as I can see they should be changed and ole template deleted. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy doesn't allow me to respond to the above comment with the veracity it deserves, so let's stick to what I can say. WP:IDONTLIKEIT carries no weight in isolation, and inertia does not override the outcome of a series of widely publicised debates. —WFC— 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the Football squad 2 template would be better if it was split into two columns. That would mean the whole squad would be visible on the screen at the same time. I like how it can be colour coded. I personally don't think either of them in their particular form are great, although could it not be possible that Fs player could be edited to make it better. Adam4267 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting it into two columns makes it less accessible for only a minor aesthetic gain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WFC ther sheer fact it's only used on two articles in the uk show that it's disliked. And as chris said the newer one is more in line with policies and as to the look im intitled to my opinion and that is its too long are garish looking. Why do you thi kits correct that two articles in the uk should look different to the rest. And I don't like your reply much eithier. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

given it is used so little and the newer one is far superior I think we should take this to a TFD. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. The Watford style is the new format that complies with MOSFLAG where the older, widely-used one doesn't. It was invented when some football club article, can't remember which, would have failed its featured article candidacy with the old standard-format squad list. As far as I remember, the Watford F.C. article was used as a stable article for experimenting on when the new format was under development. And I'd guess the main reason the new one isn't more widely used is that no-one's yet commissioned a bot to do the conversion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

it's far too long a table. Really I still feel the same there is clearly a reason it's not being widely used whether a bot is comissioned or not. Sorry I still feel a TFD is necessary if it not being used it shouldnt be there at all. And I personally don't see how it meets the policies better than the one that is use on masse. Unless agreed now by majority that should be widely used then it should go to a TFD to decide. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer, please calm down and actually take the time to read through the huge amount of discussion over the formatting and design of these templates which led to the creation (over a year ago) of the new design. Your replies give every impression of being rushed through, and a TfD here is actively counterproductive (especially when the arguments are so flimsy). I can assure you that the reason the new template isn't much-used is simply because there hasn't been any particular push for it yet. When the player infobox was redesigned and I actively pushed for people to test it, the process took three years from initial implementation to the commissioning of a bot to go and update pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

chris I'm perfectly calm but would be strongly against the implementation of this without further full discussion it's wrong to implement something this long after. I still feel if it was well liked it would have been implemented. I also see no reason why it shouldn't be split into two its far too long as one. A TFD is appropriate if it is little used which is the case. As we all know consensus can change and after this length of time that is possible. I would also argue that it is no better than we what we have already they both have flaws. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think it would be better in two columns so the entire squad is visible in one page view. The primary purpose of this table is to show people which players are currently in the playing saquad. This is being sacrificed. While other things like the nationality of the players or the table being sortable are given more prominence when they are less relevant. Adam4267 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

EW - it isn't being implemented (as said earlier, it's only on two English club articles) and we are discussing it - this vry thread in fact. I'd advise against a TFD - it would be unsuccessful and a waste of time for everyone involved. Can the templates be merged at all, so we have the best of both worlds? That'd be the ideal solution. GiantSnowman 12:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, or either one be edited so it includes the best aspects of the other. Adam4267 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

what I'm saying is shouldnt be further implemented and Agree merging the two would be the best option although chris and struaway give me the impression it will be implementedI. Two clubs does not merit a rollout at all. Especially without a change to take the very good points or the old one as the new one is as flawed as the old but for different reasons. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that no changes should be made either way - i.e. X to Y or Y to X - while a discussion is under way. GiantSnowman 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

EW, Could you give your reasons for liking/disliking certain aspects of them? I don't think anything will be implemented without consensus, either. Adam4267 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

first of all the design of the old one is better most main club pages don't use tables or rarely do so it looks nothing like the rest of the content. It needs to be able to split into two without affecting the functionality as is two long and would make sections such as clubs who have first team and reserved and people out on loan.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

secondly there is no need to have the flag and country our editors aren't thick the majority will be well aware of what country a flag represents. if this has been done to meet the flag guidelines why whats wrong with hovering over its still very clear. The roster format is far more used further afield than in europe. Basicly i good go on all day.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reading through walls of text which basically don't say anything more constructive than "no consensus" and "I don't like it". So let's focus on the actual substance of the discussion.

The reason for the lack of a column split is that the limitations of HTML tables mean that tabular data which is split into columns is more difficult for screen readers (as used by blind and partially sighted users) and automated programs (which could be used for further analysis of our content) to comprehend and navigate. The advantage of a two-column view is primarily aesthetic, in that it results in less dead space on pages and for long lists (such as the squads of Premier League players) ensures that on devices of a certain screen resolution readers don't have to scroll to see all the players. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a technical compromise which would give us the best of both worlds.

So our choice is:

1. Inconvenience users who use screen readers or other devices which have difficulty with tables which split tabular content over multiple rows (which incidentally includes the Wikipedia mobile view IIRC) for the sake of making articles prettier and slightly easier to follow on high-resolution devices.
2. Inconvenience readers on high-resolution devices for the sake of users who use screen readers or other devices which have difficulty with tables which split tabular content over multiple rows.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

if that's the case then we shouldnt be using it if the technology isn't there to equal what we have then the change is useless. Why cant we use a simmilar format to the existing incorporating the aspects of the new one. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

also basicly the new one will always cause problems to someone then that's just crazy.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely what I just explained. If you are unwilling or unable to take the time to actually understand points when they are explained to you slowly and carefully then there's little point in your involvement in this discussion. The current template is inadequate because various user agents have a problem with it. The new template fixes that problem, just not in a way that certain parties like. Nevertheless, better to have a fixed template which a few editors blessed with good eyesight find annoying than a broken template which said sighted users approve of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ok chris your attitude here is totally wrong first of all you said above the new one can't be split because of HTML issues read it again. Coming from and admin I seriously think you should be civil to other users. They are civil to you so don't say thing like that I can read. you were aske twice if the new one can be split and you said no both times. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

that is a clear technical issue as I said above and if it can't be sorted we shouldnt use it can you imaging how long that table will get. It's tottaly not fit for purpose. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

and lastly in your speech above you dont even say anything about the old one just why the new once can't be split therefore what am I misinterpreting nothing. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO the new style of infobox is better all round; it looks better (I can't understand the obsession with columns), it deals with the MOSFLAG issues that the old template had, and it is more accessible to people who use screen readers or mobile devices. All your arguments boil down to is not liking it for some reason. BigDom 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

don do you have a modern mobile device if you do go and have a look neither template is broken and the old one is viewable very easily whereas you not to scroll a long way to view the new one.

On my phone's browser (we can't all afford an iPhone) the new style works fine but the old one doesn't. It tries to treat it as a table but fails miserably when the text is too long to fit on one line (e.g. when there is a loan player). Also, the table headers don't align with the contents. Wikipedia should not only be accessible to those who can afford the latest state-of-the-art gadgets. BigDom 14:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree not everyone has an iPhone or htc but these Are becoming the standard and scrolling is funnily enough harder on them. So the lengthy causes issues to these devices. therefore it's no better and as tech moves forward the new one is going to be harder. Have you tries looking at struways version I don't now if thays better on yours it's fine on mine. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BigDom - how does the Boca possible compromise look like on your phone? GiantSnowman 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just got my phone (an HTC Desire S, Android 2.3: certainly no ancient device) back from repair and on the system browser's default settings the Boca Juniors squad list is cut off on the right while the Watford list is perfect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's better than the first one, but I think that's only because Boca don't have any loan players, and as Chris says it is cut off at the right hand side. Am I missing something or is the Boca one exactly the same as the original apart from three letters next to the flags? BigDom 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. As stated below, the Boca one is interesting for its own reasons, but it doesn't do anything to resolve the primary sticking points regarding layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is based In the table format being totally different to anything we use already as secondly it has to split. The section will be far too long. Mobile devices will be a nightmare on it can you imagine how long the squad section will be on english premier clubs. Nobody even bothers to answer why the old one cannot be amends to meet the mos for flag policy. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

i have looked at both using the iPhone I'm using and it is easier to view the old than the new. It takes for ever to scroll the new one. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I should indent to, so I'll start again here. In last week's discussion, Digirami pointed out the existence of templates used on Argentina clubs e.g. {{Boca Juniors}} {{Boca Juniors squad}}, which combine both navbox and squad list functionality, of similar layout to the current widely-used one, while including country text alongside the flag. They only have the FIFA trigramme rather than the country name, and if I were redesigning each entry I'd put the flag/country on the RHS as per the Watford version. I was wondering whether that sort of template might be a basis for negotiation, or are there good accessibility or other arguments against? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean {{Boca Juniors squad}} right? I think going forward, that would be the ideal solution. GiantSnowman 13:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

struaway just so I know do you mean just using a naxbox not a squad template. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It does both. For a club current squad section, you put a format=table parameter. See Boca Juniors#Current squad.

Please understand that I'm not advocating this ahead of the Watford version, just suggesting it might be the basis of an alternative to the wikitable if there's a general objection to the wikitable format, which as yet there hasn't been. Always assuming there aren't any accessibility or MoS arguments against it, which I don't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's certainly a clever hack. It would leave us in the position of using a template for article contents, which is typically frowned upon, but given our need to keep the squad lists and navboxes in sync it's worth proposing. Obviously it's suboptimal that the templates use the names {{fs2 start}}, {{fs2 player}} and so on when we've got a parallel development at {{fs start2}}, {{fs player2}} etc, but ideally we want these all merged, right? But when it comes down to it, it doesn't actually resolve the key sticking points with thOEdinburgh Wanderer 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)e existing template, which are that it cooks up its own template style rather than just being a wikitable and that it has a split (I've given up on explaining here why that's a bad thing for the sake of my health, but feel free to ping me if the explanation above isn't good enough). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm particularly stupid this afternoon. Does that mean screen readers etc struggle with the current widely-used version? if so, I'd strongly favour implementing the Watford version forthwith, whether we like it or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at all three on the iPhone an can read all three clearly. The worst is the table because of its length. The best idea put forward is this one from struway. what annoys me is people saying its better for mobile devices when clearly the current mon devices can handle it. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There are ways of making this less terrible, but the strong advice given is "make your tables as simple as possible". Note that at present we don't do any of the clever id or scope stuff that article #2 suggests to help mitigate the problem, and we can't guarantee that it's supported by any given screen reader anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, we do use column and row scopes. They're a requirement at FLC for lists containing wikitables. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Unfortunately that's the one that doesn't help us here, as we don't use row/colspans on the squad templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

we have given the wiki table one a full test and I would suggest we do it on stuways version. If that dosent have as many problems it is a better option. I would be willing to help fully test it. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

why haven't we tried the more technical option it's worth a try and also do we know if the scream reader issue is on all of them or just older devices. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A screen reader is nothing to do with how old a device is, and it's nothing to do with mobile devices. It's a software program that blind or partially sighted people use so they can hear what's on the the screen instead of reading it. BigDom 16:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

actually age is appropriate things change in time it's called progress. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• So many indents and out-dents I'm getting confused! Is there a possible way to merge the best elements from all three of the templates as a compromise? Let's think of solutions, not problems. GiantSnowman 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are four key differences in the templates:

1. General styling. The new template is styled like a standard wikitable. The current templates use a hand-cooked style invented waaay back before template standardisation was ever really an issue: aside from minor things like colouring, it doesn't include grid lines.
2. Placement and presentation of region options. The current template uses just a flag: the Boca template uses the FIFA trigramme: The new template uses the full country name. While this is generally a hot topic, so far we've mostly avoided it in this thread.
3. The split. The new template omits support for {{fs mid}}. See up-thread for arguments as to why.
4. The dual-purpose feature in the Boca template, which allows it to be used both as an in-article squad list and as a navbox.

