Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:11, 25 June 2014

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on 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.

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 7 days

WikiProject Football

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

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

Consensus on criteria of transfer done deal

Which criteria for the transfer deal is done? I once warned by someone for 3RR due to "edit war" on some players that completed the medical but not sign anything (or vice versa could happen, such as Aly Cissokho) Would transfer windows alleged not yet open is a criteria to say the transfer is not completely done, such as in Cesc Fàbregas. (it is difference from transfer done AFTER the deadline).

In Serie A i knew the date the contract filed to the league office (which the date on official transfer list on the web) usually had a time tag with the club announcement (usually earlier)

While in Premier League the transfer windows starts at the end of last season ( Season – the period commencing on the date of the first League Match on the fixture list of the League’s first team competition and ending on the date of the last)

To sum up, how to avoid unnecessary edit war on transfer? Matthew_hk tc 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player's contract with the club has actually ended, they can be removed. If a player's contract with the club has actually begun, they can be added. In England contracts do not usually end/run until 30 June. GiantSnowman 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the point for the contract begun and the contract usually end on 30 June or 31 December. But how about player that not offered any contract extension, or announced he will leave the club as free agent? (difference from negotiating) or he already sign a new contract which effective on 1 July, the day he officially release as free agent? Matthew_hk tc 09:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The window, in England at least, appears to have changed and agree that it depends when the player's previous contract ends. I suppose it also depends on whether the player officially appears on the new club's roster after signing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player is contracted with Club X until 30 June, and his new contract with Club Y starts on 1 July, then the relevant articles should not be updated until those dates have passed. When we last had this debate a few weeks ago @Struway2: was able to find a source confirming the 30 June date in England, IIRC. GiantSnowman 14:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. When signing a player on free agent it must be 30 June. @GiantSnowman: and all others: Does that mean Bacary Sagna must be fixed? He is leaving Arsenal as free agent an sign for manchester city. QED237 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player signs for another club on a free transfer because his contract is due to expire at the end of June, then yes, that transfer is not complete until 30 June. However, if a player was already without a club, having been released by his last team, he is free to join any club at any time, unconstrained by transfer windows. Obviously, that last bit doesn't include players who are due to be released at the end of their current contracts. – PeeJay 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal has always tried to sign a longer contract with him so he was not released as far as I know. QED237 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal may have tried to sign him to a longer contract, but they failed. Therefore he is technically going to be "released" at the end of his current deal on 30 June, allowing him to join Man City for free. – PeeJay 23:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, but my point is that he is not City player now as article says. QED237 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. – PeeJay 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

English contracts end on 30 June, but when do Spanish ones or German ones. This is the issue I raised the last time, its in the English rules for instance but there was nothing in the Scottish ones when i checked. We need to be consistent to what we can prove and source and at the moment were english centric with transfers.Blethering Scot 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Contract could be start at June, few days before 1 July. However in Ciro Immobile case which alleged sold on 2 June, the transfer haven't done because Juventus had no rights to sell nor negotiate without the consent of Torino, which the co-ownership was not resolve until 18 June 2014. (Or German transfer windows haven't start is another reason his contract starts on 1 July) Italian transfer windows for domestic transfer is opened in June, which had a long history of fraud to raise last minute profit for the financial year. Matthew_hk tc 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Zijad Švrakić

