Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:43, 14 September 2015

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.

Colourful Navboxes

Per the MOS I made this edit (admittedly I made a mess of the edit summary). Given sports projects tenancy to have local consensus to ignore parts of the MOS, I thought I'd ask what users think .

For me honestly it is difficult to read this template when it's coloured and it's not even one of the worst. For the minor if any value of having the same colour as the team's kit would it not be better to keep these clear? Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit, input the values Foreground color: #00a050 , Background color: #f7f408 from {{Norwich_City_F.C.}} to see a fail on the contrast checker . Gnevin (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True, some color schemes could provide a WP:ACCESS issue. In general, I think that the schemes should be amended for better contrast; if that is not possible with the club colors, either incorporate white as background or text color or switch to the default. As for the particular template in question, how about just switching red with black? Or is it equally difficult to read? – Soccer-holic 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Black on Red or Red on Black both result in 3 fails Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Use white text, it is contrasting against both red and black and it's the club's tertiary colour. VEO 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why use the colours at all? Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? Gnevin (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You may consider the colours decorative or garish or whatever, but if you pick the right colours, they can make the article look at least half-decent. Having a row of navboxes at the bottom of the page all the same colour makes the page look a little bit stale, and having the correct colours can help you pick out the navbox you want at a glance. Obviously we have accessibility issues to take into account, but as long as those are dealt with, there shouldn't be a problem. – PeeJay 15:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I do consider the colour garish but more importantly I struggle to read them.

While having the 'right' colour may lead to a 'half decent' look the apposite is also true having rows of conflicting navboxes after a name player has played and coached for dozens of teams makes the page look terrible again Giovanni Trapattoni managerial positions for example .

How do they help you pick items at a glance? Does anyone actually think he played for Scotland I'll look for Blue and Navy? Also its seems like this project has taken the wise decision to group similar boxes using {{navboxes}} which negates this somewhat

Standard colours prevent any access issues, prevent issues with multiple conflicting colours and with no lose to the project Gnevin (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion sorting page

I do not regularly contribute to soccer related articles, but I suspect that the page WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football should be moved to WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Association football, given that the article about the form of football covered by this delsort page is titled association football, not football. I could move it myself, but first I want to know what those who know more about this subject than I do think. Everymorning (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already a delsort section at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football to cover gridiron football, though there is not a section for Australian football. Keep in mind that WP:DELSORT is its own wikiproject, so this idea should also be discussed there. I do know that there are a number of delsort scripts that would need to be updated (for example, I use WP:FWDS), so this would take more than just a page move. I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I don't see a need to do it if there isn't a pressing need. — Jkudlick c_s 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazareth Illit football clubs naming

I'd appreciate some help with the following issue: There are two football clubs in Nazareth Illit, currently going by the names Hapoel Nazareth Illit (in Liga Leumit) and F.C. Nazareth Illit (in Liga Gimel. The problem is that Hapoel was known for several seasons as F.C. Nazareth Illit, while the other F.C. Nazareth Illit (formerly Maccabi Nazareth Illit) was known as F.C. Nazareth Illit Hanan Ohayon, as it was named after firefighter Hanan Ohayon. However, recently Ohayon's family asked the club to remove the name off the club, which the club did and registered to play in 2015–16 season as F.C. Nazareth Illit.
Complying to the family's request, F.C. Nazareth Illit Hanan Ohayon's article name should be changed to F.C. Nazareth Illit, which would create a problem with the current article under this name (which should be moved to Hapoel Nazareth Illit F.C. anyway, as I reckon). What can I do to sort it all out?--Eranrabl (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Hapoel article should be moved, and the F.C. Nazareth Illit article moved to that title. It can have a hatnote on it redirecting users to the Hapoel article too. Number 57 08:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Santiago Island League (South) and Senegal Premier League vs. WP:FPL

Does anybody know whether the Santiago Island League (South) and especially the Senegal Premier League are fully pro? Both are not listed at WP:FPL. The answer on these questions would affect the treatment of 2014–15 Boavista (Cape Verde) football season and 2013–14 ASC Diaraf season. – Soccer-holic 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Santiago League is definitely not. Senegal Premier League is also not professional to me, as I could not find any sources proving its professionalism. MYS77 23:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Being fully professional is not really a deciding factor. Both teams played in their countries top league in the respective years, so would appear to meet WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think our project's interpretation of WP:NSEASONS is that it only applies to FPLs, regardless of whether they are top divisions or not. Number 57 15:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