Of those, this thread is mostly about #3. #4 is a neat feature, but needs discussed separately as it a means big changes to how we edit articles (squads will now be on dedicated pages rather than included in the article body). #1 is mostly trivial, and I think we've got general consensus that #2 is progress when it comes to MOSFLAG compliance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd favour the trigramme + flag combo personally. What about players from the Democratic Republic of the Congo? GiantSnowman 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

concur with GiantSnowman on this it's by far the best option as far as I can see. You are never going to solve all the problems chris all you can do is come up with something that causes the least and design is equally as important as functionality and this is bothEdinburgh Wanderer 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

While mindful of what Chris says below, I do feel the need to at least explain the other side to this. One of the biggest cons to a single column is the amount of whitespace it can leave. On that basis I don't consider spelling out Congo to be a problem at all. My opinion on the likes of COD had been done to death, but I'll take this opportunity to note that it's the same as ever. —WFC— 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave the flags issue aside at the moment. In fact, let's leave everything save for the split aside. Does everybody understand at this point why a split is undesirable? If we can at least agree to that, it gets it off the agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

not why it's undesirable as I think we will find the length of these tables are going to be a major issue on the clubs who have big squads plus reserves plus loans. However I understand why the two templates we currently use have issues with a split. Im yet to see that this is an issue on the latest idea. Another issue not just on the current templates is how they look for teams that do not have squad numbers the one used the most is a bit bad but on the table it stands out like a sore thumb. This was brought to my attention and have a look at what it would look like by doing a quick check on a Scottish football league club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, missed that one. The squad numbers thing is already a problem. Presently, omitting squad numbers leaves us with an empty table column. Screen readers are known to have problems with such things, and it's ugly from a markup point of view anyway. So that's five differences between the old and new designs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

chris everything to you affects mobile devices. Not all mobile devices have this problem and you are yet to answer what testing was done to show this. Any new tenplate would need to have a version based on a wiki table base would need to have a option where you can remove the option of squad numbers because if it looks bad on the current it's ten times worse on the new one.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What if we just edited the current template to have FIFA trigrammes. Then we would have improved MOS:FLAG compliance, while still retaining other features which are good about it (i.e not as noticeable when there is no squad numbers or having the whole squad on one page). I personally think that if the top could be colour coded that would be even better because I think that feature on the Watford one is really good. Adam4267 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not at al clear what you think the point of the new template is, if that's your suggested compromise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Adams point is very clear it would comply with mos flag dosent look as bad when no squad numbers addressed the colour issues on the old template. I know the next point what about mobile devices well as I'm yet to be advised what testing was carried out and what percentage this effects it's really hard to say if there is any heavy merit in changing it because of that reason as we will be causing problems for many others in doing so.

In EW's defence, I agree that we need to think about what to do for squads without numbers. However, it's worth saying that this issue already exists on {{fs player}}, albeit less prominently. —WFC— 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise this existed, but User:ClubOranje already coded a solution for numberless squads. An example of it in action can be seen here. —WFC— 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

that looks a lot better I have to say. Could we trial these on a wider scale. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem. Jared Preston (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Single vs split columns

I've started this section so that we can focus on the pros and cons of single and multiple columns, while continuing to have the more general discussion above. —WFC— 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I guess I'll start, and I'll make this argument ignoring factors such as sortability and whitespace. For me the most important thing is not the length of the table, although this is undeniably a factor. For me, priority number one is that every bit of every line is readable by every user. Any solution, one column or two, currently on the table or yet to be invented, needs to meet this standard. —WFC— 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

are we certain that the version proposed by struway does have these problems to these devices/software it's clear the first one does. I agree we need to make as much of wiki accessible to the masses however why percentage are we talking. The reason I state that as A apple mobile device user there is problems scrolling large volumes of text that's an issue I imagine a low percentage but then is that lower or greater than the first. My certain preference is a split is needed is just far too long otherwise why don't we Have a look at the arsenal page how long a table would that be masses of white space and an age to scroll through. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As you've volunteered it, I'll take Arsenal as an example. They have pretty much the same number of first team players as Watford, so it's reasonable to assume that the end result would look similar to the current Watford squad. Given that Arsenal F.C. reserves have an article, I don't see why we need to list the reserve squad (its inclusion or exclusion is beyond the remit of this discussion, but if I ignored it this would likely be pointed out). And the loan section is a very good example of why one column would be preferable: it looks cluttered even on a fairly high resolution laptop, I dread to think how bad it is on a smartphone. —WFC— 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

it's tottaly fine on my smartphone thank you very much however the watford one isnt is tricky to view. The reserve squad is notable that is a ridiculous length for squad sections. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

you missed the point anyway does struways version have the issue for screen readers because It looks far better and is certainly more accessible for apple mobile devices. I know that htcs are simillar yes we are talking very modern devices but they are all going that way. This means the wiki table version will cause major problems for them so in two years maybe less we will need to change again hardly accessible to everyone. The split is their on that version as well. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)F

Reading through this thread some of the arguments against single columns are quite astounding. Opposing because it will be too long is ridiculous you're only going to scroll down a little bit, is that really too much trouble? I'm in favour of the table in use on the Watford article. It complies with MOS mainly ACCESS and FLAGS and allows the squad to be sorted. This is something which would not be possible if they were split in two columns. That's my two pennies worth on the issue. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As NapHit says, the problem you have highlighted can be solved by scrolling down. If I've understood Dom and Chris correctly, content on the right hand side of "Struway's version" can't be viewed at all by some users. —WFC— 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to respond saying that before I had to start again due to edit conflict. An iPhone has problems scrolling large volumes of text which is why I'm having problems editing this so you woulld be creating a problem for me. You are giving in one hand and taking with the other. As a compromise can I suggest we try a wider rollout and get more comments. I would suggest a page like arsenals for England and a few more ransoms maybe even the hearts page which would kill me as its me that edits it the most but wider discussion is needed. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the reason I think a wider trial is necessary is its clear we can meet the mos flags policy by amending and or merging these templates so it's the accessibility that's the problem a wider trial would allow us to evaluate if this fully solves it and tweak it. I feel a split is neccesary but of the majority of people don't after a wider trial then fine. WFC can this template be amended to have an option to remove the squad number column if a club dosent have them. It's a total white space that looks wrong if you can't. That would be something that would really help make it look better. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do like the new template (WP:ILIKEIT, haha), and the Watford squad can be viewed in its full glory on my big laptop screen, but save for the space on the right and the possibility of missing squad numbers, there is obviously still the issue about usability, if the third resort template really is the future of squads on Wikipedia and future updates... This is actually getting a lot more confusing than it needs to be. I'm tired. But the old template, as widespread as it might be, is a bit too old. We, as WP:FOOTY members, are probably getting too attached. We needn't be. Change can be good. And what I was thinking was, that if the old template were to be kept, it would make sense being able to update the two (squad list on article and navigational squad template) in one edit. Just, there is a lot of work to be done on this third template suggested..... Scrolling the mouse or flicking your finger once on a touchscreen device can't be a big problem though surely! Jared Preston (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jared it's a nightmare at times it jumps constantly on the touch screen you scroll down and it scrolls up I've had every iPhone since they came out and I stood in the freezing cold. It's a design flaw but it's there. My compromise suggestion would be a wider trial and If we move forward mere these templates into one. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As good as these iPhones are, they certainly seem to be as flawed as the templates are! Yep, I hope so too, that we can find a solution. More testing seems required though, you're right. And #3, as I say, is a good idea. Just the other day I was looking at a Turkish Süper Lig team's article and its squad template had less than a third of the correct/updated players. This has got to be sorted (somehow). Jared Preston (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Put simply, a "wide trial" isn't happening. We don't have the resources to go asking a large amount of partially sighted readers to go testing every change to a template, and nor can we ask editors to go out and purchase expensive screen reader software. We know there is a problem here because there is abundant documentation to that effect on the Web; the counterargument so far has been, in its entirely, "I don't believe you". FWIW I'm not inclined to consider "the iPhone has a problem scrolling large amounts of text" to be authoritative either, as the device is optimised entirely around the paradigm of vertical scrolling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Though if anyone wants to have a listen to screen-reader output, the Opera browser has a screen reader built-in, and a Firefox add-on is available: see User:RexxS/Accessibility. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

chris I'm starting to think you are just being ackward for the sake of it basically because you feel its me causing trouble. A wider trial is necessary to gauge opinion on its format not just tech issues. It's clear here from not just me that there are other options re the flags additions of squad numbers and other elements. We're not just talking from a tech point so why on earth would you suggest getting further input isn't necessary. We have no idea what the wider scope is. To role this out now fully without eithier a wider trial or much more of a discussion on all elements is inappropriate. It's just isn't ready for that. As you are aware I have offered to do the setting up of it and to help gain opinion. After that it can be reviewed an if the majority want it then it should be rolled out quickly rather than waiting over a year whilst people can clearly change consensus again Edinburgh Wanderer 12:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just been on the watford page on my iPhone to see where Edinburgh wanderer is coming from, and i don't think there is a problem at all. The table is not too long there are no issues with it messing up, so I'm not really sure what you're argument against these tables is. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks I genuinely do have an issue with it on this phone but maybe it's mine or me even. However dropping the technical stuff I think the best way forward Is to trial this template as I've suggested below not on the grounds of tech but on sorting all the other issues.

I would like to ask a tech question of anyone who can answer it. On articles we can align two sections or wikitables to sit along side each other. Does this cause screen readers to have issues. The reason I ask is if it dosent can this be done with two templates. Obviously it means the template isn't broken and would in theory look split. It's a speculative question as was just and idea. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Anything which splits the table cells up creates problems. We cannot at present make a single table column display in two using CSS like we can with lists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh well was just an idea if it didn't cause the same problem but if it does then obviously not an option.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Trial

I would like to take a poll on who would be opposed to a further trial. I suggest picking several high volume articles putting the new template in place and seeing which version of the design I.e flags, squad numberless table and section headings are correct. It's clear to me although not all users have the issue with mobile devices and screen readers as I have said above however I know feel we have to accept that some do and we need to move forward so to me the sticking points mentioned above including a tweak to section headings, flag versions and squad numberless table. I would propose a months trial on between 5 and ten high volume articles before bringing back for a final discussion. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment about 'flag versions' have you read MOS:FLAG? Eldumpo (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

yes I have although i find it complecated I'm talking about the proposal above for use of the trigame system used in the mod option and discussion further down my understanding from reading that is it does meet that policy. I like that system but saying that im not overly inclined to any of them. What I'm trying to establish is whether not people would object to trying these options out and sort the other issues. The flags isn't really the main issue for me a flags a flag and if it meets that policy then fine. If we are rolling out it needs to be as good as we can make it and have a firm consensus. Given that it's been well over a year the template isn't perfect yet it's time to get this sorted and implemented.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I do actually agree with a trial, not for technical reasons but to ensure that opinions expressed here are representative of the silent majority that don't frequent the project. My suggestion would be for the trial to stay in place for a defined period of time (a fortnight or a month?) and to direct would-be reverters to this discussion so that we can enlighten them on the reasons and they can add their feedback. To achieve this I would suggest trialing on a high-profile English league, the Championship perhaps. I'd be happy to do this manually, adding images + alt text along similar lines to the Watford article. —WFC— 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

a high profile English league would probably be best. What about ones without squad numbers what leagues in England don't use them. There are three in Scotland but unsure of England. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to find consensus then I say we put the new format on, at least, the 'Big 6' English clubs, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Celtic and Rangers. Adam4267 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adam: That's a possible alternative. And I assume by the big six you mean Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Watford? EW: the highest English league that doesn't use numbers is Conference South, which really isn't high enough up the pyramid to expect meaningful feedback. I don't think it's really an issue, given that the non-numbered format clearly works. —WFC— 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly - Watford already have the template. Adam4267 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it would be nice to try it out even if just one club but yeah i agree.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to target specific articles, so long as we link back to this discussion. When footybio2 was deployed we basically just added it to articles as we saw fit. What is important is that we ensure all the edge cases are tested (very long lines, odd nationalities, no / partial squad numbers et cetera). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the trial not more about establishing consensus than testing technical issues? Adam4267 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have presumed so, Adam. Jared Preston (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of both it needs to be perfect there are a few minor sticking points which can be sorted and obviously it allows us to get a clear consensus on it.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, in a few hours I'll post a notice to the talk pages of the 33 clubs mentioned (the 23 other Championship teams and the 10 Adam mentions) informing them of this discussion, and see what comes of it. From past experience, and having been on both sides of this, it's likely that at least one editor will strongly object to their club's article being part of the trial. There is no point in deliberately antagonising such people; by informing them, we've made contact, can invite them here so that they can understand the reasons behind this and provide their feedback, and restrict the initial expansion to articles with receptive or indifferent editors. —WFC— 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the ten articles Adam suggested. I'll notify the 23 Championship clubs this time tomorrow; contributors to those ten clubs are likely to give quite a bit of feedback anyway, and therefore this section will be more manageable if we spread the notifications out. —WFC— 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fancy introducing it at Bradford City? I'm pretty much the only regular contributor there, and you won't see any opposition from me. GiantSnowman 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of the trial is to try and find out the opinions of the 'silent majority' who don't contribute here. Adam4267 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The current system is fine and works perfectly. It looks much neater too, not to mention it is a lot easier for transferring players/ loan deal to other clubs by just copy and pasting. The box table looks tacky. IJA (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates and refs

I've added support for dates and references to the template's sandbox, and am just waiting for approval before putting it into the main template. The full proposal can be seen here. —WFC— 05:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see this moving forward. Not wanting to muddy the waters, but I really like the way you can display both squad list or navigation box, using the one {{Boca Juniors squad}} template. They are able to do that because their template separates out the surname, using |first=Joe|last=Bloggs|link=Joe Bloggs (footballer) rather than |name=[[Joe Bloggs (footballer)|Joe Bloggs]]. Whilst updating, should we consider having this (more flexible) syntax as an alternative? Also, since we're in the process of making changes, should we think about adding row and column scopes as per WP:DTAB? U+003F^? 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am slowly working on a way to incorporate {{Football squad player2}} into a navbox in my userspace. I see it as more of an "in my own time, let's see if I can do this" thing than a serious proposal, but would work faster if there is consensus that we should go ahead with the idea. —WFC— 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also developed compatability for the first/last thing, at User:WFCforLife/Fsc player. —WFC— 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward with the new format on MLS articles

We've had a bit of success on two MLS articles and I plan to roll it out on the remaining team lists this coming week. I will now place notices on the MLS team articles about the pending change.