Dear football experts: Here's an AfC submission that is up for review right now. Is this a notable football person? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Subject would notable simply through his international caps, but I very much doubt the images were taken by the author! Jared Preston (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a little more investigation than a glance at the infobox is required. How about sources! Definitely suspect. There was no Bosnia team in 1992 (even the unofficial All Stars team was in 93 and he wasn't in that). Nor is he present in an 80s Yugoslav matches. This fails WP:V. His name appears unlinked as a former manager of Al Jahra SC (although the years don't match up) and Al-Salmiya SC. The translation of one source seems to indicate he was a player (at Sarajevo). However, he did not seem to play at Galatasaray. A Metin Yildiz did, but they are not the same person. Given all this, and that it is a WP:BLP I'm going to reject it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. I feel this person is notable (if evidence can be found to say that Zijad Svrakic and Ziya Yildiz are the same person), for example have a look at TFF, however the article/career has been massively over-exaggerated and puffed-up. GiantSnowman 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the WP:RS lesson - I was just showing it isn't verifiable in any sources. "Zijad Švrakić ili Ziya Yildiz (zvijezda), kako ga zovu u Turskoj, spada u grupu igrača koji su prošli put od trnja do zvijezda." seems to link the players; however, why does this make him notable? There is no assertion of international representation and, whilst there is indication he has coached/played at some clubs, nothing verifiable is a not fully professional leagues. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The TFF link I have already provided states he played for Karşıyaka in 1993–94, and the club played in the Süper Lig at that time, so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. In fact it appears he also gets hits as Ziya Yýldýz I now think this is just embelished truth that needs fixing before mainspaced. This seems to add credence to an early national Bosnia team that was actually just the club team: "In February 1993, Muzurovic's FK Sarajevo played the Croatian club Hajduk Split in the first game of a world tour that would eventually comprise 54 matches across 17 countries, from Austria to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia. The players had an audience with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, and after beating Iran's national team 3-1 in Tehran, they met with President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani." That may account for the mistaken Bosnia in the infobox - definitely not FIFA official (nor is the ECO Cup) so shouldn't be there. Still nothing on Yugoslavia... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Švrakić played for FK Sarajevo in the fully-pro Yugoslav First League during the 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 seasons - you can pick the "YU Fudbal Almanah" (Yugoslav football almanac) for the relevant season on this page to confirm. Unfortunately, that website appears to only reproduce the statistics from the printed almanacs and probably is a copyright violation of Tempo's original published work (which is not published online). Maybe we can cite the published work, but use the information that is online at that site? Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped out with this. I have added a comment to the page pointing to this discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenated nationalities again

This time at Talk:John Anthony Brooks‎‎. Two discussions, one is an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We need a few editors who can explain the guideline for nationality involved in the RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And for some reason, only one other editor is supporting the removal of "German-American" which has normally been against consensus in the group. We need a few additional editors to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is verging on canvassing. Number 57 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is but consensus here is clear. Check the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(a) that doesn't make it acceptable and (b) I still don't believe you're right about consensus. I've scanned the archives, and looked at several debates. There was never a clear outcome, and some editors have given different answers at different times (including in the same debate). One of the last people whose nationality was discussed was Robbie Russell, whose intro still reads "is a former Ghanaian American soccer player." Number 57 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I'm not canvasing. I don't inform people who I know will comment one way to engage in discussion, I state the issue in a neutral way and allow those who are interested in discussing do so. So in the same way that you clearly don't understand CANVASS you don't understand CONSENSUS. In this case, the majority of editors do not believe that a footballer should have a hyphenated nationality and instead the nation for which they play for should be displayed. I'll fix Robbie Russell when this discussion is over. Feel free to list others you want me to fix. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:CANVASS very well. Your comments above are not neutrally worded, as there is a clear leading edge to it (i.e. only one person has commented in the way I want, so please come and back me up). I also understand consensus, as I frequently close debates in my role as an admin. However, your comments (i.e. using the phrase "the majority of editors") shows that you do not. Consensus is not about how many editors are on each side, it is about who has the strongest argument - I have closed several discussions in favour of the minority view because they made the best case. Number 57 22:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpret it this way instead: I know how most editors in the project think on the subject and right now there are editors who don't think that way, please support the consensus. You, on the other hand, may take your opinion for a long walk. And stop direct linking: throw a colon in. And to equate consensus with notavote is a joke. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Singapore EPL Fan Club League

I have nominated the article and its associated page(s) as AfD as it does not seem to meet notability as per WP:FOOTY. Any input would be appreciated. LRD NO (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Football match lineup SVGs

I noticed the other day that lineup SVGs seems to sometimes stick out from the end of the written lineups, leaving a gap before the man of the match/assistant referees section. I had a look at the code, and I've found a possible solution to this. It would need to be implemented on a wide range of articles, so I've brought it here, rather than just staying with the previous discussion which can be found at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Group A#Lineup svgs. I've placed a copy of a current usage, as well as my proposal (which can probably be tidied up slightly more if we're going to use it), at User:97rob/FootballMatchSVGs. - 97rob (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my position from the other talk page, I really like this suggestion. It means the kits line up with the squad lists for a start, plus it's a better use of space. I recommend this be rolled out not just in the 2014 World Cup articles, but all across Misplaced Pages. – PeeJay 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just adding that on the example I've done, the SVG is aligned to the bottom, vertically, I think. This could possibly be changed to center alignment, which might be better if there's a really long squad list shown. - 97rob (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox football biography

Davykamanzi (talk · contribs) has been making changes to {{Infobox football biography}}, I have reverted and ask that they actually explain how these changes will impact our articles, please join in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox3cols#Big problem. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Templates appeared

