Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:50, 29 October 2006

Football Project‑class

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

Template:WPF navigation

Archives
July 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006

Notable?

Someone recently created Graham Simpson (chairman). I just wondered what people thought about notability on him. What hasn't been included in the article there is the fact that Simpson founded the travel company Simply Travel (which he sold for large profit) and now owns Simpson Travel. He was also an actor, appearing in Blakes Seven amongst other things. HornetMike 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chairmanship of a Premier League club is definitely notable in itself IMHO though others might disagree; his other exploits would make him definitely cross the threshold no matter what your POV, add them in! Qwghlm 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although perhaps Graham Simpson (businessman) would be a more accurate title, as his occupation rather than his hierarchical position. Qwghlm 13:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Qwghlm. Chairmen of football club regularly change and although the sole purpose of hiim being here may be his football connections, I think the article needs to talk about him as a whole Dodge 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, move Graham Simpson to Graham Simpson (musician) (most of the incoming links are thanks to that Roxy Music template) and then turn it into a disambiguation page. Qwghlm 13:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's all done. What I don't understand though is how to check for double re-directs. Are there any? HornetMike 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The "What links here" page is your friend. In this case there are none; I have already edited {{Roxy Music}} (which got rid of most of them), but there are some others left to fix... Qwghlm 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Working on it.HornetMike 00:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Detail level in football kits

Discussion here. You are all invited to participate. --Angelo 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoli article name change

The article for Italian club Napoli was recently changed from S.S.C. Napoli to Società Sportiva Calcio Napoli. Is this a "valid" name change? Are we planning on writing out all club names in long form? Bigdottawa 05:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, no... Punkmorten 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Punkmorten. A shorter name like SSC Napoli would be best. Qwghlm 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to S.S.C. Napoli, since the new article denomination completely clashes with the standard for football club articles. --Angelo 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Referee" football article

I was tempted to edit this, but since I haven't been with Misplaced Pages for a while I'm unsure where to throw this information. Primarily; Referees are technically registered each year with their respective leagues and the governing body (i.e. Pembrokeshire League and West Wales Football Association) which, allows the governing bodies to allocate them games to be officiated. It's important to note that under this system the referee is considered a representive of the governing body which, reflects on their decisions in matches and so on. Lower level referees (regional leagues and lower) tend to get paid by the home club after each match (this is binding, non-payment will result in the club being fined) also, a referee neglecting his appointment may also be fined by their respective governing body. To my knowledge any referee who hasn't now been registered with their respective football governing body is no longer permitted or allocated matches under the control of the entire governing body so while it's entirely possible for people to be "Qualified" referees if they aren't registered they don't contribute towards the leagues/governing body in the way that registered officials do. --- --Anyway I have quite a bit of information, just don't really know how to go about implementing it into the article, I can be fairly sure of the accuracy for my regional area though (I myself am qualified and registered ^_^) RBlowes 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Standardisation

Throughout many articles there's a various ways of presenting a couple of things, and I'd like to clear it up. Firstly - what should it be? 2006/07 or 2006-07. Although I tend to usual the former generally, I prefer the use of the latter in Misplaced Pages. It makes sense as well, seeing as the season articles are in that format.

The other thing is in succession boxes. Should it be:

• Watford manager
• Watford F.C. manager
• Watford manager

I prefer the first one, just because it's fairly evident by the point in the article that it's a football article and thus there's not much point in having the F.C. bit. Anyway, thoughts? Anything else that should be standardised? HornetMike 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For seasons, I prefer hyphens, it fits in with general Misplaced Pages style on all things that take place over more than one year (not just football seasons), and also means we avoid associated annoyances with slashes in article titles. As for manager boxes, I definitely prefer the first, then the third, although I can also see a case for e.g.:

• Manchester City manager

But if and only if the list of managers article actually exists (which it does in City's case, but not in Watford's). Qwghlm 00:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. In which case, I'd support the option you showed (if the list of managers exists) and if not, the first option I proposed. HornetMike 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a couple of manager things

I was just wondering what people thought about

a) a category for unemployed football managers

This might prove useful in finding out/remembering what mamagers are currently out of football. There are a number of potential problems re: who might be included though. Do you incude someone who has retired from football management i.e. Niall Quinn. Or people who were managers but are now employed a s coaches/assitant managers i.e. Ray Lewington.

b) a list of the managers in the Premiership and the Football League.