FPL, then all players would be notable. NSeasons also says "should consist mainly of well sourced prose". But i guess 90% of all season articles don't achieve that. :-). -Koppapa (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just 90 percent? ;-) Anyway, thanks for input. – Soccer-holic 19:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Arna Ásgrímsdóttir

Hi all, I had a dispute regarding Arna Ásgrímsdóttir's position. At UEFA and Soccerway site, she is listed as a midfielder, but at her club site, she is listed as defender. Which source should be used to determine her position? Thank you. MbahGondrong (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For position/height i would go club first. Kante4 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are now asking properly, instead of edit-warring and making lame pidgin-English threats, she converted to a centre half in 2011. When Gothenburg signed her they said "we are in need of a good defender". While you're here, perhaps some more eyes can be put on your conduct. You lazily churn out hundreds of dreadful sub-stubs and have an over reliance on Soccerway, which in itself is clearly not a suitable source to hang an article on. Målfarlig! (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@MbahGondrong and Målfarlig!: I am also very concernced about the really poor creations that can hardly count as stubs, and I have informed MbahGondrong about this before. If the creations are not improved a topic ban from creating articles could be a good idea. Qed237 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that Målfarlig! couldn't have added the source for her being a defender to the article. It has none. Plus, nor is there any source to verify their changes to her Þór Akureyri stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done it now, although I am very tired of continually having to do this and basically wipe this clown's backside for him. Since Qed237 and I made our intervention, MbahGondrong has waged a lame campaign of harassment and edit-warring. He suddenly developed a radical interpretation of WP:INFOBOXREF and decided to apply it very rigidly... but only (!) to articles I'd recently been active on. The result was stupid edits - usually garbled/badly-written sentence fragments in the lede, as well as in the infobox. It isn't even a WP:competence issue because it's vexatious: defacing articles and deliberately introducing factual errors. As I see it we've got nothing to lose and everything to gain with a topic ban for MbahGondrong. His edits are pointless - at best - and his stubs are almost always worse than a red link. Unfortunately, it will take decent editors like me months if not years to clean up the mess he has already made. Målfarlig! (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Målfarlig!: Is it that hard to add the source and sentence in the article that mentions she plays as a defender? That was what I asked for in the reverts I made. I have always asked properly on any of our previous debate and I don't think that I used the threat words on you. If you think that my actions are unacceptable or even disruptive, why don't you just report me? It's as simple as that. It is clear now that for you, every edit I made will be always wrong or incorrect, since you added the source to the article after Struway2 mentioned about it. User:Qed237: If you think that a topic ban is required for me, then request for it and we will see what will happen. At least you are not talking to me with arrogant words, but with a constructive approach, that I genuinely appreciate. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Målfarlig!: According to the player's page at the KSI website, she appears to have 135 league appearances, not the 129 that you added to the infobox. What am I misunderstanding? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cristiano Ronaldo

Is this template (and this one) necessary? User:Davykamanzi claims it's to avoid statistical errors between the players' individual articles and the one about their rivalry, but I think this is a little excessive. Thoughts? – PeeJay 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I think it would save time having to constantly update their templates on the three articles, especially with the involvement of IPs in doing so. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I get that, but to call an extra template (which itself has another template embedded in it) just to avoid the odd statistical error seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. – PeeJay 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same as PeeJay. Also, when going to the talkpage there is absolutely no access to the template (often there is v,t,e buttons), so extra work is required to actual find it and edit it, which may lead to editors not doing the updating. Qed237 (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And reducing from editing on three places, to two places is not really that much when considering that it becomes template inside template that is hard to access. Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the respective full infoboxes needed on the rivalry article anyway.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No. This template should be deleted, the infobox use only in the Ronaldo article. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Matty. We don't need their templates in the rivalry article. MYS77 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 10#Template:Infobox Lionel Messi now... JMHamo (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