These are not even used on the World Cup articvle, are they? -Koppapa (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No not at all, an over-enthustiatic editor wanted to use templates to everything but he was turned down after discussions and templates are unused. QED237 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Does someone with time on their hands want to WP:TFD them please? GiantSnowman 21:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That would've been me. Probably should've come to a discussion first. I'll try and go through them if I get a chance. - 97rob (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We have all (almost) done that, I know I have. Just learn from it and move on, rather go once to much to talkpage. Unfortunately I dont have time atm to go to tfd. QED237 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've requested that TTObot adds the deletion template to all the match templates. I'll work through the rest of the steps as well once that's been done. - 97rob (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V is pushing his "height should only be listed in cm" POV again.

For those who remember the last few interactions, Gibson Flying V changed the height parameter on Julian de Guzman from m to cm. I reverted and opened a discussion at Talk:Julian de Guzman#1.70 m = 170 cm. Would any admins care to support a topic ban? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I am definitely INVOLVED here. I suggest you raise the issue at AN, and check the AN/ANI archives for past discussions where this user's conduct has been raised before. IIRC during the {{height}} template RFC they said they would not introduce 'cm' into footballer articles... GiantSnowman 11:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

Can you please participate to this debate here ? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Directors, chairmen and investors

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Category:Association football chairmen and investors mixes two things, and therefore has two parents: Category:Association football executives and Category:Sports owners. It seems to me that it would be better to separate these.

Also, the members of Category:Directors of football clubs in England are mostly named "XXX F.C. directors and chairmen". Chairmen are always directors, so this is unnecessarily long; it would be sufficient to name the category "directors", i.e. omit "chairmen".

I therefore suggest that the football categories be split to "investors" and "directors".

This was floated at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12#Category:Middlesbrough_F.C._chairmen_and_executives but needs a central discussion here. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - seems sensible. GiantSnowman 11:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle as presented. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How to make field diagram

Hi, is there a guide how to make field diagram showing the starting lineups, such as this ? How do people make these?--2nyte (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I create mine using Inkscape, which can be downloaded for free. Once you've done this, there's a blank diagram somwhere, or you can use one such as the one above as a starting point. From there, you can use the program to edit player names, shirt colours and change player positions. I can probably add more detail about specific parts of that if you need. - 97rob (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mistake with Euro 2016 qualifiers

Hi there...just noticed on the Euro 2016 qualifying page that the South American national team Chile are listed in Pot 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Euro_2016_qualifiers#Seeding

Just thought it was best to bring it to someones attention. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmb1980 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Croatia, not Chile. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Height

If you were not aware, {{Height}} now displays in 'cm' as well as 'm'. I think we need to decide how we are going to display heights across all footballer articles. Both formats seem to be used, which means sources can be found to support 'cm' or 'm', so we need to agree on a standard. I think that because 'm' has been used to date it should be maintained. Related RFC can be found here. GiantSnowman 08:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support of using "m". Common around here and also i never heard someone said to me that he is 175cm tall, always it's 1.75m. Kante4 (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with what's used in WP:SOURCES being reflected in articles, as is the Misplaced Pages way. For a lot of people (e.g. doctors, anthropologists, Australians) expressing human height in metres is an oddity.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about footballers and footballers only. GiantSnowman 10:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I know. Your point...?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That we don't care how articles on doctors or anthropologists or hairdressers or actors or animals etc. express height. GiantSnowman 10:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nor was I implying you should. But presumably anthropologists and Australians edit football articles as well as university students and Britons.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't change the content/format of the article based on who is going to read/edit it. GiantSnowman 11:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course. We follow norms as established by WP:SOURCES. I'm the last person to whom that needs explaining.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we follow the MOS. GiantSnowman 11:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And the MOS is silent on this question. What is your point? Or shall we go around in more circles?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started this discussion so we can try and tidy up that element of the MOS. GiantSnowman 11:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a real interesting choice of location for that. Personally I would have gone with the MOS talk page itself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, this relates to footballers only and so the football WikiProject is the best place to have it. GiantSnowman 12:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that m is the better option when talking about metric units. Number 57 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The field of anthropometry itself uses cm. That should be enough. But perhaps you're more interested to know that FIFA and Manchester United use cm too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibson Flying V (talk • contribs)