Useful for browsing, I thought. A bit like List of European football managers. Columns in the table: Name, Club, league?, date of birth, date of appointment. I figured sorting it by the latter might be quite interesting, although in all honesty all the other columns who be a decent method of sorting.

Anyway, thoughts? HornetMike 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the idea of "currently unemployed/unattached" categories - they are a pain to keep track of and the word "current" is meaningless to a reader unless it has an "as of" date added to it as well, and categories are a very poor way of keeping track. As for the list, well it could get enormous (every manager of every League club in its entire history?), and it's a bit crufty but I've given up discouraging people from writing more and more endless lists. A list of lists per club would be more manageable and usable, though. Qwghlm 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no I meant current managers and only those in the Football League. Thus 92 of them. HornetMike 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the sound of (b). So would Dario Gradi.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox national football team update

If interested, please comment on a recent change made to national football team template on a new required item -- Template talk:Infobox national football team. Regards. // Laughing Man 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football Transfers, Misplaced Pages:Italian Football

Both should deleted. Matt86hk talk 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, both are created by the same user. Punkmorten 19:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you notified the people listed on the Italian Football page? Oldelpaso 19:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What should I do??

I want to help by editing the team stubs, can anyone please give me an assignment for this??

Reply to me when anyone finds one Rakuten06 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

All football club stubs are listed in Category:Football (soccer) club stubs. Oldelpaso 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask your opinion, which region is the best for me to edit the stubs?? Rakuten06 19:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are you most familiar with? Do you speak another language? For example, our coverage of South American teams is comparatively weak, but most sources are in Spanish or Portuguese. Oldelpaso 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing English but I don't know another language except ASL (American Sign Language). Rakuten06 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The clubs on List of football (soccer) clubs and its daughters all play at the highest level in their country, many on that list are stubs. Or how about North American teams? Outside the MLS teams, a lot of articles contain little information, including several NASL clubs of historical importance e.g. Chicago Sting, Los Angeles Aztecs. Oldelpaso 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can find stubs in the European region where I love to see the true matches between the teams like Rangers-Celtic (Celtic is my fav team) and also find club stubs for this too, What do you think?? Rakuten06 14:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you want us to tell you? – Elisson • Talk 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just contribute anywhere you like, Rakuten. As long as you're editing constructively, it doesn't matter which articles you're working on. HornetMike 22:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

English football club stubs split, revisited

There was some discussion of this earlier, and I've followed up with a concrete proposal, here. Please add any comments and suggestions you might have. Alai 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLC

Dunno how you guys do it, but most Wikiprojects like to recieve notification when an article within their scope is nominated to be featured. So, here it is: Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/FIFA World Cup hat-tricks. Just delete this if it isn't common practice here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, just adding them to the FAC/FLC section of the WikiProject page (same goes for AfDs, TfDs) rather than the talk page will suffice - those of us who have this page on our watchlist will pick it up. On a related note, I have thought about possibly colour-coding the rows in the table to make the different types of article more distinct for casual readers to find current FACs/FLCs more easily - thoughts? Qwghlm 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly like the idea. I'll whip up an example in my sandbox. Daniel.Bryant 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Beat you to it. :) Suggestions welcome. Qwghlm 11:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly like that idea of colour coding for GA's/FA's/FAC's etc. compared to my pitiful segregation-by-colour. Daniel.Bryant 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated the project page with the coloured version now. Qwghlm 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Boudewijn Zenden

After the article improvement drive on the article for Boudewijn Zenden, I felt there was a real improvement, and so put it up for review as a good article. It failed, with the reviewer offering (generally reasonable) objections about the writing. I would like to see this article make to GA status it as a positive fruit of this wikiproject's article improvement drive. However, having done a substantial rewrite myself, I feel I am too involved, and was hoping that perhaps some other members of this project could have a go at addressing the objections and maybe preparing it for resubmission. Robotforaday 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, having made a few edits on the article before. I'll try to address each of the GA comments, but I will need some proper English grammar- and spellchecking (at least). Poulsen 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Footballers by club

Should players who never played a match for a club (but were on the club's books) be included in the clubs' players category? Some examples are:

• David Seaman
  • Category:Leeds United AFC players
• David Platt
  • Category:Manchester United F.C. players
• Daniel Karbassiyoon
  • Category:Arsenal F.C. players