French football season articles

Does anyone here have the time to gather information for and complete the 2014–15 and 2015–16 French football season articles? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Young Men's Association

Isn't this just an earlier incarnation of the modern Southampton F.C.? If so, there's no reason for it to have a separate article. Opinions......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging article creator @Kő Cloch: -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Should be merged with Southampton/History of Southampton if it's the same organisation just renamed. Number 57 08:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this article text should be used to expand History of Southampton F.C., so redirect St. Mary's Young Men's Association... JMHamo (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay @ChrisTheDude: -- Kő Cloch (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC) take a look at this article on Thames Ironworks F.C., a club that would later become West Ham United F.C.. St. Mary's Y.M.A. draws in links with the modern-day Southampton side and delves further into the history of the football club, such as how Southampton came to be and how they adopted the nickname "the Saints". The article should not cease to exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kő Cloch (talk • contribs)

Why should it continue to exist? You're citing West Ham as some great example of why articles on precursor clubs should exist, but we don't have separate articles on Newton Heath LYR F.C. or Ardwick F.C. You should integrate the content on St Mary's YMA into the Southampton articles. – PeeJay 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at the Thames Ironworks article as requested and I don't believe there is any reason why a separate article should exist there either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The West Ham United article is already at 147kb. WP:TOOBIG suggest splitting off at 100kb. Adding in Thames Ironworks compounds the issue.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The amount of coverage of TIW in the main West Ham article is probably already appropriate. The content in the current TIW article could be condensed (the detail of each individual season is far too much given that separate season articles also exist) and merged into History of West Ham United F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TIW was formally wound up before WHU being formed to replace it, so they are, technically, different clubs. There's no consistency about whether we have one or two pages for clubs in that situation. For clubs with a long and distant past, and with the benefit of hindsight, we tend to accept that it makes sense to treat them together: Chesterfield Town were in the Football League and then folded before the First World War, and Chesterfield Municipal founded 1919 that became the current Chesterfield F.C. These days we usually have two pages: Darlington F.C. and Darlington 1883, for instance. But where a club just changes its name, as St Mary's YMA did to Southampton, or New Brompton to Gillingham, or Small Heath Alliance to Small Heath to Birmingham to Birmingham City, it's always been one and the same club, so that's how we treat it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed about the Thames Ironworks article being merged – I've always wondered why there was a separate article. Number 57 09:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: if the same level of detail (or slightly less) could be put together for the entire history of Southampton F.C., this could work as part of a series of History of Southampton F.C. articles, similar to the ones that made up the Liverpool F.C. featured topic. – PeeJay 09:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the content of the St Mary's YMA article is pretty well copypasted from History of Southampton F.C. and 1885–86 St. Mary's Y.M.A. season anyway, so I don't think anything would be lost by redirecting it. In the longer term, PeeJay's idea could work, if enough additional content was available. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and redirected the article to History of Southampton F.C. JMHamo (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• You may be interested in a discussion concerning the redirect St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C. which currently targets this article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C.. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

World Cup qualification match

Is Malaysia v Saudi Arabia (2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying) notable? Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No.. one for AfD... JMHamo (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we also get rid of Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) while we're at it? Number 57 12:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Serbia v Albania seems notable to me. Plus it is quite well-sourced. Not too sure about the other one, source-wise. Madcynic (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Serbia/Albania game caused a diplomatic feud and riots in both countries. The Malaysia/Saudi game was called off just for angry fans on one side. That's the difference. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How about Denmark v Sweden (UEFA Euro_2008 qualifying)?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dual internationalists category

Can category:dual internationalists (football) be split into those who represented more than one country as a result of political circumstances (eg. dissolution of a unified nation) and those who switched allegiance because of personal preference? Someone like Oleg Sergeyev had no other option as to who to pick at international level whereas Nacer Chadli did. 86.14.103.40 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That was me, was using a different browser. VEO 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as the reason for their dual international status is addressed and sourced in the article, I don't see why not. However, can we first determine whether or not "internationalist" is actually a word? I'm pretty sure it is, just not in this context. – PeeJay 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel I ought to point out this recent Guardian article that recently caught my eye. It talks about people to have played for more than two national sides. As for the naming issue, the disambiguations internationalist and internationalists don't mention those to have picked up caps for national sporting sides, though a quick Google News Archive search confirms what I had suspected: that it certainly used to have that sporting context. So it's perhaps archaic, but valid for usage in articles. Whether it should be in a category title is another question entirely... Malpass₃! (what I've been to/_drop me a ) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be split as proposed by OP, though it could be split by nations similar to Category:Dual Irish international footballers - so e.g. those who played for USSR and then Russia, or Yugoslavia and then Serbia etc. GiantSnowman 16:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are at least a couple dozen USSR/Russia cases, for example, so in my view this would probably be best with a few separate categories, following the Irish example. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the term "internationalist", it is used in some parts of the world - I know for a fact that it is the standard term used in Scotland -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

National football team match results

I am planning to add the matches prior 1990 to this page, therefore it will soon need a breakdown. What should I consider as a fair period for each group of results (ten years, twenty years...)? Also, what would it be the correct title? Italy national football team xxxx–xxxx results, Italy national football team results (xxxx–xxxx) or something else? --Tanonero (msg) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think twenty years is standard, see {{England national football team results}}. GiantSnowman 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman, this is my long-term objective then. --Tanonero (msg) 18:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there other instances of this 20-year standard? Belgium, for example, is using decades (10 years) (it actually has all 700+ matches on 1 page, but details per decade). It would be interesting to see whether there is some sort of consensus about the best way to group them. As for the Italian page, I would say the main issue is that there are so many different sections within that article. You may be able to stay with a single page for a bit longer by using fewer tables, e.g. grouping per 5 years (just a suggestion). —Sygmoral (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the way Belgium pages are organised, they look neat. However, the titles are different from other "grouping" pages, such as the England's ones (England national football team results (1980–99) vs Belgium national football team results – 1980s. It's not a big deal, but in my opinion uniformity should be pursued. In the Italian pages, I started to change all the old tables with the football box template, which is nicer, more comprehensive and has a slot for a report. Unfortunately, this is quite time-consuming. With regards to the presence of sections per year, on one hand the page would surely be less busy-looking without them, on the other hand they allow an easier consultation. --Tanonero (msg) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree of course that we should try to get some uniformity in these kind of articles. The question then is which one to follow! France and England seem to have copied each other's layout (going per 20 years), but Spain is going per decade just like Belgium is. The Netherlands simply has one article per year (gosh). One benefit of "1980s" versus "1980-1989" then is that is looks more readable and suffers from less 'numerism' :) It's very repetitive and a little chaotic to see ...0-...9 on every line. But of course you can't do that shortening on periods of 20 years (although England's page actually says 2000s, despite also including the 2010s). Anyway, to conclude: I very much like that template France and England are using on the top right of every such article, but I would personally go with "1980s" etcetera. Those titles are more prose-like which makes it more Misplaced Pages-like (I think), and the 10-year periods are more easily digestible. Just my opinion! —Sygmoral (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the 20-year period is used more often (I also see it on Scotland, Wales, Portugal). So they are consistent with each other, but I guess the question remains whether that makes it the most suitable format (in terms of 'best Misplaced Pages practices')? —Sygmoral (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stadium in Bordeaux

Hi, I saw that the Stadium in Bordeaux has been moved a few days ago from 'Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux' to Matmut Atlantique without any motivation so I need help to determine the correct name. UEFA calls the stadium 'Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux' (see this matchreport as an example), but this article (from stadiumdb.com, is that source reliable?) says that name will officially change to 'Matmut Atlantique' for 10 years after a sponsor deal.

So what should the name of article be? I have heard we should not use temporary sponsornames and move articles around when stadiums change names? On the other hand we have other sponsornamed stadiums (WP:OSE, I know). Qed237 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Qed237: There are stadiums like the Macron Stadium (formerly Reebok Stadium) which never had a non-sponsored name, thus they are moved when the name changes (see also Toyota Stadium, formerly Pizza Hut Park). On the other hand, the City of Manchester Stadium was called that until the Etihad sponsorship, and will revert to original when the sponsorship ends. UEFA, FIFA and the IOC use neutral names when stadiums are named after companies which are not their own sponsors, like the Ricoh Arena became the "City of Coventry Stadium". I don't know the specifics in Bordeaux, just some more information here. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Arsenal red cards under Arsène Wenger