As already stated, football-related sources can be found to support both 'm' and 'cm', so that's a non-starter. GiantSnowman 11:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to 'we need to standardise on metres because I'm personally used to seeing it'. Brilliant. You don't even try to not embarrass yourself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to try and be a bit more WP:CIVIL please? GiantSnowman 11:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh of course. It's such a relief that you're here to maintain standards of behaviour. Who knows what would happen if you weren't!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Gibson just with his usual behaviour, nothing to see... I have yet to see someone who supports your point or a good reason why we should change it on the articles. There are enough sources for m and cm so? On the Marcelo article you changed the realmadrid.com (Official website who uses "m") to the FIFA one (who uses cm). Cherrypicking... Kante4 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

realmadrid.com uses a comma in place of a decimal point, as is common practice in countries such as Spain. The manual of style states A period/full stop (never a comma) is used as the decimal point. This illustrates quite nicely the fact that what's common practice in European sources has absolutely no influence on the English Misplaced Pages's MOS. European editors coming here and pushing for metres is exactly like me going to the German Misplaced Pages and demanding they use cm "because I'm more used to it".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just go with whatever the primary source says. If the source is listed in centimetres (and sometimes they even include half-centimetres in their measurements), let's go with that. If it's metres, that's okay too. Let's not forget, centimetres and metres are just a different scale of the same unit of measurement. 1.79 metres is exactly equivalent to 179 centimetres (assuming that no rounding took place). – PeeJay 12:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but sources can be found which support both 'cm' and 'm' - as the Marcelo example above shows. We have one source which shows 1.79m and one source which shows 179cm - which do we use/display? GiantSnowman 12:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Whichever one is more authoritative on the subject. But if they're both effectively showing the same height, it really doesn't matter. – PeeJay 13:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to depend on league

• England: metres
• Spain: metres
• Germany: metres
• Italy: state meters but use centimetres
• France: metres

and in some instances club pages will use a different measure. One of the things that an encyclopedia affords is consistency of display and since WP:CALC allows for multiplying or dividing by 100 without effecting the actual information, we should standardize on a format. I don't care what we end up using, but it seems that most leagues (and sources) use metres, so should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree about the consistency bit – whatever is agreed should be blanket across the whole of Misplaced Pages, otherwise we'll just end up with editors cherrypicking sources that use their preferred method (which appears to be why this whole thing has come about anyway). Number 57 15:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing on m and excluding cm is like standardizing on 'June 23, 2014' and excluding '23 June 2014' for the sake of "consistency". I don't understand what possible criticism of centimetres is driving this campaign for their removal. Are centimetres considered "too formal-looking"? This is an encyclopedia, it is supposed to be written formally. That's why we take our cues from the highest quality sources. And if they use cm, why should we use m? I'm still really confused by this. Can someone provide a reason for it? Even a bad one?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But we don't get editors disruptively editing to add their own preference for date format, as you have done for height format. That is why we need a standard format for heights for all footballers. I see more displays of 'm' than 'cm' in RS and so that is why I have suggested that we keep that as the format, a view that has been largely echoed by my colleagues here. In fact, the only one pushing for 'cm' is you, which says it all really. GiantSnowman 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to push for anything if WP:SOURCES and (thus consensus) were not being disregarded. I'm not pushing for cm, I'm pushing for a source-based approach, which is fully supported by Misplaced Pages policy. You and your "colleagues'" WP:IDONTLIKEITs are not. Which is why Misplaced Pages goes to the trouble of explaining that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Quality is what's needed in your arguments, not quantity.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet WP:CALC and (thus consensus) is being disregarded by you. The source indicates a measurement. The measurement is convertible via a simple calculation. I'm not pushing for m, but for consistency. It's also known as uniformity. In the publishing world it's known as a manual of style. In Misplaced Pages it's known as the consensus of "pick a scale and stick to it". It already annoys me that we have a mix of metric and imperial. What if a Greek league started displaying height in cubits? What if a traditionalist Irish team started displaying height in barleycorn? We have every right to convert the height based on calc and display it in meters or feet & inches, but your argument would be not to because that's what the sources say.