The argument above that the new format is not useful because it used in so few articles is like saying, in 1890, that the automobile is not useful because so few people own them. The reason it's used in so few articles is because it's new and the old one has been incorporated in so many. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

there are still problems with it but the only way that getting sorted is through more articles having it same with consensus when nobody can see it. However for some reason when i see the template it does remind of me of America. For the life of me i can't think why.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps it's because in North America we treat all people with respect and dignity while in other parts of the English world it's either "keep a stiff upper lip" or "feed 'em to the dingos"? The fact that table is sortable probably doesn't have any bearing on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

With that said, the reason I am planning on rolling it out on MLS first is because it's already implemented on three team pages and it's currently pre-season and will disrupt the least now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction four MLS articles. Another editor moved another article's roster to the improved template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah that's good ol' fashioned family racism... I shall help with the MLS effort, then move on to another league. :) It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DC United done. Movin' on to RBNY. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I support rollout at MLS, particularly given that they're not playing at the moment. An IP (67.87.225.78 has been going around reverting. In fairness he hasn't made a revert since I invited him to contribute here, so let's see if he does that. I'd caution editors against getting involved in edit wars, and to invite anyone and everyone that disagrees with the template to read this discussion and contribute. —WFC— 22:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My thinking exactly for rolling-out to MLS. The anon's IP changes but is always from from New York. Anon has been reverting the one at the Vancouver article for a while, but leaves both Portland and Seattle alone. Now anon has six to tackle. The most recent revert at the Vancouver article was actually to an different version of the same table. I believe the one used at Vancouver and Watford work better when a player does not yet have an article: you can use the sortname template and add a nolink=1 parameter so there isn't a redlink. I haven't figured out how to do that with the one with the sortname variant of the template.

The Watford article seems to have given an editor at Toronto FC the idea of using team colours. That may also be seen at other MLS team articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On that subject, {{football squad player2}} and {{fs player2 sort}} can and should be merged, based on the code here. From my testing, I'm pretty confident that one template will accept both |first=Scott|last=Loach and |name={{sortname|Scott|Loach}}. The nolink issue raised above would continue to be solveable with |name={{sortname|Scott|Loach|nolink=1}}. —WFC— 06:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Merged, as one with a redirect to the other or something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, one as a redirect to the other. No editing would be required on articles using the affected template. —WFC— 08:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Whilst we're at it, what do you think about adding a |nonation=yes flag to the start article template to allow the template used in typical lower level squads where no nationalities are known? U+003F^? 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or ideally, everywhere except for on capped internationalists. But that's for the distant science-fiction future where we're fully compliant with MOSFLAG I suppose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with a redirect is that they don't have the same parameters. The nolink is still useful in the sortname. If that could be included, it might make sense. Best to bring this up on the talk pages of both templates.

I would argue that nonation=yes should only be used in extreme cases if added at all. Is there and "unknown" flag that could be used instead? (that was irony for those who didn't catch it) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added support for the functions mentioned in this section in the sandbox, the results of which can be seen on the test cases page. One of Adrian Mariappa's lines includes a demonstration of what happens if no nationality is entered under normal circumstances (along with the corresponding results for no position and no number). There is a slight aesthetic problem that I haven't been able to fix when |nonation=yes is used: help would be appreciated on that one. —WFC— 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a comment suggesting that the player's name should be the final column to give the player more weight (and the nation less weight). I tend to agree here, what do others think? U+003F^? 11:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my comment. I wasn't aware that there was an ongoing discussion here still, I'm sorry if I spoke in the wrong forum. The point I wanted to express is exactly what U+003F said above. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on the template's talk, it's not a reasonable argument. Readers should be reading left-to-right and so if they're English, they see club number, position, name and then nationality. If you want to reduce the size of the nationality, that may assist. Personally, I don't even think nationality is needed, but I understand I'm in the minority. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MLS articles are done. The only negative feedback is the size and possibly the layout (see above for the latter). I would suggest that other North American leagues should be next. Are there any others that are presently on a break that we could convert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The League of Ireland is a summer league, so you could try those clubs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for this new horrid format

Don't you think consensus should be achieved before making such drastic changes? The new table system looks horrible and it makes it a lot harder to transfer players between clubs now. Not to mention the new table system increases the KB size of articles which are already far too big per Wikipedia:Article size. We should be looking to decrease the KB size of articles not increase them. Now articles are going to take longer to load up for people with dial up internet and people on mobile devices. Also there has been no proper consensus achieved, there are thousands of editors who edit football articles and only a small amount have editors have come to this unilateral decision to change the players system. it should have been well advertised to editors who contribute to football articles say that they can have their say instead of leaving this major decision to a few editors who religiously check the talk pager here. IJA (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the new format is simply awful, and fail to understand why the original football squad template wasn't simply amended to use trigrammes next to flags. These are in everyday use on sports programmes, so I don't see any problem with using them. This example shows how it looks on an article, and does far less disruption than the other alternative. Number 57 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The regular contributors to football articles should have been consulted about these proposals instead of a handful of deciding to change the format league by league secretly without the rest of us knowing. The should be an agreement made by the vast masses of this wikiproject, instead of a small amount making radial changes without the rest of us knowing. It all seems a bit rushed too. Unfair on the rest of us wikipedians who edit football related articles, we should have had a say in something as major as this. IJA (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues here - yes trigrammes/flags (which the Boca example solves, and which I approve of), but also readability (which the Boca example fails) for partially-sighted/blind who use screen readers. GiantSnowman 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How does it fail? Number 57 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As discussed (extensively) above, it doesn't appear to work on screen readers, or certain smartphones. Apparently the new one (which I agree is horrible-looking) works anywhere & everywhere. GiantSnowman 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then surely the problem is to try and fix the existing format, without fixing how it looks. This is what was done with navboxes (they are being converted to flatlist format and their coding has been fixed to ensure they still look the same). Introducing a radically new (and awful looking) format seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Number 57 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am under the impression from above that it cant be changed fully to meet the requirements which was why this was done. The more technical users will need to confirm that but there was a discussion about just tweaking the old one above. There hasn't been major objections to a trial on the talk pages if any. My feeling is that the rollout trial sample for consensus should continue to allow further comments with no prejudice to return to old template if not what the majority want as we are a consensus driven community. It has been on the Heart of Midlothian F.C. page for eight days with no objections.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Number 57 - I agree fully, and have suggest a few times above to try & combine the two tables - appearance of the first (specifically the Boca example) with the readability of the second. However, I'm not sure how feasible that is. GiantSnowman 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some nonsense on here, "there has been no proper consensus achieved," that's a laugh, coming from someone who performed a page-move, that is not clear-cut in any way, without discussion. Had you taken the time to look, you would see that notices regarding this table have been posted on the talk pages of many leading clubs, directing them here if they want to comment on it. If we can't discuss the table here, on one of Wiki's largest projects, then where should we discuss it? I don't see a problem with the new template, apart from the white-space which is unavoidable, and it solves many of the issues with the old one. A number of editors volunteered to test it out, including myself, on a certain number of pages after it had been discussed at length on here. Secrecy? Don't make me laugh. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to be so insulting. Do you disagree or contest that move? It is the correct spelling of his name. It wasn't a controversial or major move. That sort of criticism should have been left on my talkpage not on this space. Also I never stated that it "can't" be discussed here, that is you putting words into other people's mouths. I said editors should have been made aware better due to it being a rather big proposal affecting all club articles, instead of being left to editors who check this talk page religiously. I see now there have been messages on talk pages of certain clubs, but as someone who edits football league articles primarily I have not seen any messages on talk pages. And correct me if I'm wrong the Championship is the 4th or 5th most watched league in the world and I haven't seen a single message on a Championship Club talk page. These proposals are quit extensive for this wikiproject and I was raising the point of how many people are in the same boat as me and are unaware or this proposal because most of my edits are football related and the other day was the first I had seen of such proposals. IJA (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, if you find an article that has been newly created and duplicates an existing one, the new one must be redirected to the old one, not the other way round).Number 57 19:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, I too am not a fan of the new squad template, however to say that there has been "no consensus" would be incorrect. Yes, maybe more people should have been made aware of the change, but it doesn't necessarily follow that because of that, no consensus exists. And who am I to go native and go against consensus? It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

All championship clubs have now been notified. I suggest leaving 7 days for them to give opinion and if no major objections to a trial proceed. Im checking the ten first notified to see if any have been objected to the trial lets bear in mind thats what it is at the moment. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To IJA, if anything that I said was insulting then I apologise, but I did not like the tone you used. I consider myself to be an active member of the project and give my two-penneth when I feel the need to. That does not mean I am in any way superior to a non-involved editor or I check this talk page religiously. Apart from linking each club's talk page to this discussion I'm not sure what more can be done to promote this issue. Those involved in this have gone about it as best they can. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One day I will come to understand how it is that someone can in good faith make a comment like "no consensus", which connotes some basic understanding of how discussion works here, and back it up with "because I hate it and it looks horrible".

There was one constructive point made, which was the article size comment. We've discussed moving squad lists to dedicated template pages and combining them with the squad list navboxes: this would significantly reduce the basic wikicode footprint of our squad articles, but we haven't fully discussed the implications yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And even if the navbox thing doesn't happen, I have coded compatibility for colours to be included in the template, which would add ~35 bytes to an implementation (less is the text is black). I haven't added it to the main template yet, pending feedback on whether it would be a welcome addition, hence the popping up of a few custom tables during the trial in an effort to get feedback. Throw in the addition of roughly 30 "2"'s onto previous {{football squad player}}'s, and the potential to save one or two sentences by using the |date= and/or |date= parameters in {{football squad start2}}, and the net change in bytes from adding the templates will be negligible. —WFC— 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I brought this up twice with not objection here. Consensus was reached. That does not mean that consensus cannot change, but the problem is you not the new format. The old format is not WCAG compliant. That's accessibility. The old format also makes it more difficult for users of mobile and touch-based devices to know what a flag represents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to notices on club pages

I've added this in response to the notice of intent to alter the structure of squad lists across all football club articles. Asking people to jump into the discussion above makes it very difficult as it is far too rambling and complicated in terms of points and sub points to add anything to without fear of it getting lost.

My response to the suggested change is that the request for input is based on potentially inaccurate statements and editors are being asked to respond based on certain suppositions which may prejudice their views. My points are as follows:

1) Screen readers - I am unclear why such prominence has been given to this being an imperative for change I've run both versions of the tables through a screen reader and emulator and there is little difference between them. Neither are great, both could maybe improved, but to claim that the existing version is unusable and the proposed version is compliant is to vastly overstate the issue - unless you have picked up on specific issues that my tests (admittedly quick and unscientific) did not throw up. In reality if we wanted Wiki Articles to be properly accessible to W3C standards then tables shouldn't be used at all - layout and formatting should be achieved through CSS and templating not within content divorcing content from design. Then bots and screen readers can act without having to strip out often complicated mark-up language. Obviously the reliance on tables is an issue with the Wiki platform itself but my point is to claim that one type of table is accessible whilst another isn't is untrue, they're both differing levels of not great in reality. in fact I'd suggest that the proposed new format is worse as it brings in excessive repetition of of words which is very annoying when it's been spoken.

1a) Mobile browsers - again I see no issue here. Having tested both versions (and used various mobile devices to view the existing style for years) I would say that the proposed new style is considerably worse as it entails unnecessary scrolling. The current version will happily fit within modern mobile browser widows - on some (eg my HTC Android) you just need to turn the phone to landscape and it all formats perfectly - but this is how those devices are intended to be used. Admittedly I haven't tested them against Blackberrys but I still don't feel this is a major issue.

1b) Cluttered columns - the example given of the Arsenal loans is, I agree, a very poor bit of page. However, I would suggest that it would be much better to revise the Arsenal page than to change the entire face of football club articles on Wikipedia to accommodate it. I personally don't see the need to for extensive notes on the length of loans to be included in such sections anyway. I also feel that the proposed 'traditional' table format will encourage a move to add more content into them such as age, previous clubs, transfer fee, length of contract and any of the other host of wonderful stats that some editors try and introduce from time to time.

2) Flags - there does seem to be an imperative based on the flags MOS. Personally I think the constant repeating of country names like this generates is excessive, ugly and unnecessary but that's a debate for the relevant project. However the notice given implies that moving to the proposed layout is the only way to fix this when the current format could be revised to improve MOS compliance.

3) Sort function - is that really very useful on such lists? Articles are ordered by squad number (or alphabetically if squad numbers don't exist) already and the only real benefit would be to swap from one to the other? I don't think the current format suffers for not being sortable and don't think there has been a major call for this to be changed. I'll hold my hands up to often adding sort function to tables I've created on articles but that's out of habit more than anything and I'd not object if it was suggested that sorting of such simple lists is unnecessary.