Uhm... opinions? – Soccer-holic 08:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I really question the notability of the subject matter, but I will leave it to those more well versed in FA statistics to determine the proper course of action. — Jkudlick c_s 08:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre. The topic itself may be notable as a "criticism" of Arsenes management style (i.e. the "I didn't see it") and failure to control his team (if you can even attribute such behaviour to the manager) but it should be dealt with within the larger context of his career rather than singling one aspect out and then going for a full blown listicle. Koncorde (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, yes. My first thought, before opening the article, was delete, as wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I have to admit, the list is impressive and very well referenced, but there are a couple of issues though: The period for the record of red card seems kind of random, unless if it is to prove some point of many or few red cards under Wengers' reign. A second issue is, the list have no link to the red card, as a red card in most cases not is notable for an article, but to players and their country of origin. But the acceptance of an article as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney breaks down the second issue. It is no longer needed any single object at the list to be worth an own article, for concidering the list itself to be notable. I think it could be worth concidering changing the timeline for the red card list, to like for every red card in the Premier League era. If presented like this, and without any real good reasons for delete, I think I would have voted keep if nominated for deletion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think it would be much more sensible to do a list of red cards either within the Premier League itself or for professional matches whilst the club has been in the Premier League. Otherwise, I can't see many other articles passing WP:GNG except for maybe United red cards under Sir Alex or Everton reds under Moyes as no one else has lasted long enough. Spiderone 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now at AfD. GiantSnowman 09:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is not a random collection of information though is it? When Wenger first arrived Arsenal's disciplinary record was one of the highest in European football, let alone England. It's notable: see here, FourFourTwo, here for a start. In Palmer's autobiography of Wenger, Spurling's 'Red Letter Days', Mihir Bose's 'Game Changer' and Lawrence's account of the Invincible team the high red-card count is alluded to. Over time, the trend has declined and his player's behaviour has improved. That's the whole point to the list. But even if Arsenal are more known for their style of play now, the red card list is an interesting anomaly that should not and can never be brushed away. It wouldn't apply to Ferguson or Moyes just because of their respective longevity. Ferguson's United picked up 49 red cards from 1986 to 2013. He was never scrutinised for that, rather his player conduct and outlandish discipline which is qualitative. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you imagine having an entire article dedicated to Fergie Time? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. Alex Ferguson. How about the an article about Utd's worst start to a Premier League season? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. David Moyes. By splitting this topic from the actual content of a biography A. it neatly circumvents balance and npov B. is almost certainly undue C. contributes practically nothing.

It's an interesting biographical note that should be dealt with as part of his biography, along with discussions about how he changed Arsenal from being "boring boring", his contributions to cosmopolitan nature of the Premier League, and his title successes. Y'know. Context. Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the list comparable to List of FIFA World Cup red cards and List of FIFA Confederations Cup red cards or not? Spiderone 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just a fairly obvious WP:COATRACK for criticising Wenger, isn't it? I can't see any other reason for creating it. Number 57 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Neil Brown

I know a lot of people use/have used his site as a source. I may have missed earlier comments, but it's just been brought to my attention that Neil has passed away, there is an obituary on the front page of the site. Very sad news, it seems he was only 66 which is no great age -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, very sad news indeed. RIP. GiantSnowman 12:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RIP Neil Brown. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know if arrangements have been made to keep the site up? Hack (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding continuation of the site, his widow has put a notice on the front page saying that "If anyone wishes to contact me, I can be reached at pam.brown12@btinternet.com, particularly if there is anyone out there who can continue this great website that was praised the world over." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Counterproductive editing

Whenever this guy finds an infobox with correct appearances/goals scored, but with an incorrect timestamp, he freaking reverts the appearances/goals scored instead of correcting the timestamp. If you look on his talk page there are several comments left by editors who made good faith, correct edits, only to have him revert them instead of simply improving the article, like we're all supposedly trying to do. WikiProject Football needs to step up and send a message to this guy that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. No one is ever going to want to help write and edit these articles if people like make contributing so difficult. Eightball (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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