To hopefully put a nail in this coffin, there are a great many sources prior to 1852 that show dates in old style and yet because we consistently use the new style Gregorian date we convert it without blinking an eye. That's no different than using metres rather than centimetres because that's what readers expect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_143#Human_height is the closest thing we have to Misplaced Pages-wide consensus that an inconsistent, source-based approach should be used. At Template talk:Height there was a clear consensus for both cm and m to be permitted, and the closer of the RfC there even went to the trouble of highlighting the fact that we do not need perfect consistency when it comes to these units. At Talk:Human height there was clear consensus for cm to be used on that article. I think all this counts as a general acceptance of both cm and m. Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Level_of_consensus states that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." I can also convert effortlessly between 'centimetre' and 'centimeter', 'color' and 'colour, so do you think we should just pick one of these and enforce it across Misplaced Pages as well? WP:ENGVAR says that we should not. But even if it was decided we should have perfect consistency in the Manual of Style, it seems to me that the unit chosen by English-languge encyclopedias, textbooks, scientific journals, national governments, international organisations, etc. should be given the most weight as stated at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. This makes a call for going back to enforcing metres totally nonsensical. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've just managed to read through all this debate and this is what I would do. To me, a source-based approach seems like the only sensible way; trying to force one particular style won't work. BUT, we should just use whichever source was consulted first. If someone creates an article and the source they used has the height in metres, then in that article the height should be recorded in metres and that's the end of it. Likewise if the source the editor creates the article with uses centimetres, or feet and inches, or whatever. Going out of your way to find sources to fit your agenda (looking at you here, Gibson) and then making utterly pointless edits to articles should lead to a block, at least. BigDom (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

More disappointing failure to assume good faith aside (Really? I went out of my way to find FIFA.com and Oxford University Press?), {{Infobox football biography}}, which editors will simply cut & paste from, is presently biased towards metres. This means the current artificial prevalence of metres on Misplaced Pages will continue (and even expand), in spite of real-world norms. And for what? Because certain editors got to the template's style guide first? Why should reliable sources be disregarded? It is Misplaced Pages's role to simply reflect real-world norms as evinced in reliable sources. Is anyone here disputing this? PeeJay's suggested approach of assessing the quality of the sources (something done routinely on Misplaced Pages and covered within its guidelines) is far better, and something no editor who understands the way this encyclopedia is meant to work should be afraid of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant about going out of your way and you know it. I meant that on several players' articles the heights were already there, but you didn't like the fact they were in metres so you went to find a source that displayed it in cm when you could have spent your time far more productively. And why have you gone off on a tangent about disregarding reliable sources? That's not what I said. BigDom (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You say, "but you didn't like the fact they were in metres". Just how do you know that? You'll notice I only ever did it to reflect the source for the height that was being disregarded because of the template's shortcoming (more often than not correcting erroneous heights in WP:BLPs and adding further references. You're welcome). Your first-come-first-serve suggestion and PeeJay's source-based suggestion appear to be mutually exclusive to me, are they not? Your approach seems to disregard what's in sources, as it makes mere sequence of events paramount (complete with authority to block editors who don't respect it). And what of the infobox's style guide? This should already be unbiased and give instructions on how to produce both units. It doesn't.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mine and PeeJay's suggestions are almost identical; pick a good reliable source and stick with what it says. You say my approach disregards what's in sources. How, exactly? My proposal is to use exactly what's in the source and not to change it whatsoever. If the creator of the article uses a reliable source, then what's your problem? If they don't, then they shouldn't have created the article in the first place. As for blocking, people who cause disruption (whether by changing height formats for no reason, or otherwise) should be blocked - that's already Misplaced Pages policy. BigDom (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You see it is precisely because of this bickering that I suggested having one format in the first place - in that way there is no argument, no claims of "my source is better than your source." GiantSnowman 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, BigDom. If a source has already been selected, it shouldn't be replaced just because it doesn't list the height in a unit that a particular editor prefers. However, if the original source was from a site like Soccerway or Transfermarkt, it should definitely be replaced once a more reliable one could be found, such as the player's profile on his club website, or the site of a competition he has played in (e.g. UEFA.com, FIFA.com or PremierLeague.com); once the more reliable source is in place, the units should be altered (or not, as the case may be) to reflect the new source. – PeeJay 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And what of the biography infobox template's usage guide?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, what of it? GiantSnowman 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and guess that you've somehow missed my previous comments instead of assuming that you're just trying to be cute. Please see my posts just above at 10:04 and 10:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC). To clarify my concerns further: no editor going to {{Infobox football biography}} could ever know that using centimetres is an option, as it is written for metre usage only. So even if they created an article using FIFA.com, which states the height as 180 cm, they will produce 1.80 m in the infobox. This renders all our talk of an approach where usage in sources can be reflected organically on Misplaced Pages completely meaningless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a bit of a stretch to come to that conclusion to be honest. But in any case how cam we change the style guide until we all come to some kind of consensus here? BigDom (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What's a bit of a stretch? I figured that if we all come to consensus at WikiProject Football that source-based unit flexibility is the best approach, that could easily be incorporated into {{Infobox football biography}}.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I was referring to "no editor going to {{Infobox football biography}} could ever know that using centimetres is an option". To me, it's quite clear that the example there is just that, an example, and nowhere that I can see does it say that metres must be used. For the second part of your comment, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we come to an agreement here, then we can work on the wording to be used in the template documentation. But at the moment it doesn't look like we're close to a consensus so there's little point worrying about that yet, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. BigDom (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(←) Aren't there more pressing problems to discuss than this? It's problematic that "m vs cm" generates this much interest while my suggestion to address the fact that all the football squads list the flag of a player without any column header or any reference as to what it means got no response. We never got a conclusion on what positions should be listed under staff sections either. Priorities are a bit out of synch here. SFB 07:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ok then. Personally, I simply cut & paste from these examples when I create new biography articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Therefore I think that if consensus is reached here to allow both m and cm, the template documentation should display examples of how to get both, or simply refer to the sub-template's page which does. But I understand if it's too early to be discussing the nuts & bolts of that here and now. As far as consensus goes, I think the arguments for source-based flexibility are far stronger than those for single-unit rigidity. I agree with what PeeJay says above about choosing between sources based on quality, as it is something we already face whenever two sources give different heights. This is simply extended to situations where two sources give different units.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mexico national football team