4) Space for images - this is not an imperative, and is in fact a suggestion to fill the huge amount of dead space created by the proposed tables to visually improve it. As the current version of the Watford page shows (as it seems to have reverted to the traditional layout) if editors want to provide illustrations of squad players they work just as well with the current format. It should also be recognised that may clubs will not have relevant images that can be used (particularly smaller ones or in less 'popular' leagues) and as such the change will inevitably introduce considerable amounts of ugly wasted space into hundreds of articles.

The main thrust of my argument is that I don't believe that some of the imperatives for change that have been put forward are correct or as important as has been stated and on that basis the decision that users are being asked to make is flawed. This proposed new layout is being presented as the only way to fix some issues when that is not the case - the current template could be revised but this is not being presented as feasible. It would be much better to gain consensus that the existing format is inherently wrong and cannot be continued before asking for contrition with a role out of wholesale changes.

If some of the reasoning for change is removed, as I have outlined, then the only choice being asked for is one of visual style and on that basis I would strongly object as the proposed table is both ugly and old fashioned and wastes page space necessarily. it is not a standard used across wikipedia (having viewed NFL and Baseball articles for the first time ever I can confirm they use considerably more complex squad tables than ever appear on football articles) and although addressing the flags MOS issue, by allowing squad lists to be coloured by team kits this does (I am led to believe) violate the MOS regarding colour use as decoration so is swapping one MOS infringement for another.

My suggestion is that the proposed trial be halted until there is a clear understanding that the current version is unusable and that it cannot be updated to fix what issues there are. Only then should consensus be sought from users about it's roll out (limited or otherwise) when they can be confident that the reasonings are clear and unequivocal. I would also actually take issue with the prosed method of gaining feedback through trial anyway - most editors take no notice of talk pages or project pages and would be unlikely to comment one way or another whatever they thought. As this change would be such a major revision surely it would be better to engage with users who have actively suggested they wish to participate in such a manner (ie the membership of WP football) and provide the full options and ask for consensus from there as conversation above seems to be limited to about ten people. Personally as it's such a major change I'd also say that a quorum of those should be required to move such a change forward.

Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, like I said, I'm dyslexic and I was given a screenreader by my University to assist me with my essays. Anyway I've tested it out and it reads everything that is there. It could be improved but the table version doesn't improve it much. Also the table version increases the KB size of the article and per Wikipedia:Article size we should be looking to reduce the BK size of several club articles. Also repeating the same link over and over again as proposed in the proposed table version also increases the KB size of articles. As to adding more images, that will further increase the article KB size. This is causes problems and long loading times for people with dial up internet and on some handheld devices. I think we should explore other options instead of going ahead with this table system. Not to mention adding club colours to the table system goes against WP policy. IJA (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The talk page notices are only an indication of possibly taking part. When started there would be a link in the edit summary that directs to here and a hidden message when someone tries to edit it saying the same. I agree with a lot of the points above but see no harm in a trial all articles can easily be put back to old template and we are talking a very small percentage of articles as a sample. The trial will highlight the new template, help fix issues with and determine consensus on its possible use.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But my point is that the 'trial' would be replacing existing content and asking people to make a judgement based on what I believe to be incorrect premise and therefore precluding their response. By 'trialling' it there is an implicit indication that this proposed format is the way things should be headed and I don't believe it is - consensus should first be sought on a) whether the current template is an issue and b) whether it can be updated if it is rather than immediately moving to ask for consensus to go in a complete other direction without addressing points A and B. Beginning a roll out (no matter how small or 'trailed') at the current time is presenting a fait acomplis Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe at the time over a year ago there was consensus the old template had an issue which is why this was created. Can you explain how you propose to get consensus as to whether this template should be implemented without letting people see it and become aware of its existent. Members of this project are aware of it but not outside it. So how do you propose we get there opinions that was the main point of a trial.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But as I've stated above I maintain that the existing template does not have the issues that have been claimed and that some of the reasoning for change is flawed. Rolling out changes based on a flawed argument and then prejudicing any response by repeating a list of incorrect imperatives is not a 'fair trial'. There is also mention in the above or updating the existing template in line with the Boca Juniors version - shouldn't this be trialed as well rather than a single option? I'm not saying some sort of 'trial' shouldn't be undertaken to gage feedback but that the proposed one is flawed and will pre-empt an outcome, and so would suggest that an alternative method should be undertaken. As the only real reason for change seems to be a stylistic preference (for the reasons I have already given) then a much better trial would be to mock up multiple options for an updated table template (based on the suggestions in the discussion above) and invite every member of WP Football (via their talk pages) to state a preference without prejudicing their response by making claims that the existing table must be removed. That would serve as a much more scientific trial and to be honest would probably invoke much more response than what has been proposed. Starting to add a revised style of table to articles will provide it with unwarranted legitimacy and pre-suppose any response. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Bladeboy1889 except you're wrong. The old format, because it uses only a flag will not correctly be ready by a screen reader. And touch devices cannot use the tooltip to determine the country. It's narrower than the current format so it requires less scrolling on a mobile/touch device. So I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the comments here was that the issue re screen readers was an inherent problem with the table and it's use of two columns - this has been used as the justification for an enforced change. Any issue regarding the flags as you state could be solved by refining the existing template and does not require a wholesale change to a one column tabular format with cell borders. As for scrolling on a mobile device I'm really not sure what you're getting at - if a page is twice as long it will require greater scrolling. If you're referring to side-scrolling, as I explained - the existing template works fine on touch screen mobile devices if you hold the phone landscape - which is standard user experience for such devices. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it Walter it is you who are wrong re flags and screen readers as they all have alt text stating the name of the country which will be read out by a screen reader.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You do make a good point though, WP:OVERLINK or specifically WP:REPEATLINK indicates that the first time a link is displayed is the only time it should be listed in a table. You suggest it's a WP:MOSFLAG issue, which wasn't quite correct but did have the principle correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The over-linking is I believe an issue, but the repetition of the same information (eg country name) is also ugly and in my view unnecessary. As the flags use alt tags (which satisfy accessibility criteria) if there is a concern that some users would not recognise some flags then a simple key above / below / alongside the table listing the differing flags and their relevant nations would solve that - much better than a squad that only contains English players having the word England repeated thirty times. Also that would actually improve the experience for screen readers as under the proposed as having the flag and country named gives the experience of: "Link graphic England Link England..." etc Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While I stand by the opinion that #2 is an improvement on what we currently have, a key is a viable alternative to spelling out country names. Although I've yet to see a squad template + key that didn't look worse than both of the templates we're talking about. —WFC— 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Using a key to explain icons is a standard thing in any data visualisation both on or offline. I don't think it's ideal but then as I said previously I believe the MOS for flags to be overkill. And as I said, the suggestion that the current flag icons don't work for screen readers is incorrect - in fact using an icon and then an explanation of that icon in each row is a worse experience for screen readers as it is unnecessarily repeating data (from an aural point of view).Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll bite. I'm just learning WCAG, but if you can show me where in the guidelines any of this is verified. To the best of my knowledge, tables are not prevented in the accessibility guidelines, so in short, Bladeboy1889 is wrong. But I'll wait for a response from Internet policy rather than opinion. And the sort functionality has come in handy several times so far on the MLS articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No that's true - in the current guidelines there's nothing specific about tables aside from trying to make them accessible. However they haven't been updated for several years mainly because there similar arguments as this about elements such as tables going on amongst it's authors. In general terms for the spirit of pure accessibility and within HTML5 guidelines tables should be avoided if possible as they are generally poor accessibility wise (and are more usually badly coded than other forms of layout). The other more trying issue for coders is that tables often perform hideously differently in different browsers which is why there has been a significant drive to move away from them in recent years. To come back to the specific points about the squad tables - there's also nothing in the guidelines to say that something formatted in 'two columns' is inherently inaccessible either.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IF WCAG 3 ever comes out, it will be well after the current HTML standards have changed and we may already have changed the template to use a data feed rather than a table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to end the trial?

The above comments from Bladeboy read to me like a fairly thorough debunking of the claims of necessity of the new squad template, as well as confirmation that the original one is fine for screen readers. Time for the trial to end? Number 57 13:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

given the trial really hasn't started as was giving time for responses which there haven't been many it's easy to stop. I'm split on it and happy to go eithier way.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this isn't a single-issue template. Flags were the initial driving force behind this design, accessibility is a factor, and there are several other things that various other people would like to see. While it's too soon to say that there is consensus to roll out this specific template, what is clear is that there is consensus that we should consider alternatives and/or improvements to the current version.

After 18 months worth of periodic discussion, to make a snap decision on feedback from two editors working in tandem (one of whom is even more combative than me), followed by a motion to close from an admin who is notoriously anti-change, would be an example of the sort of thing that gives WP:FOOTY a bad name. The trial is doing no harm in its current scope, although I agree there is no benefit to expanding further unless editors at a specific article actively want to switch.

I don't expect the editors I elude to above to accept any of what I say though, so let's focus on accessibility for the time being. I suggest we get input on {{football squad player}} and {{football squad player2}} from neutral users that we know are competent on these sorts of matters, such as User:Graham87 and User:RexxS. Partly because I don't want to be accused of trying to sway them, partly because I'm not the one claiming that there is a problem, I'll leave it to editors who want to end this trial more quickly to contact them. —WFC— 09:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please try and avoid veiled and inaccurate personal attacks - it doesn't really help advance any cause. Number 57 10:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments were neither veiled nor inaccurate, nor personal attacks. Thank you for that constructive contribution. —WFC— 10:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of being combative and "notoriously anti-change" are clearly personal attacks, and the latter (which was aimed at me) is also inaccurate - I am not resistant to change, I am merely resistant to "improvements" that actually make things worse. Number 57 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking your points one by one:

1. I don't think anyone disputes that this is a single issue template.

2. Flags are an issue in regards to their MOS - personally I don't like the way flags are deemed to be dealt with in tables such as this by that MOS as it's over-complication but that's another issue.

3. I never claimed there was no reason to adapt the current template or rebuild something else I was responding to the request for feedback which implied that the existing template could no longer be used based on several criteria I don't believe to be correct. There are certainly things that could be improved with what we've currently got (an attempt to deal with flags, improvement of the way the columns work etc).

4. Why would halting any roll out of a new template - as a trial or not - until the questions and issues I had raised be a snap decision? What is the point of asking for feedback from other editors and then just continue on anyway?

5. I'd say the lack of feedback goes some way to proving my point about the 'unscientific' nature of the trial as proposed. Most editors take no notice of talk pages or projects.

6. As for "two editors working in tandem (one of whom is even more combative than me)" - what exactly does that mean? I don't get involved WP:Footy stuff because a) I have no interest in researching the national side of Gambia or debating the nationality of obscure players from the Belarusian leagues and b) the hectoring that often goes on here makes me want to give up editing Wikipedia all together. I only took notice of this discussion because I saw IJA getting a kicking (along with Edinburgh Wanderer) in a discussion that at times began to feel like bullying. IJA is someone I've collaborated with on a lot of articles so against my better judgement I got involved to show a bit of support as I disagreed with some of the claims being made - had I agreed with the reasoning then I would have simply objected based on aesthetics. I kept my points concise and open for further discussion if anyone had counter points.

7. '...an admin who is notoriously anti-change'. Isn't that rather an aggressive statement?

8. '...would be an example of the sort of thing that gives WP:FOOTY a bad name.' Why would taking on board feedback (as asked for) and reviewing future actions based on it do that?

9. As I pointed out - what would any changes made to articles be trialling? My objection was to phrase it in such a way as to suggest that the existing template had to be removed and this new table is the only way forward based on contested reasoning. If you want to have a trial and ask whether users prefer table one or two purely on aesthetic grounds then fine. If there's a feeling that either template could be used and editors working on specific articles want to change then great. As Edinburgh Wanderer pointed out right at the beginning of this however - had there been much interest in a move to the proposed new template it would have spread further than it has over the last twelve months.

10. '...I don't expect the editors I elude to above to accept any of what I say though,' Another aggressive statement?

11. Accessibility - you don't know anything about me or what knowledge I have about accessibility. Are you are implying that I may have made it up as a 'non-neutral'? As I explained I did various tests against the two tables and found little difference - the existing table could be improved for accessibility purposes but but it is not inherently worse than than the proposed version. I suggested in my response if others had more exacting evidence that I hadn't encountered / considered then fine but no one has. I'd also ask why there was no suggestion of getting a 'neutral' reviewer when the claims about the existing templates accessibility were being so vigorously made?

Let me make this clear - I have no objections to change, no objections to a trial and no objections to moving forward based on consensus. My objections are that any consensus to date may have been based on inaccurate information and that the proposed trial was repeating those disputed claims as imperatives and thus influencing any response. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments in this thread, and the lack of response to my suggestion of calling in accessibility experts, both reinforce the things I said, and demonstrate why saying them was relevant. Nonetheless, Bladeboy makes some good points which I'll respond to shortly. —WFC— 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I do, and I'm certain I'm not alone.

2. They're an issue but not the issue. As you've pointed out above, this table is not the only way to deal with flags, a key would be an alternative.

3. I'm glad we agree.

4. I'll deal with this in the following answer.

5. The fact that most editors take no notice of talk pages of projects is precisely why we need a trial (which in fairness you don't seem to dispute), and also why the trial should continue while we try to work issues out. Only by having a live trial on live articles can we ensure that editors who don't like some or all of what we're doing can give feedback on what the problems actually are.

6. There is nothing at all wrong with yourself and IJA working together – I've worked with other editors in the context of this discussion too – nor is there anything wrong with the two of you agreeing. It becomes relevant when there is a proposal to end a trial on the basis of your feedback and IJA's agreement.

7. I considered it relevant in the context of a pointing out that this is premature motion to end the trial. I stand by its accuracy.

8. There is a difference between taking feedback seriously, and suggesting that we use the first substantive bit of negative feedback to kill off an 18 month process in three days, before we have even looked into the points made.

9. As you say yourself, most editors don't look at talk pages or project pages (and I'll add the Watford and Seattle Sounders articles to that list). Therefore, the major contributors to the vast majority of articles would have had no way of knowing about its existence. Had we tried to raise awareness about the template, it would doubtless have been branded canvassing. The only other way to get people's attention would have been to nominate {{football squad player}} at WP:TFD and use the discussion to promote {{football squad player2}}. That would have been a clear enough breach of WP:POINT to get whoever did it blocked.

10. Again, I considered it relevant. Accurate too – you have contested and Number 57 has ignored almost everything I said prior to that comment.

11. I don't know anything about your knowledge of accessibility, and for that reason I don't know how much weight to attach to the points that you make. I do know that Chris knows a fair amount, but am sure if he were to refute what you have said he would be considered "non-neutral". Hence my suggestion that we ask a couple of people who are well known on Wikipedia for their expertise in accessibility. In response to the final question, there was up to now no reason to doubt the accessibility argument; now that there is, I am suggesting that we clear up that doubt. —WFC— 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK - to respond to some of the above. First - my mistake in the first point - I had meant to type "isn't a single issue" rather than "is a single issue" so I'll hold my hands up to that. I've never said that the existing template can't be improved or there is no need to attempt to for accessibility reasons or otherwise. My main point is that I don't agree that a 'single' column table which creates a thin dataset with acres of white space is the only way to proceed or to sort out any of the issues. Basically it think it looks crap and amateurish. My objection to the proposed trial was that it was couched in terms that it is the only way to proceed which I still maintain will prejudice any feedback. At least one other option was suggested in the discussions so far - the Boca Juniors version for want of a better name - why not trial that as well? As I said, I'm not against change, trials or anything else - merely that being presented with a 'single option' to which anyone disagreeing with the merits of is shouted down with claims of accessibility that I don't believe to be accurate, is not a fair trial. I really don't want to get into a lengthy bitchfight on here - I don't have the time or the patience - but at the same time I don't see why you need to take such an aggressive tone with anyone who happens to disagree with you.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Boca Juniors one is concerned, I would oppose its rollout on the grounds that I feel we should grasp the opportunity to make more radical changes to an outdated template. However, given that I do see that as an improvement of sorts, I would not oppose a trial similar in scope to the one already in place – perhaps the Argentine Primera and a couple of English clubs? —WFC— 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do actually agree with you - I'd welcome an improved squad template and that it should be considered radically. I'm not attached to it. My point all along has been that the changes should be done for the right reasons. Personally I think a thin 'single column' layout sucks (and I'm not the only one judging by the comments in the discussion). You don't agree and that's your prerogative. At this risk of opening further cans of worms - an even more radical solution would be something like this New York Yankees#Current roster which includes all squad, loan players, coaching staff etc etc. I'm not saying we should adopt that format - just that it's a radical solution that is already widely used on wikipedia and worth considering.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't made a compelling argument as it's full of inaccuracies. So nothing has been "debunked". So it's not time to end the trial. Nice try though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the comment above about landscape mode being the predominant mode of use for internet browsers on smart phones: first, that's a ridiculous assertion to make, I prefer portrait because I don't have to scroll as much on a mobile site, and b) the official Wikipedia app on iPhone does not support landscape mode. I'm sure somebody can confirm that very easily. An example from the iPhone app: old template and new template. DemonJuice (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that landscape was the primary method of browser use on smartphones - however the ability to switch between portrait and landscape is. Are you really saying that you don't turn your phone to landscape to watch youtube videos for example? As for the iPhone Wikipedia app not supporting landscape - as I don't use an iPhone I can't check that but if it doesn't then it's pretty shoddy UI (and I know of iPhone apps that apple have rejected because of just that - but that's more an issue with the arbitrary and inconsistent way Apple judge apps that are submitted to the store). If so then fair point but I still maintain it doesn't make a 'two column' table completely unusable to the point of needing to make the PC/Laptop/Tablet view of the page look considerably worse. (see point below) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You said that's how these devices are intended to work and I say, says who? You. No, I don't always turn my phone sideways to view a video and I rarely turn it sideways for other reasons. I also can't turn it sideways in the Wikipedia app. This isn't a discussion about the app's UI, it's a discussion about how squad lists look across multiple platforms. The old one looks like crap on mobile devices. DemonJuice (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, you can scroll to the right to see the rest of the squad in the second column of the old template. The text is all justified within a screen width so you'd have to scroll back to continue reading the prose but then you won't have to scroll sideways again while reading. Of course, that's only because the heading collapse on the mobile site. If the old template wasn't collapsed under a heading, the text width would match the width of the old template. Unlikely to happen, sure, but a concern nonetheless. One column is far superior for mobile devices. I'm all for going back to abbreviations for the position column (while at the same time using the abbreviation Pos. in the header) and using the 3-letter code for the flags in the nations column to make it look even better on a mobile device in portrait mode. DemonJuice (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - when viewing the table in question in portrait that is the case - and isn't the greatest user experience. However the same can be said for pretty much any data table on wikipedia that has numerous columns (eg 2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season)Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that other things look like crap on Wikipedia when viewed from mobile devices so squad lists should emulate that? I don't get your argument here. DemonJuice (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The beauty of a wikitable is that it will expand or shrink to fit a screen for the most part, whereas columnar layouts like the old template will not. This means it has the potential to look good on a desktop and a mobile. We should strive to come up with a wikitable solution that satisfies most of the concerns of both sides. DemonJuice (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Africa Cup of Nations

As you may or may not be aware, the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations kicked off today. I think it would be a great occasion for editors to take this opportunity to focus on African footy in the next few weeks, especially the teams and players involved. While a lot of the players in the competition are based in Europe, meaning their articles are pretty well done, that is not the case for the domestic based players. I know I've already started similar topics before and got some good response to develop African footy, so I'm just taking this chance to remind everyone again. Cheers. TonyStarks (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a go at some biographies later tonight. GiantSnowman 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any particular major subjects or people that need articles or improvement? Hack (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

National teams. Just by looking at the map Africa is the continent needing improvement most. BCS (Talk) 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably worth an effort to get all of the African national teams up to at least start or C-class by the day of the final (12 February). Hack (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; reading your edit summary, you mentioned having an article improvement drive? BCS (Talk) 20:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just had in mind a concerted effort, not necessarily anything formal. Hack (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. BCS (Talk) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

what would be ideal is if matches were not updated as though Wikipedia were a scoreboard. A full discussion may be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 55#Live scores issue again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Dutch Eerste Divisie fully professional?

The list of fully pro leagues says it is, but the source appears to be someone's essay on a publish-your-own-writing website that doesn't even say definitively that either of the top two divisions is fully-professional in the Wikipedia meaning of the phrase. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is fully pro. There is a much starker division between fully and semi-pro/amateur in the Netherlands than in most countries, largely because it was a closed shop until last year. Clubs must have a professional licence to compete in the top two divisions. This article provides some context. Number 57 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This from the KNVB also expands on the amateur levels. GiantSnowman 16:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought so, but was a little surprised to find that at least one item in the list of fully-professional leagues (on which so much reliance is placed at AfD) was sourced to something that couldn't possibly be considered reliable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to audit the references that are currently on there - remove + replace dead links, check reliability, add more if possible, as well as formatting them using the proper {{cite web}}? GiantSnowman 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I go on there from time to time and check links etc, and if more people do that it can only help in catching dead links more quickly. Hopefully there aren't too many inappropriate sources on there, like the one Struway seems to have flagged. Not sure there's a need to turn all the entries into cite webs though? Eldumpo (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It shows publisher + date of access for quick reference, plus is also useful if the link goes dead - have a read of Wikipedia:Bare URLs. GiantSnowman 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. We're questioning the likelihood of a player in the Dutch second tier being notable. If this hadn't obviously been made in good faith (which of course it has been: no question there) I'd regard this as a breaching experiment. NFOOTBALL's focus on "fully professional" is an absurdity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The average crowd in the Eerste Divisie is around 4,000, and some clubs are close to 10,000. Are you seriously suggesting that playing in front of that many fans every week wouldn't make someone notable? Footballers playing at this level will be watched and known by far more people than, for example, an international field hockey player. Number 57 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As a former resident of the Netherlands, I can ensure you the Eerste Divisie is regularly and nationally covered. They even have a national TV show with all goals on RTL 7 (one of the major Dutch TV channel), plus regular coverage in newspapers, magazines, etc. Not to mention the amount of fans for such teams as, say, Sparta Rotterdam or Willem II Tilburg, just to mention two. Angelo (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Average crowds and general media coverage are not intrinsically tied to leagues being "fully professional". I'm fine with having a "blessed list" of leagues where we can presume notability, but it should be based on consensus as to how well that league is covered rather than whether it is "fully professional" or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say average crowds are totally linked to leagues being fully professional - clubs need crowds above a certain level (1,500 or so) to remain professional. We need some kind of indicator as to notability, and the FPL guideline is probably the closest we can get to a good barometer. To DuckisJammmy's point below, the rules are different to sports where there is no professional level (I assume you are referring to WP:NGAELIC). Number 57 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The two are certainly related, but unfortunately far too many editors take FPL as a bright line rather than just a good yardstick. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris about the average crowds, they're not an inherent part of being classed as fully professional, some amateur sports have an average attendance of 10,000-15,000 with crowds of over 80,000 for finals. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, what we were questioning was not the likelihood of a player in the Dutch second tier being notable, but the quality of the referencing at WP:FPL. Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above, promted me to take a look at the sourcing at WP:FPL and I have to say it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. The following is a list of all the leagues currently on the list that are sourced only with dead links. Please note that this is NOT intended as a comment on the notability of footballers playing in those leages:

• Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1
• Premier Soccer League
• Russian Second Division
• Football Championship of the National League
• Russian Premier League
• Liga I
• Lega Pro Seconda Divisione
• Lega Pro Prima Divisione
• Serie B
• Serie A
• Umaglesi Liga
• Gambrinus liga
• Primera B Nacional
• Austrian Football First League
• Austrian Football Bundesliga

In addition, Torneo Argentino A is currently listed with no source whatsoever. The source for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 claimed to be down for temporary maitenance. I will check it again later. You're help in finding more sources is much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are any of the dead links retrievable at the Wayback Machine? GiantSnowman 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a good time to plug the Resurrect Pages addon for Firefox, which makes sorting dead links easy (and helps a great deal with general browsing as well). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, a great find. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have clarified the Gambrinus liga is covered by the existing reference for the Czech second tier. Cloudz679 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim Ream

I'm having trouble updating the statistics table for Tim Ream, can some please update it to fit with the PL, League Cup, FA Cup, European competitions ect please? IJA (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it completely as unreferenced. GiantSnowman 12:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored with sources. Perhaps a {{Citation needed}} or {{Unreferenced section}} tag might have been enough, rather than removing the table? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No harm done in the end, though I believe we should have a pretty much zero-tolerance attitude on unreferenced information about BLPs. GiantSnowman 13:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to go with what WP:BLP says about contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Not convinced that two seasons' worth of career stats for a well-known player from a stats-rich league counts as sufficiently "contentious" to remove without waiting for discussion. Though it certainly wanted explicit sourcing, and one source was already in the article: his MLS profile in the external links section, which I suspect was there as a source in the same way editors of English football articles habitually put Soccerbase statistical references in the ext links section. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I use the first half of WP:BURDEN which states "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag)", but I can see the merits of both viewpoints, and importantly, we have managed to source information about a living person, which is always nice. GiantSnowman 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think it would have been more productive of you to hunt down a reference rather than just removing it all together? They're not exactly hard to find. [3][4][5][6] The first few things that came up when I did a quick google search. IJA (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

All of those sources are MLS stats only - none of those sources detail cups etc. GiantSnowman 09:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of players format

Most clubs seem to have a 'List of X F.C. players' now, which is only a good thing, but I think we need some agreement about layout/format so that they are the same across the board. Here are my concerns:

• Position - I don't think there should be a position column, for a number of reasons - the fact that primary position is not always clear, that some positions are not quite DF/MF (wingback) or MF/FW (winger), and that there are issues surrounding archaic positions (wing half/inside forward etc.)
• Player stats - just as we only have domestic league stats in the infobox, this should be reflected in these player lists. I also don't think we should separate appearances into starts + subs, as these stats will be hard, if not impossible, to source for older players. GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to overall establish what position is referred to as what. Currently we use the basic GK, DF, MF and FW. And we currently ignore or generalise the following positions L/RM, L/RWB, L/RW, AM, DM, CB, LB, RB, CF ect. We need to establish how we on Wikipedia are going to list, name and describe positions. The current system is done as the can usually play all over defence, or midfield or in attack ect. But Phil Jags and Rio Ferdinand have played in goal before, do we class them as defenders/ goalkeepers? (Please don't answer that btw, I'm just making a point of players being able to play in pretty much an position). Then we have players playing a certain position at one club and playing another position at another club. Michael Owen was a normal striker at Liverpool but was more of an attacking midfielder/ centre forward at Newcastle. IJA (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree - I think info on the position a player has is essential for this sort of list - it adds clarity in some cases towards the stats. EG - Alan Hodgkinson played 600+ times for Sheffield United but never scored a goal - why? Because he was a goalkeeper. Positions are used across pretty much every football article from player articles to seasons to lists to squads etc. Are we moving to remove all of them? Also the disparity between the two stats formats is odd I agree - but only Wikipedia articles seem to differentiate between league and other competitive matches which I have never understood. A player could (in theory) make only three league appearances but play in 100+ cup games for his club, including scoring a hat trick in the Champions League final (unlikely but possible) but on the 'league only' criteria he wouldn't be included in these 'list of notable players from club x articles'Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• But we've already agreed that 'list of notable players from club x articles' shouldn't be the name of the article. It should be done on appearances - in the domestic league. I mean, if we are including cups, where do we draw the line? GiantSnowman 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating that as a naming convention but was under the impression that a standard criteria of inclusion in such player lists (ie 100 apps) was expected? By having such a criteria doesn't it imply notability and thus the example I gave showing how limiting to league apps fails the premise of the article? That's a genuine question. As for line drawing - competitive matches is a simple one eg FA/FIFA etc sanctioned matches in a competitive competition thus excluding friendlies, testimonials etc. Obviously there's always argument to be had about what is competative but I get the feeling that the current system of league only was arrived at simply as a pragmatic way of not having to have those discussions rather than any 'correct' solution. As I said - it only seems to be wikipedia that ignores cup games. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with cup matches, and partly for international matches is that it is hard to find that data for players. Most first round cup games and qualifying rounds for international competitions are rather poorly sourced. Even for this season (if you exclude few top European leagues), just imagine how it would be to find data for some season 15 or 20 years ago. Although I would like to include all official matches into this, I just don't know how would be possible to find required data. Nightfall87 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the starts and subs bit, substitutions were only introduced in the 1960s, so I don't think that will be an issue, a recent list that was promoted to fl, List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances), deals with the position problem nicely. Personally, I think lists should follow the layout in that list. I also don't agree with only including league stats, this seem odd to me, as we are documenting all the players that played for the club, therefore those players who only made appearances in cup competitions wouldn't be included when they have obviously played for the club. I think the model laid out in the list I linked above is what should become the standard for these lists. NapHit (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the above comments seem to imply that such list should only include league appearances. If so, how come so many Featured Lists cover all matches; e.g.

• List of Arsenal F.C. players – "Appearance totals include matches in the Football League, Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup"
• List of Aston Villa F.C. players – "players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club"
• List of Birmingham City F.C. players – "Total appearances comprise those in the Football Alliance, Football League (including test matches and play-offs), Premier League, FA Cup, Football League Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup,Associate Members' Cup/Football League Trophy, and several now-defunct competitions including the Anglo-Italian Cup, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Scottish Cup and Full Members' Cup"
• List of Manchester United F.C. players – "Appearances are for first-team competitive matches only, including Premier League, Football League, FA Cup, League Cup, Charity/Community Shield, European Cup/Champions League, UEFA Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Super Cup and Club World Cup matches". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, stuff existing on Wikipedia does not make it right. Secondly, because sources obviously exist to show that. Are the same stats available for every club, or do they not matter? GiantSnowman 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that sources are available for most clubs, looking at a lot of the lists most of the clubs have a book entitled the complete record, which would include all appearances made in all competitions, making it easy to cite. In regards to just including league appearances what makes it right to just include league appearances? Surely that is subjective, yes league appearances are only included in infoboxes, but the rest of the appearances are included in stats boxes at the bottom of the players articles. I don't think it would be particularly wise to omit european and cup appearances from these lists, because as I stated above, players who only made appearances in theses competitions would no longer warrant a place in the lists, yet they have clearly made an appearance for the club in a competitive match. NapHit (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if statistics for all competitions are available then they should be used. If they're not then you can state clearly that the records are for league matches only. There should be flexibility and I think that has always been the case. Different lists can have differing inclusion criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a good way of doing it is to separately include League apps/goals and Total apps/goals, as the Birmingham example above and a number of other club lists. Position information should be included, as long as its sourced. Eldumpo (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the ability to source data for certain teams / players - surely just because something may be difficult in some cases that is not a reason for not doing it at all? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between something being hard to source and something being impossible to source. GiantSnowman 09:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But even if appearance data for cup games in Angola (country chosen at random) is unavailable - and I'd maintain that if someone flew to Angola and spent months researching in local archives it could be possible to find such information - that shouldn't mean that information about the FA Cup final is also precluded from such articles (where I'd argue preclusion implies lack of notability). As with the examples given above the aim could be to include all competitive matches if possible and as long as the article is explicit about what has been included and what has not it would remain valid. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there are significant stats available for the majority of clubs in England, for that reason I see no value to just including league appearances when the data for all other appearances is there. It would help if you provided an example of information that is hard to source rather than just sating that it is, so we can ascertain where you're coming from. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. players or List of Hamilton Academical F.C. players (both ongoing projects) - are there sources for cup appearances? For starts and subs? GiantSnowman 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They will be out there you just have to look harder, books will list this information and I'm sure there will be stats sites with this info on. The point is though, if the information is available for a single club, why exclude it when its not available for another? You can't shoehorn, all the lists into one format because some clubs don't have all the information available. If the information is there and its reliably sourced then it should be included at the absence of standardisation. Looking at the majority of these lists that are featured most of them are different anyway, so i don't think a consensus will be reached over format. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the local newspapers for each would carry such info on a game by game basis, not an easy task to collate but not impossible. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony Brown's "Definitive" series of books does Bradford PA, available on a well-known bookselling site at a not unreasonable price. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was inspired by this discussion to put together a List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players. I stuck it in for peer review if anyone wants to comment. Ta. U+003F^? 00:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Farnborough F.C.#Former players of note

Apart from the usual vague inclusion criteria ("those that are well known within the non-League (sic)"), what a truly bizarre way to format such a section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Rocky Baptiste, slayer of dragons, scourge of the barbarians, scorer of FA Cup goals.--EchetusXe 22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sacha Opinel, a player of note? If it's for being awful then fair enough. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What a strange thing to say. He's something of a club legend at Farnborough.  Omg †  osh  19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not allowed to make jokes on here, obviously. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Coppa Italia Final

Not sure if there is call for this article to exist yet so have PROD'd it. Please feel free to CSD or remove prod depending on your thoughts. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading that article tells you who is playing, where they are playing, and when they are playing. It is common practice to have articles on major sporting events scheduled for later in the year.--EchetusXe 14:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Most successful Spanish club"

Hi. A problem that seemed to have been sorted following a previous discussion has reared its ugly head again. It's basically an argument between Real Madrid and Barca fans about who should be described as Spain's "most successful" club. There is a ridiculous argument going on at Talk:Real Madrid C.F. right now. In my opinion, the articles should just list how many of each trophy the clubs have won, and to note whether that is a record (e.g. Real Madrid's 9 European Cup wins). It's plain and NPOV. Sadly, no-one is listening, and I was hoping that experienced WP:FOOTY editors could try and help out. Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• That will never stop as long as life exists on this planet (i can't imagine how the articles' situation in ES.WIKI must be!), just watch how the players and fans "have fun" in the Clasico. I could not agree with you more, plain and NPOV information (go tell that to the overzealous army of "fans" out there - and not just in Spain!). I would suggest limiting the articles to registered people, but from what i see the ongoing discussion is between precisely those, with threats of request for admin intervention to "go with it" :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• As you've already intimated, the correct course of action here is simply to avoid subjective commentary like "most successful" entirely in favour of simply describing the achievements. The major problem here appears to be Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs)'s failure to get the point even after tag-team partner Crashwheelx (talk · contribs) was blocked. I can already tell you how this one plays out in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just mention that RM have won the league X amount of times and the Cup X amount of times, then mention that barca have won the league X amount of times and the Cup X amount of times. Then let the reader decide who they think is the most successful Spanish club. IJA (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that's my position. Sadly the screaming arguments between (presumably) Barca and RM fans means that every time I suggest this it's ignored, and every time I make an edit to get to that state it is undone! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps write "Real Madrid is widely considered as the most successful team due to x trophies in these competitionsCr7ftw3665 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully pro status of the Scottish First Division

I see the Scottish First Division is listed as being fully pro under WP:FPL, but I'm wondering whether this is actually correct. It is currently sourced using 10 references that cite the professional status of each club, but would it not be preferable for a source to be found which explicity states that the division is fully pro, rather than synthesising a number of sources? Also, I'm given the impression that the SD1 has only been fully pro since the start of the 2011–12 season; should this not be noted under the division's entry at WP:FPL, as those who played in the division before that time would fail WP:NFOOTBALL? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As with #Is the Dutch Eerste Divisie fully professional? above, this is answering the wrong question. The right question is "are players who participate in the Scottish First Division implicitly notable per our expectations on the existence of sufficient reliable sources which cover them"? The answer is, screamingly obviously, yes. The First Division isn't currently "fully professional": the majority of Ayr United's squad train part-time. This does not make one lick of difference to the degree of coverage the league gets in reliable sources. SFL1 is listed at FPL for one reason only, which is that we sadly have too many editors who treat FPL as some golden rule rather than using a degree of common sense when nominating articles for deletion. Put more bluntly, if anyone goes around PRODding SFL1 players from seasons where there happened to be part-time teams in the league they deserve to be whacked with a large, preferably deep-fried, trout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was listed there long before this season however was removed at the start of this season and re added. Its extremely notable is covered heavily in the press just as much as the SPl. The divisions below are all semi pro so sometimes when a team are promoted such as Ayr they choose to keep thats status. Saying that not all Ayr's players are part time. As was mentioned further up this page the whole fully pro thing needs to have some degree of commonsense as clubs are finding it harder to stay afloat and there are going to be far more teams going semi pro in notable leagues. I think you should look at the talk page to see there was already a discussion there and one here that got rather heated. its been debated to death. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish first division is not and never has been "fully professional". Part-time, semi-pro Ayr United consists entirely of a motley collection of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. This is actually confirmed in the source! This has been pointed out a few times before only for the disproportionate number of Scotch editors to engage in some fairly hysterical examples of WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:GANG. Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! Of course, most of it can be explained by bigotry. In their myopia, the smidgen of coverage enjoyed by the part-time SFL (after Celtic... then Rangers... then the rest of the lowly SPL...) still outweighs that of other top-level national leagues. It's bizarre and needs urgently to be corrected. There is no perspective. Until the late eighties even the top Scottish league was not "fully pro". 94.2.8.11 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

above comment is likely made by User:PorridgeGobbler who also used several ips including this one User talk:94.2.51.78 which lead to various ANis regarding there behaviour towards myself and a few others in previous discussions which as you can see isn't getting any better. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry came across this discussion late. As the IP states Ayr are part time, the ref for Ayr "http://www.ayrshirepost.net/ayrshire-sport/ayrshire-football/ayr-utd-fc/2009/05/29/ayr-united-won-t-play-the-full-102545-23724174/" shows in the URL ayr united wont play the full and extracts from it included "But they won’t risk putting the future of the club in jeopardy by abandoning their part-time status." and "“We have part-time players with jobs and can’t ask them to give these up to go full-time. We will still be a predominantly part-time club but we will have some players in during the week." and from the chairman “Now we have got to the First Division, the target is to keep ourselves there but we have to remain financially sound at the same time. We’re not going to throw away all the hard work to get the club on a stable footing by going full-time for the sake of it.” So are Ayr pro? No. Is the division fully professional? No.Murry1975 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on all the talk pages the overriding consensus was the common sense was to be used. The list is used to determine whether a player meets N footy. One club in the leauge i.e ayr has a mix of part time and full time players. It was decided on the talk page of the article and at various discussions at the main project page to leave things as they were for the time being. One club does not make a league non notable. Several other proposals were brought up to calculate notability but things were left as status quo this does not mean that further disuccuion can't take place as is happening at the main project just now which is where ip made his latest personal attack. He was advised many times he was welcome to take part in the discussion however every time people disagreed with him he resorted to attacks and socking. He also went on a war whilst the discussion was ongoing prodding articles which he was advised not to do because even if it was decided that we no longer treated it as notable previous season still would be as notability is permanent. As i said this isn't a content dispute because there was clear consensus. He is socking as he was advised not to do as part of unblock. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok what we need to decide here is whether we accept that one club having a mix of pro and non pro players make this league suddenly non notable previous discussion indicate that not to be the case. The League gets high coverage in the press similar to the spl. It needs noted than one club does not make the league non notable. Every team coming up have to decide whether or not to go fully pro or stay semi pro. Some will some won't but that has no influence on notability given financial problems around the world this is going to happen far more often and this is opening a weakness in our system of fully pro. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed some errors in fact made creeping into this section: 1) The League does not receive coverage similar to the SPL. That is absurd. Within Scotland coverage is 80% on the "Old Firm", with much of the remaining 20% on the other SPL teams or England. 2) The league did not suddenly become non-notable. It has always had part-time and/or semi pro teams in it. Unless anyone can name the last time that it didn't? 3) Ayr United are not the only team currently in the league with part-time/semi-pro players. Far from it. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No errors at all this league has always been considered notable within this project. Two you are aware of all previous discussions where all of this was pointed out to you we have sources showing other clubs are not part time. Also every team in the uk has part time players i.e. youth contracts or apprenticeships. Media coverage it does easily get similar coverage to the SPL. Matches are all covered in the press including articles on players rumours excetra. May is ask where you live because it its not in scotland then i doubt you would see all that you will just see your localised coverage and Rangers and celtic. I doubt you do live in scotland because your two comments like struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! or Better yet get out of Scotland and see how things work outside of a parochial backwater. This shows you have a major grudge against the country.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer , normally you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you, so I presume you are going to strike that? All national leagues would meet the criteria then, only the like of Andorra would fail with regards to a mix of pro- and semi-pro,and for coverage all get media coverage within their own area, the basis that notability comes from reliable local coverage- I doubt that a first division Scotland team gets much coverage in France or Germany- is absurd.Murry1975 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Muray if you can't see they are personal attacks then i worry for you i have never had any interaction with you anywhere so the fact you say i normally get all Huffy when personally attacked then i have my doubts about you If anyone has a go about your own country then you get pissed off. Please read all disusisons held previously involving multiple editors. It should also be noted there is an ANI ongoing re this.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC cover it the Scotsman cover it the Daily Record, The sun, The Herald and more all large news companies. Hardly just local coverage. The Scottish government describe it as the oldest and largest professional League in Scotland. Its clearly well covered.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC cover the IFA premiership in Northern Ireland, so do the papers that pertain to Northern Ireland it has the same mix of Pro and semi-pro that the first division does and probably more internationals, the LOI gets the coverage from RTE and the papers there and again has pro-players and semi-pro (some labeled semi-pro despite being on €24,000 for 40 weeks[7]) yet we agree that they are not fully professional even with teams that compete in Europe within those leagues.Murry1975 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question where have i interacted with you before I'm getting concerned here given something you have just quoted. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You havent as far as I am aware. My advice earlier to you was based on what I have read. What part have I qouted that worries you?Murry1975 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

normally you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you. Thats shows you have had some interaction with me or strongly gives that impression then your irish comments. The Ip and porridge gobbler was strongly believed to have a grudge because of previous discussion regarding leagues in Ireland which never went his way and every time something didn't go the way he wanted he would change. There has been so many discussions over the last two years all which have ended in the status quo and adding WP:Common Sense. The difference between pro levels in the irish leagues and in Scotland is huge It was suggested that we change the system to something which truly follows notability rather than fully pro that may have meant other leagues being included but also possible removal of the first division this was turned down and agreed that the current system was the best we had and common sense needed to be applied. .Edinburgh Wanderer 13:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am failing to see is use of common sense in including the first division. I would like to point out that the IP seems to be living in Scotland and I am not fimilar with Porridge Gobbler. Your comment could have been less sharp back, if there is an ANI on, firing shots back like that are not is not going to do your side any good is it? Again I fail, an others do too, see how the first division is listed as such. Here is a BBC journo highlighting the issue including [8] Raith Rovers as part-time, mind you the article he wrote is more to do with the way Scottish football is heading, including the SPL. I also agree that on what criteria I have seen the Irish top-flights are not pro leagues but I am failing to see the criteria for the first division, you say common sense I think a leaning in one direction.Murry1975 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was sharp at all you asked why i had my suspicions and i told you why i had them and as is strongly suspect he has other accounts as i have said repeatedly at ANI its a valid concern. Porridge Gobbler is clearly not editing in Scotland his comments show a major grudge against the country and editors from it. That source talks about future of clubs does not state anyone isn't fully pro it says at one point st Johnstone was semi pro which as they were in lower league is the case. Hearts are fully pro as are all in the SPL and All but one in first division. Please go off and read previous discussions before you comment further no point covering old ground once again. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain your comment normally you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you would not know that from this discussion or from the current ANIEdinburgh Wanderer 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It mentions, for my second time of mentioning, Raith Rovers- a first division side.

As for my advice on your response above, as a person not envolved I found the language you used as sharp as the language used against you, and from what I read this is your reaction response. Yes we all can be snappy back but raising an ANI about something and doing it yourself? I dont care for the condensending "please" you added after your last full comment, an after thaught to be polite? Now can we try to stick to the topic raised?Murry1975 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry you have never edited this page or anything like this until today or anything to do with Scottish football apart from in ireland given your comments about me which i clearly feel needed some prior knowledge and your comment about Ireland i have fairly valid concerns given this i suggest we move to the ANI Discussion re this if you have nothing to with this then fair enough but your comments make me suspicious so until this has been looked into at the Ani i will not comment further with you.14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Edinburgh Wanderer

Yes I saw that, the admin seemed to agree with me about your reaction "But choosing to stoke the fire instead of dropping the stick is just making the matter worse than it needs to be". The point you just made, are you trying to tell me I cant edit pages which take my interest? What type of attitude is that? Or is the bring of this to an ANI just a way of getting me away from this subject?Murry1975 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ive said I'm not discussing this with you until the ANI/SPI recommended is finished if you have nothing to do with any of the behaviour directed towards me and others then i will talk with you. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI? lol Are you including me in an SPI aswell because I have a different way of looking at this?Murry1975 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for everyones ref Raith Rovers manager has clearly said they are full time this season.[9]. The Ayr quote states We have part-time players with jobs and can’t ask them to give these up to go full-time. We will still be a predominantly part-time club but we will have some players in during the week.This means they have some fully pro players which backs up what i have said above when a club is promoted they have to choose whether to go pro or not Ayr financially cant does not stop the league being notable. Livingston were fully pro even whilst in the third division. This project on several occasions in previous discussions decided to keep on the list its a borderline case for pro but it was also agreed the league got enough coverage to be notable. Im just pointing out that the ref re Raith is wrong. Other input is clearly required if this is going anywhere. I will not be around to comment further but a look in archive four and three show previous discussions whilst search in the archive for the project page will show previous discussions here. The whole world of football is in financial trouble which will mean a lot of clubs no longer being pro this is why in a previous discussion it was brought up that using pro as a measure is no good. The different options would have meant some leagues no longer being considered notable maybe this one or not but it would of given a clearer indication of notability. Change was not wanted or is it really needed if common sense is applied to borderline cases of which there are few. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Raith Rovers source says McGlynn will work with a squad of around 15 first-team players, supplemented by youth stars, and, with the exception of keeper David McGurn, a full-time squad will be at his disposal. 15 minus the part-time goalie is 14 full time pros. They've used 27 players so far this season. Is that fully professional? I'm all for "common sense" but why the double standard for Scotland when other partly semi-pro leagues like Ireland, the Blue Square Premier and even the WSL are excluded from the list. The idea that SFL1 gets "similar" coverage to the SPL is ludicrous. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all i welcome you using your own account rather than abusing multiple accounts. At least your not hiding who you are thats the way to talk to people. Every single squad has a youth team. Hearts have loaned 5 players to them this season all are fully pro. on top of their main squad. Hearts have 30 youth players they play frequently that does not make it non fully pro. Your argument has been rejected five times already since last August and its drawing at straws. The argument that SFl1 receives less coverage is ludicrous it receives a very similar amount. There are four leagues in england that get less coverage. Oh and thanks for bringing up ireland again wonder how long that would take you. Ireland isn't even close to being pro in any way shape or form The SFL1 has one team that class themselves as semi pro and that is Ayr. Raith are pro. There is no point in this discussion when five already have went the other way. If you want to debate it further the end of the season is the correct time as after 5 debates its very unlikely to change consensus in the middle of the season. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed a tag from the footie league article as a discussion is on going it doesnt need to be highlighted as such. BRD and guidelines mean that we have to reliable prove that the material being removed should be, not insinuate it in the article. Agree with EdWand that the Irish leagues are no where near pro, but I dont believe that the SFL1 gets near as much coverage. I look at this as someone not from Britain, and in the media I read and look at the SPL is the only mention other than scorelines, and in the same respect very few non-topflight divisions are mentioned.Murry1975 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes I suppose the coverage received by the Scottish First Division is similar the that received by, say, Celtic. It is also similar to coverage received by Real Madrid and Barcelona. David McGurn is also similar to Gianluigi Buffon, except that Buffon doesn't earn a couple of hundred quid a week playing in a part-time team, or supplement his income by working in an FE college! PorridgeGobbler (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry i don't know where you live but say league one and two in england do they receive much coverage there. Here there is no coverage of the leauge of ireland in our press at all. As I've already said above there was other ways of determining notability and nobody wanted the change. It was fairer but every one thought that it wasn't worth it. SFl1 has always been perceived to be notable by the project going back along time. i can show you multiple AFDs years before i started showing that so the argument laid out that its just this season is false. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

League One league two recieve minor coverage but the conference and below only in an exceptional insatnce. Unfortunately the same can be said of SFL1, 2 and 3. Serie A and B do, la liga and segunda and I could go on but this isnt a list, do recieve quite a bit. I think maybe at the end of season (or at least a more appropriate time) the list should be worked on, with constructive discussion. Maybe even a small discussion on the talkpage about eachs merits and whether they meet the criteria. This could be used if this type of discussion was to happen again. I am in favour of leaving this until then, any objections?Murry1975 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

SFL2 and 3 receive minor coverage even here there is no debate at all that they should be perceived as notable they just aren't. Only the premiership and championship and obviously Spain and italy have some due to the size of the league. Im willing to have another discussion for another idea for what is perceived to be notable but its been dismissed repeatedly and i would be willing to discuss again but it will probably go the same way again. Mid season is the best time for this. All seasons before an including this one have always been notable. This one is as well and no change should be made in the middle of a season it would cause chaos down the line at afd's.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be AfDs it would be straight forward PRODs. Except for players who have done something notable in their day jobs. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prods would be removed straight away as they were the last time. Prods are for non controversial deletions only. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Africa Cup of Nations article improvement drive

As decided above, there will be an article improvement drive to improve all national teams playing in the 2012 African Cup of Nations. The goal is to get all articles to C-class (except Ghana, which is at B-class). The drives ends on February 12. If you enjoy improving national football teams, then consider joining national teams task force. Below is a list of teams in the 2012 ACoN with class icons.

---

Group A

• Equatorial Guinea
• Zambia
• Libya
• Senegal

Group B

• Côte d'Ivoire
• Angola
• Sudan
• Burkina Faso

Group C

• Gabon
• Tunisia
• Morocco
• Niger

Group D

• Ghana
• Mali
• Guinea
• Botswana

---

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, BCS (Talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FLC List of Israel State Cup winners

Hi everyone, There is a Featured list candidates of List of Israel State Cup winners. People with experience in WP, please have a look and apply your concerns, Support, or Oppose. Thank you. Please note: have you say before it closes with Stale nomination.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Horribly written articles

Could you take a look at the articles recently edited by User:ChrisAnorthosis: Matúš Kozáčik, Vincent Laban, Ricardo Laborde, Valentinos Sielis, Cristovão da Silva Ramos. They are horribly written with a lot of unreferenced and pov info. So could someone clean up them?--Oleola (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If I find some time tonight I will clean them up. GiantSnowman 12:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through Matúš Kozáčik for the grammar only, there is POV which still needs to be removed. - Cloudz679 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio image on Commons

File:Chatham excelsior 1890 kit.gif is a clear copyvio from historicalkits.co.uk, but I don't know how to get an image on COmmons deleted. Anyone.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as copyvio. Hope it works... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ghana national football team

Apart from it being a messy article, I came across a section which I thought was disputable, the "top goalscorers" section. Initially, it looked like this... no references and it also only included recent players, so I removed the section saying so. User:MarkMysoe who was responsible for adding the section and is a regular editor on the article, put the section back with few changes. Sources say that Abedi Pele (33) and Tony Yeboah (29) are the top two scorers for Ghana. Asamaoah Gyan just scored his 28th goal the other night against Mali in the Nations Cup, making him third. Apart from them, MarkMysoe lists other players, recent-ish I might add, but only used national-football-teams.com as his source. That would be fine to reference their goal tally, however I've tried telling him that it doesn't state if that player is the 4th, 5th, 10th, etc. in Ghana's leading scorers list. He says NFT is accurate and all that and I've come to the point where I'm getting fed up trying to explain this situation to him. His latest reply just proves how stubborn (and arrogant?) he is. A little help would be nice. The "player drain to other countries" section is a bit dodgy as well. I guess MarkMysoe was the one who added it? Banana Fingers (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think national-football-teams.com is a reliable source. It's a self-published football statistics website by a group of people. Even their FAQ page looks like someone's personal website. According to WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:USERGENERATED, self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't think they've publicly reveal who the editors responsible for the statistics and where they gathered the statistics from. Therefore there is no way for us to know whether these editors have previously been published by reliable third-party publications or not. Even though their statistics are correct for most players, there are some obvious errors found in NFT. For example: 1) Compare Zinedine Zidane's international appearances in 1996 and 2000 from NFT (13 and 12), French FA (12 and 13) and RSSSF (12 and 13). 2) Compare Thierry Henry's total international appearances in NFT (122), FIFA (123), French FA (123) and RSSSF (123). These are only two examples and there are plenty more errors that I've found. Based on these, I don't think NFT qualify as WP:RS. — MT (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding NFT, here are their contributors. Regarding French players, there was a thread on here not long ago regarding Anelka's international stats - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Anelka - International goals - where it was explained (by yourself no doubt) that certain matches are not official but, due to the stubborness of the French FA, FIFA has accepted them in their records, whereas NFT has obviously not. GiantSnowman 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, my point is, NFT did not follow the French FA or FIFA statistics, which means they fail to acknowledge the official statistics from these regulatory organizations. The contributors listed there doesn't seem to have anything published in reliable third-party publications, therefore, according to WP:SELFPUBLISH, NFT fails as reliable source. Regarding Ghana's team, NFT also made an error on their leading scorer, Abedi Pele. According to NFT he only has 31 caps and 11 goals, while FIFA listed him with 67 caps and 33 goals. I haven't had the time to check Yeboah's stats or the other players, but how does a self-published website that did not acknowledge official statistics, has plenty of errors and probably does not have complete statistics, can be considered a reliable source. — MT (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "contributors" page appears to list people the site's owner has thanked for their support and help. Some of them are reputable names, but "support and help" doesn't constitute contribution of significant amount of content. The FAQ page makes it very clear the site is someone's personal website. And as Martin says, one with limited content and no evidence of where the information comes from or what standards of fact-checking apply. Not sure where that gets us with the Ghana problem, though... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

NFT is still the best source for a lot of players and countries. For a lot of African players, it's almost impossible to find the information the site provides. Some stats might be a missing, a game or two a year for smaller countries, but for the most part, the site does a great job. When no other option is available, I don't see a problem in using NFT. It might not be 100% accurate, but as long as it's not overstating stats I don't have any qualms with using it as a reference. TonyStarks (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Player Drain To Other Countries looks very much like WP:OR], and has a bit of a WP:POV feel to it too. I have tried removing this section in the past noting my concern, but another editor disagreed with my assessment. Plenty of other nations (particularly African ones) have eligible players who chose other nations, don't think Ghana is especially notable for this. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That whole section should be deleted. Like you said, its original research and frankly it's completely irrelevant to the Ghana national team article. Delete it.

Agreed, as the B & R elements of WP:BRD have happened, now is time to D - so let's take it to the article talk page please. GiantSnowman 11:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Local derby

What is the difference, precisely, between a local derby and a regular football rivalry, and is the term 'local derby' used in sports other than association football? Various comments at Talk:Local derby suggest that the two terms have distinct meanings but there is no agreement on a single definition. I had always thought of a 'local derby' as a rivalry between local teams that regularly play one another, but that definition would exclude many items listed in the article, such as the France–Italy football rivalry and probably even El Clásico.

The article provides a definition in the lead but it is ambiguous, containing qualifiers such as "in many countries", "generally local", "particularly in association football". It has other issues, too: two unsourced sections about the origin and usage of the phrase; an unsourced 'International' section which raises the question of just how 'local' a local derby is required to be; and, finally, a long and mostly unsourced list of derbies and rivalries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no strict definition as it isn't actually a piece of game terminology; only a set of heuristics. The article is, typically, a diabolical mishmash of personal opinion, examplespam and original research. At some point someone simply needs to delete every sentence, bullet point of factoid in it not backed up by least one inline citation to a good, reliable secondary source. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a few sources that provide definitions but, as you said, there appears to be no unified meaning:

• Mad for it: From Blackpool to Barcelona: Football’s Greatest Rivalries, by Andy Mitten: "a fixture between two local sides", but also "used to describe football games between teams which may be situated far further apart , regional rather than local rivals" (link).
• Sports culture: an A-Z guide, by Ellis Cashmore, Ernest Cashmore: "soccer games between proximate rivals" (p. 89, link). This book devotes pages 89 through 91 to discussing the origins of the phrase 'local derby' and providing various examples.
• Phrases.org.uk: "a sporting contest between rivals from the same district[, o]ften referring to football (soccer) matches" (link).

Perhaps this could be a starting point. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delay in deleting PROD's

Does any one know why articles proposed for deletion by this project since 20 January have not been deleted. At present there are 17 articles that are due for deletion, but have been ignored in some cases for as long as four days. I have no objection to the delays, but would simply like to know if there is a reason for it, and what that reason is. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why Sputnik, but there are currently articles from 19 January PRODed for 12 days and not deleted, listed at Category:Proposed deletion. What's strange though is that normally the eligible pages are automatically categorized with the Category:Expired proposed deletions tag, but not at the moment. Cloudz679 14:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prods not expiring? GiantSnowman 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing yet at ANI but I noticed the 19 and 20th January ones have finally been deleted. 21 January still has 5 pages. Cloudz679 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

FC Zenit Saint Petersburg

User:Barocci have moved the article FC Zenit Saint Petersburg to FC Zenit, even though the result of the previous requested move discussion, started by him, was no consensus for move. User:Ilikeeatingwaffles have started a requested move discussion, to move it back, but I feel that the right thing to do is to move the article back to FC Zenit Saint Petersburg right away (as per the previous discussion), and then if wanted start a requested move discussion to move it to FC Zenit. I tried to move the page back myself, but there was an unknown obsticle there. Could a administrator look into this matter? Thank you, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think ana dministrator moving the page while there is an ongoing discussion would exacerbate the situation; a RM to move it back is the right thing to do. GiantSnowman 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however, I think an administrator need to merge the content and the page history of Talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg and Talk:FC Zenit. — MT (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the move was strictly in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports) guideline. There were no further comments however since that guideline came to light. Do you guys mind commenting in the discussion with the regard for the guideline? Barocci (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreement between Home nations for national eligibility

Where's the most appropriate article to add information about the Home nations / FIFA eligibility criteria? TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

FIFA eligibility rules maybe. -Koppapa (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Football banners

Has anyone else noticed the banners, which link to the project's assessment department, have two links, one for quality and one for importance. The quality one has no problems (good quality!) but the importance link seems to be broken and I don't know why. I have a feeling it's connected with the broken header of the Template:WP Football Importance Scheme but I am reluctant to play with it. Does anyone have a solution? Cloudz679 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Records and statistics

I'm having a go cleaning up List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics, specifically the contents and references yet I've encountered a problem with European statistics. Looking around other lists from football clubs which have passed WP:FLC, some (for instance Birmingham City and Aston Villa) provide a game-by-game account, others (Barcelona and Manchester United) don't and in Liverpool's case, a wikilink to its European section is provided. What is the consensus here: should I go with Barcelona's – the last list which has passed FL successfully or should I provide a European record? Or is the table needed for clubs who have played less than say 100 European games? – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time I wrote the Birmingham list, they'd played four seasons in Europe and the most recent was 47(?) years ago, so it was something special and the game-by-game account took up a truly minimal amount of space ;-) If you're going to follow an existing FL, I'd suggest going with the "big" English clubs. As (surprisingly) there isn't an Arsenal F.C. in European football article, you can't link to it – though it'd be a good project to start from scratch, if you're looking for something to do, both Liverpool F.C. in European football and Manchester United F.C. in European football provide a sound structure to follow, with different approaches to the statistical part of it. Perhaps in the absence of an Arsenal in Europe, you might consider using a summary table in your stats and records page, along the lines of Liverpool F.C. in European football#By competition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I echo Struway's comments, I would definitely exclude European records from the list and have a separate article along the lines of the liverpool article above. Arsenal have played numerous seasons in Europe and the info warrants its own article, and would be too big to include in the records and stats list. Plus, if you do create the Arsenal in european football article, it should be prose based like the liverpool one due to the amount of seasons that Arsenal have played in Europe, you could easily get a good article out of it. NapHit (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Port Said riot

Just checking, is there an article yet on the Al-Ahli/Al-Masry riot yet? Hack (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is. It's currently titled Port Said Stadium clashes. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: national leagues

What is the guideline for the infobox for a national league if there are members of that league from outside the country of which the league is the national league?

Currently we have:

• League of Ireland, which states only "Republic of Ireland" in the infobox, although one of its members is from Northern Ireland;
• Scottish Football League Third Division, which states "Scotland (One team in England)";
• Premier League, which states "England; Wales";
• The Football League, which states "England; Wales";
• Ligue 2, which states "France; Monaco";
• Swiss Challenge League, which states "Switzerland; Liechtenstein]];
• A-League, which states "Australia, New Zealand"; and
• Major League Soccer, which states "United States (16 teams); Canada (3 teams)".

It seems, then, that League of Ireland is out of step. Presumably it should mention Northern Ireland in the infobox? Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there may be another anomaly: Welsh Premier League only refers to Wales in the infobox, although one of its members, The New Saints are based in England. Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland + Wales should be brought in line with the other examples. GiantSnowman 14:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I must of been hoodwinked the last time this came up in regards to the League of Ireland. But if its wrong then its wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The key question is what the 'country' parameter is supposed to be showing, rather than simply counting its current usage in the infoboxes. Is it supposed to be recording the 'country' in which the league is based, or the country whose FA oversees the league, or the country(ies) whose teams compete in the league? Should the 'country' field be renamed? Should there be a secondary field added for those leagues who have teams from more than one country? Whatever the decision text needs to be added to the template doc. Eldumpo (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along the lines of what happens in MLS and SD3. A league with teams from other countries probably should mention this, but should also make clear that it is predominantly based in one country. —WFC— 12:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the infobox should state the country of which the league is the national league, and put in brackets any other countries in which are based any league members, e.g. "Republic of Ireland (one team from Northern Ireland)". Mooretwin (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What about having a part saying country and another part saying other countries below that.C. 22468 Talk to me 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MLS Importance

I feel that the Major League Soccer should become a higher priority for this (High Importance). It's growing in popularity and the article for the league is sub-par as is the ones for its clubs. The article is ranked start-class and I feel that that is because it's ranked as importantly as it should be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr7ftw3665 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to contribute --MicroX (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Momo Coly

This article appears to be in a bit of a mess. Coly was down as having played five games for Leyton Orient, which is untrue, and I've removed it. I can't find any reference to this guy ever being at Orient at all. Maybe Leyton F.C.? Or maybe neither. Was he ever at Palace? I sense notability problems too, as none of the clubs he has apparently played for competes in a professional league. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Zombie created the article. Enough said. Probably passes WP:ATHLETE, but still needs to be looked at. – JS^{Rant Away} 23:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed all the English teams and went with the clubs that are listed here for now. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A link [10] on this version [11],includes "It is Senegalese and comes from the English club Leyton Orient, French Ligue One of England. In addition, he has fought in Woking FC, Wealdstone FC, Crystal Palace and Noisy".Murry1975 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some opinions regarding a FLC

I nominated Malmö FF in Europe for FLC (see here) on 23 December last year and it is still at FLC awaiting further input. I presume that the FL directors want further opinions before promoting or archiving it, it has currently two editors supporting it and none opposing it. I would be truly grateful if anyone wants to express their opinions to reach a consensus. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Help

hi everybody, I have a situation here in AFC Futsal Club Championship page. One user is very persistent to add an unofficial tournament in the main table. in 2006 one trial tournament held link. I say an small explanation about this tournament somewhere in the page is enough, and this trial edition must not added to the main table. based on this link 2010 tournament was the first edition recognized by AFC. can anyone here help me and talk to this user, since he has personal problem with me and does opposite of what I say. I already reverted it 3 times and can't do it again tonight. Thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)