Please note that the leads of each of the categories differ. The Leeds lead was modified very recently and Seaman was removed from the cat.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Karbassiyoon not only played for, but scored a goal for, Arsenal in a League Cup match I can't see any just reason for removing him for that category. I generally take a fairly liberal interpretation of the by-club categorisation and consider it from an eligibility point of view: if a player was contracted with that club he should count as a player, so I would definitely include Platt and Seaman in their respective categories. Others may wish to dispute this. However, an interesting case to consider is those players that never made an appearance on the pitch but were selected in the squad to appear on the substitutes bench - where do they stand? Qwghlm 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need uniformity. Don't really mind what way we go but we definitely need a consensus. I'd probably side with they must have played at least once in a competitive game for the first team. A few players I watch have recently been removed from the Leeds category, then re-entered adn then removed again. They haven't played for Leeds first team Dodge 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Under such a "must have played a competitive match" rule, that would mean we would have to get rid of any youth or reserve player who has not yet made his debut. For example, Mart Poom has been on Arsenal's books for over a year but as third-choice goalkeeper has not played a first-team match yet, so he would have to be removed from Category:Arsenal F.C. players... Qwghlm 08:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm new here to project football but my opinion, for what its worth, is that we should use the notability rule here. Players should only be categorised by club if they are notable for being with that club - by this, I would consider that both Seaman and Platt should be removed from the Leeds and ManU categories respectively since they're not notable for being at thoseclub (having never played for them).

To resolve the issure raised re youth & reserve players like Poom, I would suggest that players who are currently contracted to a club should be included within the club's players category (as they are notable for being on the club's playing staff) - however if they are subsequently released by the club without ever having played a competitive game they should then be removed from the club's category (as at that point they are notable neither for being on the club's books nor for having played for the club).

--213.208.110.115 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry that was me (my auto login didnt work for some reason!)

--MLD 09:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Qwghlm that it should be down to eligibility to have played for a club. I view categories such as this as primarily a way of improving WP articles. For example, I am a Torquay United fan, so if someone adds something about a player who has played for a number of other clubs and then joined Torquay but not played for some reason, then I may be able to help improve the page. If we start to remove them from categories we lose this ability. In the same way, there may be a player that I write about, primarily from a Torquay United perspective, then I add them to another club's category, then I hope that someone who knows more about the other club than me can improve an article that I have started. I view this as what wikipedia is all about, rather than whether or not someone was notable at a particular club or not (which is point of view anyway isn't it) WikiGull 09:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (new name for those that knew me as something else!).

I too agree with Qwghlm, a player that has had a contract with the club should be included in the club's category, no matter if he never played a competitive match for the club. – Elisson • T • C • 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but some category headers need to be changed to indicate this (I like the wording in the Arsenal cat) Dodge 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue was originally rased from slumglum noticing a discussion between myself and Kingjamie over the leeds category. I removed most of the players as they hadn't even been contracted to the club on professional contracts and only youth contracts (David Seaman is an example of this). I however removed a couple of other players as they hadn't ever appeared on the pitch for leeds and I feel it is pointless them being part of the category when people will go to the category looking for people who have actually played for the club professionally (which is 1st team, no-one includes a players reserve team appearances in their stats). I have altered the wording on the Leeds category to specify 1st team. I also removed the players to try and make the category match with all the linked players names in Leeds United AFC Players. MLD's point I feel is the same. --Chappy84 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any summary of a player's career will include clubs he was with but didn't make an appearance for, and I don't see that Misplaced Pages should be any different, even with categories. A category is the best place to find a comprehensive list of every player that's been with a club, and that should include people on 0 appearances. There is a third way, as employed by the former category West Ham United F.C. players that never played for the first team, but I think a full category is tidier and more useful. ArtVandelay13 18:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Dodge, I'd like to see some kind of policy established for this, whether it matches my opinion or not. My personal view is that if someone is a football player and they are employed by a club, such as Templatia United, even for just a week, they should be considered a Templatia United player. It's not nice to think that a player added to a category for such a reason is removed due to a different interpretation of the category. It is also much easier to add a player, rather than research their statistics to prove that they did or didn't ever make the first team.
I like WikiGull's reason of article growth through categorisation; I have expanded articles to include prose about players' past clubs, having only discovered that they were at the clubs after seeing the category.
As Mart Poom was mentioned; he has never played for the Arsenal first team, yet has a Champions League runners-up medal. If he leaves Arsenal tomorrow, would Uefa categorise him as former Arsenal player?
With regards this discussion we are usually talking about youth players who leave the club to seek opportunies elsewhere. Just a suggestion, but perhaps new categories for the likes of David Platt and Robbie Savage are needed; something like Category:Former Manchester United F.C. youth players?  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Have people stopped commenting on AfDs?

We've got four current AfDs, and very, very few comments or votes from project members. No matter if voting keep or delete, or just adding a comment, it is important that the football interrested community participate in deletion matters to form Misplaced Pages the way we want to form it. – Elisson • T • C • 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I just stopped doing so. Part of the reason I think is "AfD fatigue" (we have had a lot recently) - I think many nominations could have been dealt with as speedies or prods first - I've added some instructions to the Nominations section spelling out alternatives to AfD for other editors. Hope it's useful. Qwghlm 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

KInd of on this topic but I find the new table for AfD on the project page a little too much work. Didn't see anything wrong with the other way. Just a minor gripe, no doubt I'll get used to it. Dodge 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

F.C. to FC

Did anyone get anywhere with the admin/bot request to move all football clubs from Example F.C./Example A.F.C to Example FC/Example AFC? Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there...?

A list of football clubs by city?

• YES and so...where??
• NO it would be useful...don't you think?

--necronudist 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries, the most developed lists of that type, list cities. Feel free to convert similar articles (such as List of football clubs in country X) to the same format, but its not the most glamourous of tasks. Oldelpaso 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Level of Vandalism on Aston Villa page

The only popular club page I watch is the Aston Villa F.C. page - is the recent level of vandalism there any more than other clubs? Superlinus 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The level of vandalism tends to be proportional to the profile of the club, and Villa look to be no exception. More vandalism than say Bolton, but less than Chelsea. Oldelpaso 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad, considering - it's certainly less than the vandalism of Arsenal (which has been unusually heavy of late) - I'd happily swap the workload for that page. Qwghlm 23:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm in something of a slow burning edit war with an anon regarding derogatory nicknames on City of Manchester Stadium. A couple of third party opinions at Talk:City of Manchester Stadium would be helpful, lest I get accused of breaking WP:OWN. Oldelpaso 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

National team articles

A lot of national team articles are mediocre, often consisting of a recap of recent matches followed by several lists. On the AID, Kingfisherswift suggested a mass improvement of national team articles, which sounds like a good idea. One thing I think we are missing is an aspirational article - if someone wants to improve a club article, there are several FAs to take inspiration from, but this is not the case for national teams. What would the ideal national team article contain?

Things from the club article layout which could be used are the Stadium section (for nations which use a single national stadium), Colours where colours vary from the national flag (e.g. Netherlands) and perhaps a Rivalries section. A supporters section might not be very interesting in a lot of cases. I'm dubious about the inclusion of current squads due to their fluid nature.

Looking at various national team articles, Denmark national football team is perhaps the best (aside from the non-standard United Kingdom national football team). Maybe it would be worth staging a push to get that to FA or GA to serve as a role model for similar articles? Oldelpaso 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As you say, we should try to avoid recentism. That means leaving out "current squad" and less focus on recent results. Punkmorten 14:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with removing the current squad. I mean, if we remove it shouldn't we remove all the current squads from domestic teams? Is that recentism too? HornetMike 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation is different at club level. The squad is largly static for each season and setup with their own numbers at the start of it. The national squad only exists for each match and can change rapidly. I equally don't agree with squad lists that note injuries and suspensions because these are also short term situations. josh (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And also agree with Oldelpaso that something should be done to the national teams. Perhaps do something outside of the FAID, working together over a longer period on several of the more important national team articles. – Elisson • T • C • 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like they way the squad is done for Northern Ireland national football team. "The following players have all been called up to the Northern Ireland squad within the last 18 months." Dodge 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The technique used in England national football team is even better than that, I think. HornetMike 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I think that is ugly and takes up too much space (and also needs very regular updating). Player's DoBs do not need to be there, either. I don't think it is too unreasonable to just put the most recent squad in - yes, squads change, but they only change once a month at most and even then there are only a few changes from time to time. To put in every player from the last 18 months would make most pages enormous. Qwghlm 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Polyglots amongst you may wish to note that several national teams are featured in other languages: Austria in German, Italy in Italian, Germany in Swedish, Australia in Portugese and France in Polish. Oldelpaso 09:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So is Norway in Norwegian, but the same article translated to English failed a good article nomination here... Punkmorten 10:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the only of those articles that would stand a chance under en.wiki's FA process would be the Austrian national team article on de.wiki. – Elisson • T • C • 12:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Grant

I moved new Norwich manager Peter Grant from Peter Grant (football) to Peter Grant (footballer) as it's more standard. I've corrected all the double re-directs, apart from one at Peter Grant (Football). I presume it should be deleted, but something in the back of my head says something about deleting content completely and so forth.HornetMike 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the content & fixed the redirect. There was nothing in the Peter Grant (Football) page that wasn't already in Peter Grant (footballer) - the same anon user contributed to both - so there wasn't anything to merge. I left a note in the edit summary explaining it, I think it should be fine. Qwghlm 13:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Qwglhm. HornetMike 14:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article suggestion

I have suggested the article Football (soccer) for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Example (football) or Tom Example (footballer) ?

I remember there was a similar discussion for basketball and we decided that (basketball) was "more standard" than others. I think this would be true for football too. By now you all write (footballer), but what if a footballer (= football player for most people) became a manager? Then it must be changed to (football manager), to avoid confusion, or something like. With (football) you can cover all the football world without disambiguation (many people ask me if footballer means "football player" or "someone who works in the football world", and so here is the confusion). --necronudist 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Football is a very ambiguous term. Punkmorten 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally a football manager will have also been a footballer - and some football managers are much more notable as players than managers (Tony Adams (footballer) for example), so I would just stick with footballer. WikiGull 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are sayin' that using a "neutral" term like football is MORE ambigous than the various footballer, football manager, etc. because "generally a football manager has been a footballer" or "generally a football manager is more notable as player than manager"? LOL! I just don't understand why you don't want to resolve this problem... --necronudist 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He's saying that Football doens't only apply to soccer. Dodge 13:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "(footballer)" or "(football manager)" (depending on what they were primarily known as) as opposed to "(football)" as the former illustrates what the person's occupation was. Other articles in different fields tend to use occupation, e.g. Tony Adams (actor) not Tony Adams (drama) or Tony Adams (acting), so it remains consistent with the other articles. But to be honest, it's not a big an issue as you make out, and I won't object if you start moving all these articles to "(football)". Qwghlm 13:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all: Dodge, "football" only refers to Association football, others are AMERICAN football, GAELIC football etc... today it's a de facto standard (there was a discussion here that decided to abolish "football (soccer)" in favour of "football"). Second: it's also a consistency problem (maybe a minor problem, however): basketball players, manager etc are archived as (basketball) and football people are archived by football occupation. I think it would be more standard to write football as per basketball. In this way we can also eliminate the controversies I said above. --necronudist 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

League Cup stats in infoboxes

I spent quite a bit of last night updating Watford's infobox stats, as whoever did them left out all FA Cup/League Cup/Johnstone whatever appearances and goals. Someone's reverted one of them saying League Cup appearances don't count. That's not the case, is it? If so, that's utterly ridiculous. HornetMike 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the rule that was drawn up (not sure who did), infoboxes are meant to contain domestic league appearances only, so no League Cup or FA Cup stats should be included. I also think that it's ridiculous - cup and European matches should be included in a player's stats - they are just as important in their career. Qwghlm 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree! All stats should be included in a players appearances, They're official club matches, so really should include F.A., League and European cup appearances, I haven't changed any to all appearances so far as the info box does state that its the players league appearances correct as of..... It is slightly confusing, especially for players such as Gary Kelly who has made over 500 professional appearances for the club but his info box states only 400-odd. --Chappy84 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh, who made the decision for the infoboxes to be this way? Surely we could reverse it with a good consensus? Daemonic Kangeroo has just posted a very helpful reply on my talk page saying it's something to do with cup games being difficult to confirm as oposed to League stats. I'm not realy sure how this is the case. I use Soccerbase as my stat source, and it catalogues cup games just as well as League games. I don't know what else people use. Club programmes? Surely they include cup games as well? HornetMike 13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect whoever wrote the original template way back deigned that rule. I think stats on appearances other than league are available in a lot of places - books as well as websites. For those players where we can't get info right now (players from way back in history) we could instead have maybe a supplementary template, e.g. {{leagueappsonly}} which would insert a footnote saying "League appearances only". Qwghlm 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Soccerbase is great for current players, but for players from the past it's not so useful. For example, as a lifelong Southampton fan, I am trying to write articles on the players from my youth (1960s). Thus I have created an article on Ron Reynolds who is not mentioned on Soccerbase as he ceased playing in 1963. Whilst I can find his full stats whilsta Southampton player from my Southampton reference books, these don't give much in the way of stats whilst at other clubs. I have to fill this gap by using sites such as "Since 1988" which is extremely comprehensive but only includes league stats.

As I said in my note to HornetMike if we are to be consistent then we need to agree on a basis where all the relevant info can be obtained (without having to acquire reference books for every football club!) That's why I prefer to use only league games. If total games is more relevant, this can be explainedin the body of the article.--Daemonic Kangaroo 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I use the Sky Sports Football Yearbook for players stats, and that lists league appearances only, so keeping league appearances only in the template makes life easier for me. Only listing league appearances seems to be fairly standard in the world of football stats. Gasheadsteve 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it?! I've never encountered this method before. Anyway, IMO we shouldn't be looking at what's convenient we should be looking at what's comphrehensive. Personally, I'm alright. For Watford Trefor Jones covers all appearances up to 1996, after that Soccerbase kicks in. HornetMike 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty easy for ex-Leeds players, there's an incredibly comprehensive source at www.leedsfans.org.uk, they also have the stats for the player at other clubs during their career if they've been able to find them. The simplest way to change the template would probably be to have a tag at the end stating whether it's just league or league and cup stats, like Qwghlm suggested. I would agree with HornetMike in the fact that most stats I've ever seen include cup as well as league appearances. --Chappy84 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like more Sky revisionism here - with them having exclusive rights to the FA Premier League they always try to promote it at the expense of other competitions. My copy of Arsenal Who's Who (a pretty much canon list of players) lists stats for all competitions from the club's very beginnings. Although I can see that some statistics outside the league are hard to find, they are by no means totally lost. Qwghlm 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is easy to find for most "major" leagues (English, Scottish, German, French, ...) but cup appearances are harder to find for other, less known, leagues. Generally, only league appearances are shown for i.e. players in the Swedish Allsvenskan in most of the sources I've browsed through. Although I agree those stats should be included if available, and the easiest way to fix it is to use some sort of tag, as already mentioned above. – Elisson • T • C • 17:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT Sky Sports revisionism to say that generally only League appearances are kept in statistics. As far as I can recall, the Rothmans annual (the sponsor before Sky) gave League appearances only and its generally regarded as the bible by statiticians in the UK. I agree with only providing league appearances in the infobox as it is the only clear consistent figure. Stats for league cup, Inter toto games, minor cups (Anglo-Italian Cup, Zenith Data Sytems Cup, Catalan Cup, etc) are very hard to come by. League appearances generally aren't. Dodge 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the statistics should be as complete as possible. For English clubs they aren't usually too hard to find (I own no less than three publications containing full data for Manchester City players, for example). It is places like Brazil where statistics get confusing, due to a labyrinthine structure that changes frequently (or if you are cynical, whenever a big club is on the brink of relegation). Oldelpaso 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if we can come to some agreed standard on what competitions should be included, then we don't have to worry about the problems that Seidodge outlines. Domestic leagues, cups and league cups are usually included in stats by professional statisticians, while minor competitions such as the Intertoto, Anglo-Italian or ZDS Cups generally aren't. Admittedly this is a Euro-centric view - I am no expert in the intricacies of e.g. Brazilian league football, but someone else here might be able to provide information. Qwghlm 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Qwghlm here, I believe all appearances with English/Scotland clubs are easy enough to find. It's outside of England/Scotland that it gets a bit tricky. Still we can differentiate with tags... HornetMike 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems more people than not think that we should include the FA, League and European stats if available, it's def a good idea to have a tag so that people know exactly whats included. --Chappy84 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style

While browsing the Category:2006-07 domestic football (soccer) leagues i noted there's no consistency re naming conventions. Danish Superliga 2006-07 uses "-" instead of "/" used in La Liga - 2006/2007 and a few others. Any suggestions or comments? -- Szvest 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Project-Class football pages
• NA-importance football pages
• WikiProject Football articles