An editor keeps reverting superfluous material into the Mexico national football team article. I have raised the issue there in a couple of discussion topics (please see ). Feel free to contribute at Talk:Mexico national football team. The nature of the issue revolves around two topics: (1) Is the 2012 Olympic victory of Mexico's youth squad relevant to the article about the senior side, (2) Is there a source that supports the idea that there are only three major international football tournaments, and that these are the World Cup, the Olympics, and the Confederations Cup? Regards.--MarshalN20 21:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the 2014 Cup Final have its own article?

I have redirected it, but have been reverted. Some outside input is welcome. Oh, I should probably clarify that I'm talking about the 2014 Faroe Islands Cup Final ;-) Fram (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DOn't think it is needed. Just add the line-ups to the main article. -Koppapa (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The final match receives a lot of coverage and in past years, particularly 2010, it has had its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

o rly? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No evidence of independent notability, merge and redirect to the parent article. GiantSnowman 12:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Müller‎‎ article needs some adult supervision

An IP-shifting anon is reverting referenced material and it needs some additional editors watching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Soccer or football in Canada and the US?

Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs) has been edit warring on several North American articles using association football rather than piping as ], and doing it badly I might add. Could someone please review the edits and possibly offer some advice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

quit crying. it's not like i erased the US/Canadian term for football. I added it after the proper term. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crying, I'm asking for sanity and I'm fixing what you have broken. You have more than 1000 other articles to fix where "association football" is piped to "soccer". another thousand or so where "football (soccer)" is used and more than 10000 where "association football" is piped to "football". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Djsasso‎ is assisting and using WP:ENGVAR. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (request)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here. IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Misplaced Pages. We can see the second debate about this deletion in the IFFHS article's talk page here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You can participate in the debate here. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another non-notable player

Hi,

Alper Tursun isn't notable enough to have a page in here. Also, the page is so poor that if it wasn't here it wouldn't be any great loss.

Can someone delete it? Thanks, MYS77 00:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Carlton Cole

Anyone know his full name? This ref here says he has Okirie as part of his name. Some editors dispute this and remove it. I don't know and only go on the BBC ref so rather than revert again, does anyone know a source for a definitive answer as to his full name? Cheers.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

At least 3 reliable sources - the BBC article you linked, the Telegraph and Soccerway - have the Okirie in his name. LRD NO (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the most recent PFA Footballers' Who's Who (2010-11), his full name is Carlton Michael Cole. I have no idea where the 'Okirie' came from, but it is possible that it was made up and is now simply doing the rounds as people copy and re-copy each other. Does anyone have access to a Premier League player registration PDF that might include his full name? – PeeJay 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player/doc

An editor has been making changes to the football squad template documentation today, mostly in relation to the flags debate, which I have disputed. It would be good to have some third party input to review whether those changes are consistent with the outcome (or lack of one) of the debate. Thanks, Number 57 11:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class football pages
• NA-importance football pages
• WikiProject Football articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment