Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and House of Tudor: Difference between pages

Revision as of 16:17, 5 May 2007

Revision as of 22:58, 13 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Shortcutotheruses|[[WT:WPF]]Tudor}}

{{House of Tudor}}

{{Football|

The '''Tudor dynasty''' or '''House of Tudor''' ({{lang-cy|Tudur}}) was a series of five [[monarch]]s who ruled [[Kingdom of England|England]] and [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]] from [[1485]] until [[1603]]. Three of them, ([[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]], [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] and [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]]) played important roles in transforming [[England]] from a comparatively weak European backwater into a powerful state that in the coming centuries would dominate much of the world.

|class=NA}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 9

|algo = old(21d)

|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{WPF navigation}}

The House of Tudor began with [[Owen Tudor|Owain ap Meredith ap Tewdur]], a Welsh squire in [[Henry V of England|Henry V]]'s court better known by the Anglicized version of his name, Owen Tudor. Owen Tudor married the King's widow, [[Katherine of Valois]], and had five children with her. Their eldest surviving son, [[Edmund Tudor]], married [[Lady Margaret Beaufort]], a descendant of [[John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster]], who in her own right was at one point a potential heiress to Edmund's half-brother, [[Henry VI of England]]. At the age of thirteen, Margaret bore a son several months after her husband's death. Following the [[Wars of the Roses]] in which the Houses of [[House of Lancaster|Lancaster]] and [[House of York|York]] struggled for control of the English throne, this child would become [[Henry VII of England]].

<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->

{| class="wikitable" width="315px"

|-

!align=center|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

|-

|

#[[/Archive1|July 2005 – December 2005]]

#[[/Archive2|December 2005 – February 2006]]

#[[/Archive3|February 2006 – April 2006]]

#[[/Archive4|April 2006 – June 2006]]

#[[/Archive5|June 2006 – August 2006]]

#[[/Archive6|August 2006 – September 2006]]

#[[/Archive7|September 2006 – December 2006]]

#[[/Archive8|December 2006 – February 2007]]

#[[/Archive 9|Current archive (archived by bot)]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

During the Tudor period, the dynasty created the [[Church of England]] and also strengthened the [[Royal navy|navy]].

== List of England international footballers ==

==Feudal circumstances==

I think [[List of England international footballers|this article]] should be expanded to include every player who has represented England, and not just, as is currently, players who have 25+ caps. Any thoughts/objections? [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While Tudors made much of their feudal title to [[Richmondshire]], [[Middleham]] and its subsidiary [[Snape, North Yorkshire|Snape]] were [[Neville]] bases. [[Bedale]] Ricardian [[Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell]] resisted Henry VII. Robert Aske, of the family of Aske Hall in Richmond took complaints to Henry VIII in the [[Pilgrimage of Grace]], objecting to the King's "casting off" of Queen Catherine of Aragon and his daughter Princess Mary. [[Simon Digby]] resisted Elizabeth I, even though Digby's family were installed in the region by Henry VII as a replacement for Lovell. Sir George Bowes complained in defence of Digby's son's innocence, saying further that the rebels had not been able to be quelled by Lord Latimer. This [[Rising of the North]] for Charles Neville of Westmorland resulted in another installment of a dignitary puppet over Bedale by the Queen Elizabeth—Ambrose, Earl of Warwick.

:I agree, should be expanded. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">'''[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:85%">Archibald99</font>]]'''&nbsp;</font></span> 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree. A complete "list" is better kept as a category. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

::But a category cannot give more information - for example, we could have date of first cap, age when first cap was won, opponents of first cap; date of last cap, age when last cap was won, opponents of last cap; number of goals, all in a sortable wikitable. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Hmm, I quite like the idea of a football equilavent of [[List of English Test cricketers]], with the information above. That said, the England players category currently contains 824 articles and is no doubt no fully populated. That's a big list, if done properly. So I'm ambivalent. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I second what HornetMike says - a list of players is a good idea, with caps and appearances etc. included, more than a category can include. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::A list similar to that for the cricketers would be great. Much more information than can be given in a category, but a huge undertaking (would be happy to help with it though). [[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::You could use [http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamPlyrs/PlayersIndex.html this] as a basis; might need to be wary of copyright issues but you cannot really copyright lists of statistics so as long as the format was different from that one it'd be fine, in my opinion. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Great, I'll try and start doing something with this. Do we want to agree on the column headings?[[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: I suggest:

Although dynastically [[House of Lancaster|Lancastrian]], the Tudors were politically [[House of York|Yorkist]]. In this sense, they were dual like the Nevilles (dynastically Yorkist, politically Lancastrian) and which was the point of union between both houses, supposedly resolving the [[Wars of the Roses]]. The Tudors, superseded this Neville crossover precedent, effectively balancing rival factions, as the Rising of the North itself ended the [[Percy-Neville feud]]. The Tudor dynasty and its unification of Richmondshire (like Wales, or Brittany to France) into the body politic of the English Royal Domain, thus contributed to the future Stuart succession by dominating foreign influences (e.g. the Castilian intrigue formed by John of Gaunt and pursued by Henry VII). The [[border country]] had become the pivot upon which the monarchy was secured, by subordination of the "Middle Shires"—as they came to be known under King James I.

{| class="wikitable"

! Name!! Caps!! Goals!! Date of first cap!! Opponents of first cap!! Age at first cap!! Date of last cap!! Opponents of last cap!! Age at last cap

|-

|}

This consolidation of power under the Star Chamber Court and its reliance upon the subordination of palatine agricultural districts (e.g. Council of Wales, Council of the North, etc.) was to resemble the original Lancastrian high court party of Henry VI, instigating once again a Low Country (Burgundian Flanders) mercantile and Estuary opposition in the heirs of [[Mary Tudor (queen consort of France)|Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk]] and their Dudley allies (carrying the notorious Warwick title). These economic and dynastic alliances of the Yorkists would re-emerge in the wake of the beheading of the last Plantagenet, [[Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury]]. Religion became intertwined with politics with the declaration of [[cuius regio, eius religio]]. This meant that English society had become divisive once more; even more so than before. Future Stuart succession would attempt to align the high court party with the high church party, in the same manner as the Spanish Habsburg standard.

I also think the table should be organised by date of first cap.

Jealous heirs to the Yorkists would challenge the stratifying intentions of these Lancastrian heirs, championing "the underdog"—themselves and the mercantile, industrial classes. Feudal structure in which a monarch was held in check by peers of the realm was challenged by nationalism under the monarchy; the Tudors having broken [[bastard feudalism]] upon the support of civil servants who demanded compensation. In the traditions of Simon de Montfort and Richard of York, Parliament became the vehicle for upward mobility by those dispossessed by the Crown. These officers of state decided to do their own kingmaking when the opportunity presented itself, but choosing the rival faction established under the Burgundian and ultimately German alliances of the [[Hundred Years' War]] (against the French peace of [[Margaret of Anjou]]).

Any thoughts? [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

==Marriage==

:How about this (with first few lines)

Owen and Edmund married Lancastrians, but Henry VII and Henry VIII, including [[Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset]] wed Yorkists.

{| class="wikitable"

! Number!! Name!! Date of birth!!Caps!! Goals!! Date of first cap!! Opponents of first cap!! Venue of first cap!! Date of last cap!! Opponents of last cap

|-

|1||[[Robert Barker (footballer)|Robert Barker]]|| [[June 19]], [[1847]]|| 1|| 0||[[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[Scotland national football team|Scotland]]||[[Hamilton Crescent]]|| ||

|-

|2||[[Ernest Greenhalgh]]||[[August 22]], [[1848]]|| 2|| 0||[[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} Scotland||Hamilton Crescent||[[March 8]], [[1873]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} Scotland

|}

The first marriage of Henry VIII was Lancastrian and to [[Catherine of Aragon]], strategically poised to court [[Catholic]] (specifically, Spanish and Imperial) powers, a policy seen again in Mary's marriage to [[Philip II of Spain]]. After many attempts, Catherine only succeded in having one child—a girl—Mary. Henry VIII wanted a male heir, however, and the refusal of the Papacy to grant an annullment of the marriage was a key factor in Henry's split from the [[Roman Catholic Church|Church of Rome]].

[[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII's second marriage was to [[Anne Boleyn]]. She too failed to give Henry any sons, only a daughter, Elizabeth. She was accused of treason to the King and was executed.

:I think that the venue and opposition of first/last caps is a bit much (especially for narrower screens) - just the dates will do for now. Also I would get rid of the number column as well; I would just have name, DoB, caps, goals, first cap date, last cap date. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The third marriage was to [[Jane Seymour]]. She bore Henry a son, Edward. Unfortunately she died about two weeks after childbirth. Henry was heartbroken—many people think that Jane was the only one of his wives that Henry really loved.

::Agree - scrap number and venue. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fourth marriage of Henry VIII was Yorkist [[Anne of Cleves]], strategically poised to court [[Protestant]] German powers. This idea was later picked up by the marriage between [[William and Mary]].

How about using flags for the opposition then? Adds more information to the table without the wideness problem. Have done it for the first 20 players as below

The fifth marriage was to [[Kathryn Howard]]. She was very young and didn't really want to marry Henry. It was later proved that she had been unfaithful to him with his chief Minister. She was accused of treason and was executed.

{| class="wikitable"

!Name!! Date of birth!!Caps!! Goals!! Date of first cap!! Date of last cap

|-

|[[Robert Barker (footballer)|Robert Barker]]|| [[June 19]], [[1847]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[Ernest Greenhalgh]]||[[August 22]], [[1848]]|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]

|-

|[[Reg Welch]]||[[June 20]], [[1851]]||2||0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1972]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 7]], [[1874]]

|-

|[[Fred Chappells]]|| 1850|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[William Maynard]]|| [[June 19]], [[1847]]|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 4]], [[1876]]

|-

|[[John Brockbank]]|| [[August 22]], [[1848]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[John Clegg (footballer)|John Clegg]]|| [[April 21]], [[1852]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[Arnold Smith (footballer)|Arnold Smith]]|| [[April 23]], [[1850]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[Cuthbert Ottaway]]|| [[July 20]], [[1850]]|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 7]], [[1874]]

|-

|[[Charles Chenery]]|| [[January 1]], [[1850]]|| 3|| 1||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 7]], [[1874]]

|-

|[[Charles Morice]]|| [[May 27]], [[1850]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[November 30]], [[1872]]||

|-

|[[Alex Morten]]|| [[November 15]], [[1831]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||

|-

|[[Leonard Howell]]|| [[August 6]], [[1848]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||

|-

|[[Alfred Goodwyn]]|| [[March 13]], [[1850]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||

|-

|[[Robert Vidal]]|| [[September 3]], [[1853]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||

|-

|[[Pelham Von Donop]]|| [[April 28]], [[1851]]|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 6]], [[1875]]

|-

|[[William Clegg]]|| [[April 21]], [[1852]]|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||{{flagicon|Wales}} [[January 18]], [[1879]]||

|-

|[[Alex Bonsor]]|| 1852|| 2|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 6]], [[1875]]

|-

|[[Hubert Heron]]|| [[January 30]], [[1852]]|| 5|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 2]], [[1878]]

|-

|[[William Kenyon-Slaney]]|| [[August 24]], [[1847]]|| 1|| 0||{{flagicon|Scotland}} [[March 8]], [[1873]]|| ||

|-

|}

Henry's last wife was a rich widow, [[Catherine Parr]]. Though she was in love with Thomas Seymour (Jane Seymour's brother) at the time, she was forced to marry him. However, she was loyal to Henry and nursed him well until he died. She soon remarried.

Let me know what you think - have it stored on a subuser page at the minute. Am happy for that to be the working page until it's a bit more detailed if that helps. [[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tudor marital policy with the Spaniards and Dutch (see [[Dutch Revolt]]) thus reflected the wish for "[[via media]]" as pursued in religious affairs, which was in some ways a continuation of the need to balance the Lancastrian and Yorkist camps.

:Looks good to me! [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::Nice work. However, whilst I see the reasons for just including flags, I think if you took this to FLC I think they'd automatically ask for full names. It's because not all flags are instantly recognisable. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The sisters of Henry were wed to the [[Auld Alliance]] dynasties of Scotland and France, but only the Scottish alliance was considered fruitful, with the French alliance lost to Suffolk. The Stuarts would continue this arrangement, through the marriages of [[Mary I of Scotland]] to the [[King Consort]]s [[Francis II of France]] and [[Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley]].

== Creation of WikiProject Football task forces ==

==The Tudor Period==

Seeing how this project has grown quite large over time, spawning a few subprojects, some successful, some less successful, I was beginning to think about creating task forces instead (and reorganising the subprojects into task forces). The idea is "stolen" (as with a few other past ideas implemented here) from [[WP:MILHIST]], where this type of organisation seems to work very well. This will not be a large change for this project or the subprojects, but will hopefully improve cooperation in the long run.

The Tudor [[history|historical]] period usually refers to the period 1485–[[1558]], especially in relation to the [[History of England]]. This coincides with the rule of the Tudor dynasty in [[England]], with the exception of Elizabeth I. Occasionally the term is used more broadly to capture Elizabeth's reign as well, though in general 1558–1603 is treated separately as the [[Elizabethan era]].

==Monarchs of England==

In short:

The six Tudor monarchs were:

*Existing subprojects ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia|Australia]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada|USA and Canada]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Italian Football|Italy]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football|Non-League]]) are reorganised into task forces instead. Not much will be changed, subpages and such will be retained.

*New task forces are created when enough users are willing to keep such task forces up and running.

*Each task force gets a parameter for the {{tl|Football}} template to keep track of articles and assessments of articles related to the task force.

*More centralised than before, better communication and cooperation between the various groups than before, less duplication of info.

*[[Henry VII of England|King Henry VII]] ([[1485]]–[[1509]])

The name "task force" may sound a little militaristic, so if anyone has a better idea for a name, suggestions are welcome. I don't intend to do any reorganisation unless there is broad consensus (especially amongst the members of the subprojects) to do so. Comments, suggestions, questions? –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

*[[Henry VIII of England|King Henry VIII]] ([[1509]]–[[1547]]); son of Henry VII

*[[Edward VI of England|King Edward VI]] ([[1547]]–[[1553]]); son of Henry VIII

*[[Lady Jane Grey]] ([[1553]]); great-granddaughter of Henry VII

*[[Mary I of England|Queen Mary I]] ([[1553]]–[[1558]]); eldest daughter of Henry VIII

*[[Elizabeth I of England|Queen Elizabeth I]] ([[1558]]–[[1603]]); second daughter of Henry VIII

Henry VII's great-granddaughter, [[Lady Jane Grey]] also served as Queen for nine days before being deposed by Mary I. Jane was later executed along with her husband [[Guildford Dudley]], son of [[John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland]]. This was a prelude to the [[Puritan]] usurpations of the Stuart era, as the Dudleys were invested in the [[Pilgrims]]' American colonisation.

:Sounds good Elisson. Not sure I'd be able to join anything other than the English league task force (don't mind the name, either), but happy to help as always. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:tudors.JPG|thumb|right|200px|''Allegory of the Tudor dynasty'', (detail), attributed to Lucas de Heere, ''ca.'' 1572: left to right, [[Philip II of Spain]], [[Mary I of England|Mary]], [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]], [[Edward VI of England|Edward VI]],

== [[Gillingham F.C.]] - please take a look ==

[[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth]]]]

To the Tudor period belongs the elevation of the English-ruled state in [[Ireland]] from a [[Lordship of Ireland|Lordship]] to a [[Kingdom of Ireland|Kingdom]] ([[1541]]).

Hi gents

==[[Kings of England family tree|Tudor's Family Tree]]==

Inspired by our friends from East Anglia, I've spent the last couple of days working hard on the article on my club, Gillingham, adding references, editing the text, removing pointless stuff, and so on. I was wondering if people could take a look at it and see how close they think it now is to promotion to the dizzy heights of Good Article and beyond. I appreciate that I still need to correctly format all the refs with <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates but I'll get to that shortly, I can't face it at the moment :-) But any other comments would be much appreciated!

Margaret Beaufort was born in 1443, not 1433 as shown in the table.

Cheers!!

[[Image:England-Tudor.png|700px]]

==Further reading==

[[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

*Guy, John (ed). ''The Tudor Monarchy''. St Martin’s Press, 1997.

*Turton, Godfrey. ''The Dragon’s Breed: The Story of the Tudors from Earliest Times to 1603''. Peter Davies, 1970.

==External links==

"gents"? Is this only limited to male wikipedians then? (only kidding)[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

* [http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/index.html Tudor Place]

* [http://tudorhistory.org/ Tudor History]

* [http://www.badley.info/history/House-of-Tudor-England.general.html House of Tudor Chronology]

* [http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page11.asp Official British Royal Site Discussion on the Tudors]

* {{PDFlink|[http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/stuarts.pdf Tudor and Stuart Family Tree from Official British Royal Site]|13.4&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 13759 bytes -->}}

* [http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor_england.htm Tudor History]

==See also==

I recommend you put it up for peer review. Looks like a very good job you've got done there so far. [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

*[[England and Wales]]

*[[Wars of the Roses]]

*[[Tudor style]]

*[[Tudor rose]]

*[[Richmond Castle]]

*[[Richmond, London#Richmond_Palace|Richmond Palace]]

*[[Tudor re-conquest of Ireland]]

*[[The Tudors and the Royal Navy]]

{{start}}

Just to add a well done on that article, much better than a number of other English club articles in my opinion.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

{{s-hou|House of Tudor|||||name=*[[Royal House]]*}}

:It's now gone up for FAC - fingers crossed! [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{s-bef|before=[[House of York]]}}

{{s-ttl|title=[[Dynasty|Ruling House]] of the [[Kingdom of England]]|years=[[1485]] &ndash; [[1603]]}}

{{s-aft|after=[[House of Stuart]]}}

{{end}}

== Vandalism on [[AC Milan]] article ==

[[Category:European royal families|Tudor]]

Could someone please back me up on the AC Milan article. An editor called Jadger has made a number of bias and unwaranted edits to the article. Basically he states that Milan are best known for Corruption. ANyways, the guy obviously has a bone to grind as he appears to be a Munich fan. Could someone please help me and keep an eye on this article ? [[User:Niall123|Niall123]] 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Family trees]]

[[Category:House of Tudor|*]]

[[Category:1485 establishments]]

[[Category:1603 disestablishments]]

[[ar:بيت تيودر]]

:I'd extend the above part about vandalism to most major European clubs. Being the English Wikipedia, there are of course less fans of these clubs to watch articles and vandalism regularly goes by unnoticed. I'd suggest more editors put some of these pages on their watchlists. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:85%">Archibald99</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[[cs:Tudorovci]]

[[de:Haus Tudor]]

:From reading the responses [[User:Jadger|Jadger]] gave you on your talk page, it does seem as though they have an axe to grind and that despite what they say, they are adding those specific comments about the AC Milan to try and prove a point, rather than to simply state facts. That much is evident by the style of their edits. "Me thinks the Jadger doth protest too much"!!! Perhaps though, as the bitter taste of defeat finally goes they might stop the edits!! You never know! [[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[[et:Tudorid]]

[[es:Casa de Tudor]]

:Or not as the case may be, as Jadger continues to keep add the same thing over and over. I do think that there should be some mention of the [[2006 Serie A scandal]], but not in the manner in which Jadger was putting it over, which does not come across as NPOV one iota, more like someone trying to make a point. I have therefore re-edited it to read more neutral rather than using wording that shows clear bias. I have also added the [[2006 Serie A scandal]] to the See also list on the AC Milan page,w hich only seems fair.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[[fr:Maison Tudor]]

[[ko:튜더 왕가]]

::On this basis I will remove his senitments "again" without fear of the three revert rule. I'll point him to this. Just to also say that the Match Fixing allegations are already mentioned with a paragraph in the History sub article of the AC Milan article. Is there really a need for providing the extra link considering the paragraph already present ?[[User:Niall123|Niall123]] 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[it:Dinastia Tudor]]

[[he:בית טיודור]]

:Just to say another user is now repeating the previous user by adding even more references to Milan's "Corruption" in the open article. It quite clearly shouldn't be there and has been mentioned in the History section already. [[User:Niall123|Niall123]] 09:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[ka:ტიუდორი (დინასტია)]]

[[nl:Tudor (dynastie)]]

::I only went to look at the AC Milan article because of you bringing it up here. I disagree with your stance of whitewashing the club's history by removing anything vaguely negative from the main article. I also think that the club history should be covered more than ''see [[History of A.C. Milan]].'' Obviously the user you initially complained about was in the wrong with his wording, but I think the general position was correct. Most other club articles deal with the negative as well as the positive, and I don't see why AC Milan should be any different. Surely the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] encompasses both?

[[ja:テューダー朝]]

::I attempted to write the paragraph with the most neutral wording that I could. I seriously don't see any good reason for not including it within both the lead and the History section. The fact that no-one has ever written an article about the [[Totonero scandal]] is shocking to me. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[no:Huset Tudor]]

[[pl:Tudorowie]]

:This is getting ridiculous. AC Milans involvement in the 2006 Serie A scandal should be in the main header in my opinion. Not in the manner in which it was originally added, but keeping removing any mention of it in there stating it is vandalizm is also wrong. I tried to appease both views by adding it in a neutral manner which is how it should be presented. Things like "Juventus led" scandal are also being added to make a point.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[pt:Casa de Tudor]]

[[ru:Тюдоры]]

Thank you, I was surprised when I read the AC Milan article had no mention of the scandal, so I decided to add it. I agree my wording wasn't exactly the nicest to AC Milan fans, but I agree with the rewording Tangerine used. I think it is a worthy thing to add to the article, after all, can anyone name another G-14 club that has been involved in as many match-fixing scandals?

[[simple:Tudor dynasty]]

[[sl:Tudorji]]

--[[User:Jadger|Jadger]] 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[fi:Tudor-suku]]

:[[1915 British football betting scandal]]? :-p I'll get my anorak. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[sv:Huset Tudor]]

: [[1964 British betting scandal]] ahem, my coat is ready too, though not an anorak it isn't the weather for one...... :-[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[th:ราชวงศ์ทิวดอร์]]

[[tr:Tudor hanedanı]]

Just to add about the above, whilst the scandal is mentioned in more detail in the History section on AC Milan, that is a seperate page. And the main page as it was set out previously, had no mention at all of this. In my opinion there needs to be a short NPOV mention of this in the lead. There is surely a compromise between the two views on this, which is to have it more or less as it is now, with it mentioned briefly as I have tried to amend it to, in the lead.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[[zh:都铎王朝]]

:For what its worth, I think Totonero should be in the lead, but the one last season should be less prominent than Totonero (Relegation vs eight point penalty). Relegation for disciplinary reasons and several life bans is a far more noteworthy event than a points deduction. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Good point, as of the two events, the 1980 relegation is surely far more noteworthy than having 8 points deducted.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

oldelpaso, that is one occurence between those two teams, whereas AC Milan has been ''caught'' twice, God knows how many other times they have done it. I asked if there were any G-14 teams that had been caught '''as many''' times as AC Milan.

--[[User:Jadger|Jadger]] 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I was being facetious. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Even more facetious in light of the fact that it was players that were punished, not clubs. It would seem that the two clubs did, er, nothing wrong. It's an interesting and largely forgotten piece of history though. It should be mentioned in the two team's histories though I think. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the only problem on the [[History of A.C. Milan#Match-fixing allegations|match-fixing allegations in the history articles]] is that it should have a less colloquial style. I mean, ''Milan drew with many underdogs in matches the should have won, and before they realized it, they were out of the Serie A favourites to win the league title.'' is not really encyclopedical. [[User:CapPixel|CapPixel]] 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== Football seasons - Style ==

Can we reach a consensus on how football seasons are styled in WP articles?

In the article on the [[British Home Championship]] I edited the table and text to show seasons in the format '''1983-84''' but this has been reverted back to the style '''[[1983]]-[[1984]]'''.

I had thought that this was clearly stated somewhere in a '''Manual of Style''' but I must confess that these are inconsistent. Of the various style manuals listed on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Articles|WikiProject_Football]] the only help given is at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Achievements]] which gives the seasons in the format '''3332–33''', whereas [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Competitions#Past_tournaments.2Fwinners]] uses the format '''3332/33'''; so no consensus there!

I have therefore had a look at the pages for some of the national leagues which have produced the following results.

England

*[[English_football_champions#FA Premier League (1992-present)|Premier League]]: 2005–06

*[[The Football League#Past_League_winners|Football League]]: 2005-06

*[[Football_League_One#Winners_of_Football_League_One|League One]]: 2005-06

*[[Football_League_Two#Winners_of_Football_League_Two|League Two]]: 2005-06

*[[Football_Conference#Past_Conference_winners|Conference]]: 2005-06

*[[Southern_Football_League#Past_Southern_League_winners|Southern League]]: 2005-06

Scotland

*[[Scottish_Premier_League#SPL_season_summary|SPL]]: 2005-06

*[[Scottish_Football_League_First_Division#Winners_of_the_First_Division|First Division]]: 2005/2006

*[[Scottish Football League Second Division#Winners of the Second Division|Second Division]]: 2005 - [[2006]] (also 2005/6 and 2006/07)

Italy

*[[Serie_A#Champions_by_season|Serie A]]: 2005-06

*[[Serie_B#Promotions_by_season|Serie B]]: 2005-06

France

*[[Ligue_1#Statistics by clubs (1932-2006)|Ligue 1]]: 2005-06

*[[Ligue 2#Previous winners|Ligue 2]]: 2005/06

Germany

*[[German_football_champions#Champions_of_the_Bundesliga_Era|Bundesliga]]: 2005/06

*[[2._Fu%C3%9Fball-Bundesliga#Second_Bundesliga_2|Bundesliga 2]]: 2005/06

Spain

*[[La Liga]]

**[[La_Liga#Year_By_Year|Main article]]: Both 2006 and 2005-06

**[[La Liga - 2005/2006|Season by season]]: 2005/2006

*[[Segunda División]]

**[[Segunda División#Segunda División seasons|Main article]]: Both 05-06 and 2005/06

**[[Segunda División - 2005/2006|Season by season]]: 2005/2006

As you can see, the position in England and Italy is clear (fairly consistently using '''2005-06''') and Germany ('''2005/06'''), but in France, Scotland and Spain there is no consistency.

I know this subject has come up for discussion before [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive2#Season_date_consistency|here]] and briefly again [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive7#Standardisation|here]] but neither debate was particularly conclusive nor were there exactly a large number of participants (6 in total over both discussions), so can we have a more lively debate so that a firm consensus can be arrived at and then incorporated into the manual of style?

My preference is clearly for the style '''2005-06'''. [[User:Daemonic Kangaroo|Daemonic Kangaroo]] 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::Seconded. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:Personally, I've always been (both in and out of Wikipedia) a fan of the fuller format (2006-2007) as it leaves no room for ambiguity and there is no question about how to write seasons like 1999-2000, but I really don't lose any sleep over it. My velleity is not repeated when it comes to the hyphen versus slash argument, though: it has to be the hyphen. The hyphen, representing the word 'to', indicates that the season runs over both years. A slash is often used as an alternatives ('and/or') or for lists of non-linked units (a shop may list its address as '1/3 Wiki Street' (number 2, of course, is on the other side of the road)). I really don't understand why it has taken off when writing football seasons. - [[User:Green Tentacle|Green Tentacle]] 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== WikiProject Irish Football ==

I've created a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football|WikiProject on Irish football]] for anyone who is interested in participating or helping out. [[User:Danny Invincible|''Danny Invincible'']]^{[[User_talk:Danny_Invincible|Talk]]|[[Special:contributions/Danny Invincible|Edits]]} 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== More "footy-bio" types proposed ==

The Brazilian biographies have become very large, and I've [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/April#Brazilian_footballer_sub-types|proposed]] some sub-types. Please comment there if you've a view on the most useful way of doing this. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[WP:MWA|Most wanted articles]] ==

There are currently 9 articles listed at [[WP:MWA#Football]] that might be of interest to this project. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:... and even more in the "general" section. Such as Swedish football clubs. I'm looking at you, Elisson ;) [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:: They get linked a lot from the tables of my [[seasons in Swedish football]] articles... The most commonly linked ones should have articles eventually, and I'll create them as time goes. I actually happened to create two new (of which one is on the list) just before I read your post. :) –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== Place of birth in text ==

Hi all. I'm having a problem with an anon editor [[User:62.77.178.117]] who keeps changing the placing of the place of birth in [[Roddy Collins]]. I don't understand the edit comments about as it's in the infobox it shouldn't be in the text, and then putting in the text next to date of birth. According to the template it should be outside of the date of birth bracket (I have tried pointing the editor to the template page and inviting discussion via my talk page, but s/he communicates via edit comments only), so that's what I've done - I know there are many pages that don't comply with the template, but I try to correct them as I edit for other reasons. Any thoughts on this problem appreciated. It's not a major issue, but what's the point in templates if we don't need to stick to them? [[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:The anon. editor is stating that "Dublin" shouldn't be in the prose, but that's where he/she is putting it? - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::It was (born XX/X/19XX in Dublin), so I followed the template and moved the place of birth to the prose, but the anon keeps moving it back. They are arguing that because it's in the infobox it is stupid that it is also in the text, but at the same time keep moving it back to the data of birth brackets. Two issues I guess, 1) the edit comments don't make any sense, and b) if we are to follow the template how to get this editor to stop making the changes. [[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Personally I prefer the anon's style, and it's what I always use, taking my inspiration from the [[Denis Law]] FA. The current version you've written is far more clunky in comparison. '''(born 7 August 1961 in Dublin)''' is surely better than '''(born 7 August 1961) He was born in Dublin.''' I understand that you have style guides on your side, but I don't see why you should make an edit war over such a minor matter. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Seconded. I think the template guidelines need a little tweaking. In its current guise, having the place of birth elsewhere in the article doesn't make much sense. - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I'd actually agree with a change in the template guidelines as well (I'm not suggesting that the way I've written it is better). [[User:WikiGull|WikiGull]] 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== help required on schoolboy article ==

Can someone take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_thomas_mckim_smith this]? I originally DB-BIO'd it but on reflection I actually don't know enough about the criteria we place on notable sportsmen - do we find schoolboys notable even if they play for the under-15s side of a large club? --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, player must be professional, e.g. play in the first team. Article should be deleted. [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== Any Club Articles that needs editing?? ==

I know that I cleaning out my watchlist and started all over again, I add myself to the participants list, so I want to know what the club articles (or stubs) are needed to be contributed/editing, so contact me anytime and I will help improving the article... [[User:Rakuten06|Rakuten06]] 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:Take your pick from [[:Category:English football club stubs]] - it's nearly down to 600 but there's still a loooooooooong way to go! [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::What do you think about [[A.F.C. Portchester]]?? Is it a good stub for me to work on or want me to pick another team?? [[User:Rakuten06|Rakuten06]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== External links vs. References ==

Something I learned yesterday that I thought is worth mentioning here. If an article has no references but was written from information at [http://www.soccerbase.com Soccerbase], [http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com Neil Brown's site], etc. (see [[Ian Gore]], for example), we're supposed to put that URL in the references section, not the external links, per [[WP:Cite]] (''All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links"'').

Some of you likely knew this. I didn't, however. - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

*Me neither! Nor, I think, do most editors. For a random example see the article on [[Wayne Rooney]]. There's going to be a lot of articles to change. [[User:Daemonic Kangaroo|Daemonic Kangaroo]] 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::And many of the referee articles! I'm going to get to work on them soon, to correct this. [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/LuBu24|LuBu24]] ==

I reverted his absolutely bogus addition to [[FC Spartak Moscow]], but I'm unfaminliar with subjects of other articles he edits as they're related to Iranian football. Could someone inspect his contribs for more factual errors? [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== David McNiven ==

There are two articles on seperate footballers called David McNiven - [[David McNiven|one original]] and [[David McNiven (footballer)|one I created today]]. I think that David McNiven should be a disambig page, but I am stuck for rename titles: maybe [[David McNiven (footballer born 1978)]] and [[David McNiven (footballer born 1955)]]. Any thoughts/help? Much appreciated, [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I think they may be related - the elder one was playing for Leeds in 1978, and the younger one was born in Leeds in 1978...can anyone support this hunch? [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved [[David McNiven (footballer)‎]] to [[David McNiven (footballer born 1955)‎]] and fixed what few pages linked to the old page [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:I have just moved the first page to [[David McNiven (footballer born 1978)]] and repaired the links and templates etc. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[Rangers F.C. Reserves]] ==

In the same vein as [[Liverpool F.C. Reserves]] and [[Arsenal F.C. Reserves]], would it be worth starting a Rangers version to trim some information from the main Rangers article? I feel I should ask for opinions on here first as there don't seem to be any similar articles outside the English Premiership. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">Archibald99</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me, don't see any reason why not [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Ditto. Don't like reserve articles myself, but if Liverpool and Arsenal have them there's no reason why Rangers shouldn't. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== New peer review - [[Italian football champions]] ==

Hey project dudes, a new page for you to critique if you'd be so kind. I have an open peer review for it [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Italian football champions|here]]. As noted in the intro to the PR, I'd like this to be considered in a similar vein to [[English football champions]], [[Danish football champions]] and [[Swedish football champions]], all of which are already featured lists. Once again, thanks for you time. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, and if someone would be kind enough to re-classify it as I don't believe it's a Start kind of article any more! Cheers! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== Images of programme covers ==

This might be more of a village pump question, but I thought I'd try here first. What's the score with using programme covers to illustrate articles on clubs, etc? As far as I can tell from looking at the various image tags, if they were to be classed as magazines then they could only be used to illustrate an article on the magazine itself and, let's face it, nobody's going to create [[Manchester United's programme]]. Alternatively if you cheat a bit and class them as event "posters" then they could only be used for articles on the specific event i.e. the match itself, which only works for a notable match like a final. So as far as I can see they can't be used in articles on clubs - am I right.....? [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Excellent question. I'd also be interested in the answer to this. I would ''guess'' that they are classed as magazines from a legal standpoint, but I'm sure there must be someone out there who works in the trade, who could give a definitive answer. Football programmes contain a wealth of information which could be used to improve articles. I assume that one could "cite" a programme as per a magazine. Indeed some football programmes are now referred to as the "matchday magazine". --[[User:Jameboy|Jameboy]] 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::Just to clarify - the issue I'm concerned with is not using programmes as a source, that'd be fine as far as I know, but rather using an actual programme ''cover'' as an illustration within an article - in the example I was looking at, I was going to use the cover of the programme for [[Gillingham F.C.|Gillingham]]'s first match in the Football League to illustrate the point that they got elected, but if classed as a magazine then the cover could only be used to illustrate an article on Gillingham's programme itself.... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't think it can be allowed. [[WP:FU|Fair use]] allows usage when discussing the work itself, not what the work depicts. So an image of a programme cover to illustrate discussion of Gillingham FC's publications or fan culture (the work itself), but not promotion (which is what the work depicts). Looking at the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Examples_of_unacceptable_use|examples]] of unacceptable use, points 2 and 6 seem to be quite relevant to this case. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Standardisation of league tables ==

As the time approaches when we'll be making up end-of-season league tables, I thought I'd re-open [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive8#Standardisation_of_league_tables this] discussion from a few months back about creating a standard league table format. Any thoughts? [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I'm all for standardisation - the two main points I would have are - 1) Keep the points column to the right hand side, and 2) Keep use of colour to indicate things to a minimum. If it HAS to be used, give a clear indication alongside in text form as well. And, again if colour HAS to be used, keep it to pale pastel shades so that the underlying text can be read easily. - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Various non-league articles ==

I think it's fairly clear by now that we're deleting any players who have only played at Conference level or lower. I just wondered what everyone thought about various articles that I've discovered relating to specific conference seasons. These are: [[Conference National 2006-07]] and [[Conference National Playoff Final 2003]] [[Conference National Playoff Final 2004|2004]], [[Conference National Playoff Final 2005|2005]] and [[Conference National Playoff Final 2006|2006]]. They're all well written articles, but I was wondering whether, having established a clear cut-off point for players, we should also do so for various other articles about the game at this level? Thoughts? [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== problem with nationality/ethnicity ==

we have a problem with some slovak players

* [[Koloman Gögh]], he is dead and was citizen of czechoslovakia later slovak, he used only slovak form of his name Koloman and at his grave is this slovak name too, but another user say he is hungarian soccerplayer without sources ....

* we have another player [[Balázs Borbély]], [[Szilárd Németh]] ..., they play for slovak national team and they have names sounds hungarian, my question, is it possible to say they are hungarian or hungarians in slovakia without sources/living people? --[[User:Mt7|Mt7]] 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:If they were born in Slovakia and played for (Czecho)Slovakia, then they are Slovakian footballers, and unless they actually have dual nationality (and they don't seem to) then they don't belong in the Hungarian footballers category. There should be a category for Slovakians of Hungarian descent, to cover their ethnic background. [[User:ArtVandelay13|ArtVandelay13]] 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:: thank you, another case [[Tamás Priskin]], born in slovakia, he has slovak and hungarian passport, his youthyears in a slovak club, but play only for hungaran national team, in interview he said, I go once in week to home to Komarno/Slovakia (that time he played for Gyor), please correct category.--[[User:Mt7|Mt7]] 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --[[User:Mt7|Mt7]] 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[Linfield F.C.]] ==

Is this article really a GA? I see no signs of it being reviewed and.. well... its not particularly that good. [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Bah, GA with zero in-text references. Suspicious. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linfield F.C.|Failed FAC]]. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">Archibald99</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::In fact, I'm going to de-list it right now as it obviously doesn't meet GA criteria. Thanks for bringing it to attention <s>MaxSem</s> Mattythewhite. A new rating is welcomed, maybe start class? [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree, seems like a suitable rating. And I brought it up.. :p [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yeah :) actually it seems it was never a GA in the first place, it was just some person who unanimously gave it the rating. [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linfield_F.C.&oldid=72129548 This] is when it was "promoted" to GA... August last year. How has it not been spotted in this length of time? [[User:Mattythewhite|Mattythewhite]] 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

== Non-league cups ==

[[User:Cintrianex]] has created some articles on the cups run by various lowly leagues, such as the [[Northern Counties East Football League Wilkinson Sword Trophy]] and even the [[West Riding County Amateur Football League Division Two Cup]] - are competitions like this really notable.......? [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:<del>In a word - no.</del> <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">Archibald99</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Although the teams competing appear to me notable, so I may be wrong? <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:Archibald99|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">Archibald99</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::The West Riding Amateur teams definitely aren't notable..... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:::<del>So [[Meltham AFC]] should be deleted, non? <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:WATP|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC) </del> *''Already been PRODed, think before typing''* <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:WATP|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Do the cups need seperate pages? Could they not be merged into the main articles on each league bearing in mind the level of the leagues?[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::How about keeping Northern Counties Cup while delete West Riding Cup because they're amateur and not professional, so what about it?? [[User:Rakuten06|Rakuten06]] 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:In my opinion, league and/or divisional cups are fairly minor competitions, best mentioned in league articles if at all. The same goes for individual divisions of leagues. There's nothing I can think of that would belong in an individual divisional article at this level that wouldn't be better off in the main league article. To that effect, I've turned the Premier and Division One pages for the Western League into re-directs to the main Western League page. I've not gone any further in case I get a consensus against. I've amended the templates at the bottom of the affected pages to remove the links, but not yet checked for other double redirects that I have inadvertently created. - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::I fully agree with fchd on this one - all divisions of any league below Conference level should be merged into the main league article - there is little to be said for them anyway. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Listing F*C's on [[WP:WPF]] ==

Do we list current article/list candidates in that table? I couldn't find any, nor any spot to put them. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, we do, just write "Current F*C" instead of "Failed F*C". I don't know whether they should have a brown background like the Current PR's do. [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

== Rangers vs Linfield - Most successful club? ==

There is a sourced statement on the [[Rangers F.C.]] article saying Rangers are the most successful club in the world in terms of trophies won, but apparently [[Linfield F.C.]] have a claim to this, although there are doubts about whether or not some of Linfield's trophies are "first-class". Could a consensus be reached as to which is correct? <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:WATP|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it the sort of thing that might be on the [[FIFA]] website?[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Rangers have won the most ''major'' trophies, phrasing it that way would work. Linfield have won more trophies in total, but that includes local competitions, using that metric [[Macclesfield Town F.C.|Macclesfield Town]] have won 36. Perhaps some wording about national competitions? [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::If one can get sniffy about the Irish FA cup then i'm sure Juve fans can get very sniffy indeed about the tennents sixes, the glasgow cup, the league cup and even league titles for that matter. If you want to create a debate whereby the threshold of worthiness is placed just below scottish competitions then you can't really make it a global statement that's ridiculous.[[User:Hermangelmet|Hermangelmet]] 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::In addition, Linfield have won the NI league trophy 46 times, The Irish FA cup 37 times, the league cup 28 times and the all ireland trophy 4 times there's the domestic major trophies. So that's linfield 115 vs Rangers 106.[[User:Hermangelmet|Hermangelmet]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Linfield's own article states that they have won the League Cup only 8 times, where did the other 20 wins come from? The current honour roll on their article gives a total of 92 "major" trophy wins, or 96 if the "all-Ireland" is included.... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== Forward vs. striker ==

I was surprised to see that ''[[forward (soccer)|forward]]'' redirected to ''[[striker]]'', because the players whose positions I have listed as the former in the past definitely aren't strikers, in my opinion. I thought I'd mention [[Talk:Striker#Forward_vs._striker|the somewhat dusty discussion]] here. - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive3#Forward_or_Striker|another related old discussion]]. The redirect should be the other way around IMHO. Strikers are a subset of forwards. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 11:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== New featured list candidate - Italian football champions ==

Hey, please, please add comments (and hopefully support!) to the nomination for promoting [[Italian football champions]] to [[WP:FL|featured list]] status. You can find the discussion [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Italian football champions|here]]. Thanks for your time. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

:Can't we just put this on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Featured and good articles|project page]]? [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, probably, I hadn't thought of that. I was just trying to get some interest. Cool, I'll do that too. Cheers! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::Oh ''that'' project page.. yes, I've done that but in most cases changes there get ignored so I wanted to make sure it was publicised. Hope that's not a big problem. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== Good Article Nominees ==

Should we also consider including Good Article Candidates on the "Featured and good articles" section in the main WikiProject page? Currently on [[WP:GAC]] there are at least three football-related nominees ([[Arjen Robben]], [[Liverpool F.C.]] and [[U.S. Città di Palermo]]). --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[One-club man]] ==

Just wanted to bring the above article to the attention of a wider audience. I can't help but feel there are obvious inclusions missing. - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:The list is surely POV. Either it includes all one-club men (which would be a gigantic list) or it depends on some subjective decisions about who's worth including and who isn't. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::The article itself states that it lists all players who were at their club for 15 or more years, no subjective decision there unless you consider a 15 year limit to be a subjective decision. However it may be a better idea to just list all one-club men who have articles. - [[User:MTC|MTC]] 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Season-by-Season ==

I don't know if any one else has mentioned/suggested this, but why not condense each team's season-by-season history into decades, in the style used by the Baseball WikiProject for an individual MLB season ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Seattle_Mariners_season#Game_log example]). Would perhaps make the pages more managable? [[User:Nightfreak|Nightfreak]] 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:I don't understand - the example you point to is of a single season, not a decade. Could you mock something up in a sandbox? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Member RfA ==

Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man]] (signed as a member of this Project under his previous name, Budgiekiller). Whichever way you choose to !vote, I would be glad if you would indicate your membership of this WikiProject. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Help (again) at [[Berliner FC Dynamo]] ==

[[User:Nadia Kittel]] has returned from his earlier ban as [[User:Fox53]] to again agrandize his team's site, add fringe material, apply eccentric formatting, and insert poor quality or un-sourced images. He has removed informative image captions simply to make logo images bigger (also then taking them out of context), and continues to insert poor-quality unsourced images that don't really add anything to the article. As a matter of fact, he's taken to plastering the same poor quality image of the FDGB Pokal (East German Cup) all over any page representing a cup winner, despite the fact that historically there were multiple versions of the trophy - he can't be bothered to do any research or find anything better, even though its out there. He was also recently warned off using this approach in editing articles about the SS - but doesn't get it. Given his previous edit history this will likely shape up into another attempt to turn an encyclopedia article into a tribute page.

To his credit he did add a useful literature section and some other minor stuff, and did some decent work on German hockey teams, but still doesn't seem to understand that this is not a Dynamo/East Germany tribute site. And, oh yeah, check out his un-varnished opinion of me on his [[User_talk:Fox53|talk page]]. I'm tired of this guy's approach and have used up two R's at BFC today. Help, please! [[User:Wiggy!|Wiggy!]] 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:I remember the user well. He certainly can't deal with criticism to say the least, if that talk page is anything to go by resorting to childishly insulting you when criticised, rather than trying to deal with it reasonably. If it is the same user, Nadia Kittel, which I presume it is, it wasn't just the clubs article that he kept adding unsourced and irrelevant material as anything to do with German football and anything that mentioned that club were fair game. I suppose if some added that article to their watch list that would be start? [[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::His fixation is this club, but ranges to anything with the word "Dynamo" in it, the glory of the former East Germany and anything vaguely connected, Marilyn Monroe, and sundry other things. He's capable of some good contribs, but doesn't get when enough is enough, and the importance of staying relevant and credible. I'm just looking to keep the BFC page and some other items from being turned into some sort of incoherent, irrelevant shambles. Anything anyone can do to help would be most welcome.

::By the way, you were a brave soul to take on that Ultra's stuff to bash it into some sort of shape. That's sort of how I first bumped into this editor making a mess of the BFC page. [[User:Wiggy!|Wiggy!]] 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hah yes indeed and thanks! It just bugged me that the page was such a mess and seemed to be a free-for-all for people like "Nadia" or whatever he calls himself now to constantly add biased content.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::FYI, the user is now operating as [[Special:Contributions/Lucken|Lucken]], and has recently inserted the Dresden logo in two unrelated templates (see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Multisport-stub&oldid=127156756] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sport-org-stub&oldid=127239364]), and should be watched. [[User:Ytny|Ytny]] ([[User talk:Ytny|talk]]) 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::No real surprise! Should be fun![[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Having had a very quick look at just one page, it seems that he is going over the top (OTT) again. This article which he created - [[Sportvereinigung Dynamo]] is a fairly decent page, well constructed. But when I say he is going OTT again, the infobox just looks a complete mess it is way, way OTT. Also is there really any need for all the images on the page, they seem to serve no purpose, and have no relevance? And then there is a huge long list of so called references which aren't references but a list of external links, even though he has used them as references. That in itself should identify the user as Nadia Kittel as that was what he had a habit of constantly doing. Head banging on brick wall time again it would seem maybe. Also, if it is proven that this user is one and the same as before, what happens to the article he has created on Sportvereinigung Dynamo? If he has added it when blocked, should the article remain? It is just a question, I am not suggesting that it should be deleted, but this just made me think about the wider issue of articles created by blocked users, under different user names.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, since user talk messages aren't going to work, I think an extended block is warranted? At the very least, the following accounts need to be reported to [[WP:SSP]], since he is violating the terms of the block, even if the edits weren't disruptive. It seem like an there's enough to block all three accounts. [[User:Ytny|Ytny]] ([[User talk:Ytny|talk]]) 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Some of the recent edits prove that all three users are one and the same person. And agree that at the very least those two accounts should be reported as he is clearly violating the block as you say.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Old Wembley vs. New Wembley ==

Hi. I believe I have seen this problem commented on somewhere before, but just to heads-up and recruit if possible. There are currently countless articles with Wikilinks to the wrong Wembley (for instance, <nowiki>in [[1966]], [[England national football team|England]] won the [[FIFA World Cup 1966|World Cup]] at </nowiki>'''<nowiki>[[Wembley Stadium|Wembley]]</nowiki>'''. The correct reference is <nowiki>[[Wembley Stadium </nowiki>'''<nowiki>(1924)</nowiki>'''<nowiki>|Wembley]]</nowiki>.

I have recently set about the task, and would urge those of you who don't get bored too easily to give us a hand! There are thousands to get through.

I go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Wembley_Stadium&limit=500&from=0 this page], and click on one of the many links to articles supposedly to do with New Wembley. I then set up Internet Explorer to 'Find' '''<nowiki>[[Wembley Stadium</nowiki>''', find next, and this shows me the reference. If it is retrospective (i.e. a record of what happened in the past at the old stadium), it needs changing to "(1924)". If it is predictive (i.e. a future event at the new stadium), it stays as 'New Wembley', if you see what I mean. I always leave an edit summary ("amend wembley reference") to guard against accusations of vandalism.

Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes. [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry. In the above, go to the '''Edit Page''' and 'find next' for it to work (and to edit it, obviously). [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'm still not convinced of two things - a) the need for two articles, in my opinion it is just a rebuild on the same site and should be covered within the same article, and b) the "1924" date. As the stadium opened at least in 1923, and the rationale for the 1924 date on the article in question is weak to say the least, if a split article is needed it should be entitled Wembley Stadium (1923). - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:::The pros and cons can be debated elsewhere, I am simply highlighting the need to protect Wikipedia from ridiculous linking. I don't intend to open up a debate by this, just take on board whoever wants to give it a go. I don't mind doing it on my own. [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah I had wondered why it was called 1924 when the first Cup Final took place there in 1923... That said I do see the need for two separate articles, as a merged article would probably be too big, and the two stadiums were completely different structures. To be honest though this sounds like a job for [[WP:AWB|AWB]] rather than doing it by hand. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::::But until then..... :-) [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::See [[Talk:Wembley_Stadium_%281924%29#1924.3F|here]] for the (weak, IMO) justification for the 1924 date...... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::How is an AWB going to differentiate between retrospective and predictive references (although if it can be done, hush my mouth)? Anyway, just cleared all the "Wembley stadium" redirects..... :-) [[User:Refsworldlee|Refsworldlee]]^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew-fat)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(eds)</small>]] 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Handbag image debate ==

Some input from other parties required at [[Talk:Argentina_and_England_football_rivalry#Mocking_Photo_removed.]] [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Kit colours, "traditional" vs. "current" ==

The recent actions by {{user|SPUJ}} raise an interesting question: should football articles list the current strip (with coloured shoulders etc. as appropriate for the current strip), or a general one with merely the colours (as shoulder designs etc. change frequently)? Thoughts appreciated. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 12:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think it should show the current kit, without going into too much detail. So, somewhere between the two. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">[[User:WATP|<font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP</font>]]&nbsp;</font></span> 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::I think we should show the current kit, but maybe include a section on previous kit colours/designs [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:Please, note that {{user|Daniel.Bryant}} did not present the matter correctly: we are not talking about the article in itself, which could of course depict the current kit, but about the template. I think it should be the traditional kit, i.e. without the decorations inserted year-by-year by the kit designer. There is plenty of room to add the current or historical kist in the article body.--[[User:SPUJ|SPUJ]] 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:What's the traditional kit, though? Talking about my team Watford, our colours are broadly yellow, red and black. But do we have a "traditional" kit we could depict in the template? Sometimes we have the red on the shoulders, sometimes not. Sometimes red shorts, sometimes black. You'd have to depict the club's current away shirt, as many clubs at least change their away colours frequently - Watford certainly do. So how would that work? Depicting a vague notion of a traditional kit up against a very current one? I mean, you changed the CCM kit - they've only been in existence two years and have had two different kits. How can you say the old one is more traditional than the current one? Sure, removd any features kit manufacturers put on all their kits. I recall we removed blue stripes from the Ukraine kit because all the kits by their manufacturer had them. But otherwise, it has to be the current one. And SPUJ, you really should have brought this up here, rather than making changes on multiple articles asserting that traditional is what's supposed to be in the template. That's your opinion, not policy. Cheers, [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly! Surely the point of an encyclopaedia is to be as accurate as possible and give as much information as possible. Therefore in the template box we should have the current kit, as accurate as possible, as well as a section on previous kit designs and colours, both home and away. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I completely agree with the comments above. Many of the club in this encyclopedia do not really have a "classic" kit: for instance, Palermo played alternatively with an all-pink jersey, a pink-black vertically-striped version, another one with pink and black halves and a few others. Where a "classic" kit is present and it differs from the current one, include it in a "Colours and badge" paragraph, whose existance is suggested by [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs|this WikiProject]]. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Your example of Palermo has made other examples spring to mind - Wigan Athletic (blue & white stripes last season, a whole blue kit this season), Barcelona (blue and red halves this season, stripes last), Porto (degrees of blue & white, including stripes and halves), Werder Bremen (green & orange last season, green & white this)... [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 14:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::This thread is entitled "kit colours", not "kit design and colouring". On that basis, my opinion is that only the relevant current major colours should be described, and obviously which item of clothing was broadly which major colour could be included as relevant to "kit". So, to quote ''my'' team:

::::::[[Swindon Town F.C.|Swindon Town]] - red shirts, red shorts, white/red socks.

:::::Even though they have a single thin white vertical stripe on the right side of the shirt, from the shoulder downwards, I wouldn't mention it because it's an 'embellishment'. However, the white tops to the socks are a definite recognised component in the garment traditionally, in the same way as regular patterned stripes and hoops are. [[User:Refsworldlee|'''Ref''']] ^{[[User talk:Refsworldlee|(chew)]]}[[Special:Contributions/Refsworldlee|<small>(do)</small>]] 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, [[User:SPUJ|SPUJ]] has been banned as a sockpuppet of blocked user [[User:Panairjdde|Panairjdde]] (who, along with other sockpuppets like [[User:Kwame Nkrumah|Kwame Nkrumah]] some of you might remember). But to chime in, if there are people who are willing to show more accurate depictions of the current kits, and keep them up (and there are ''many'' who are doing just that), then there really is ''no good reason'' to keep attempting to cut back the designs to main colours. [[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] <small>[[User talk:Lexicon|(talk)]]</small> 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that minor trim details are arguably non encyclopedic. Football reference works will give the club colours for a given team in simplified form. So should we. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the kits should be patterned to the nearest non-unique equivalent pattern in the template - and if a new pattern begins to be commonly used (i.e. the Reebok spikes), it too should be added to the template. I can kinda see the point of the reversions on, say, [[Adelaide United]] (which I would have changed to probably red with an existing Reebok spike pattern) but insisting on plain/ "main colour" kits is just silly. I kept a similar attitude to the A-League kits last year - some people would, say, insist the [[Melbourne Victory]] kit be an exact pictorial replica, others wanted it as plain navy blue - I kept it as navy blue with the kit template's _whitesides pattern. [[User:144.133.75.163|144.133.75.163]] 12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

*I agree with HornetMike, it's very hard to categorically state what a club's "traditional" kit is. Look at his friends '':-)'' at Luton Town, currently their kit is predominantly white and black, but in the 70s they wore orange and blue! So who's to say what's more "traditional"? Current consensus seems to be that the kit should represent the current kit in so far as major details like white sides should be represented but tiny details like that thin white curved "outline" on the current Liverpool kit should be avoided, and that works for me [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 13:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think showing the current kit without too much detail sounds good. —<i>[[User:Lesfer|Lesfer]]</i> ^{<small>[[User talk:Lesfer|(t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lesfer|c]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Lesfer|@)]]</small>} 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

== Article [[Football (soccer) hooliganism]] ==

Is it possible that the above article could be changed so that only registered users are allowed to edit? For a few days I have been working on the article as it has been a mess, and had clear bias, POV, weasel words etc. I have removed whole sections which were unsourced and replaced them with sourced information. I have also working on removing bias, POC etc. It is though a gradual process, but I am being hampered by what seems to be one anonymous user who keeps disrupting all this, and not be assisting, but by both adding vandalism (stating that Celtic FC fans are nazis for instance) and by deleting whole sections without reason and keeps adding words such as psychotic (spelt psycotic) to describe the English, Serbian and Germans, and also keeps adding stuff such as hyper-violent, manic, mentally unbalanced, pathetic etc etc to describe England.

I have tried to reason with the user to no avail. And each time I find the vandalism and change it, the user comes back again and does more. If the article is to be brought into some sort of order and be neutral then it would help if only registered users were allowed to edit. There are some sections which are bias and the user has my sympathy in that there in parts appears to be clear bias, but it is a work-in-progress. The user appears under a number of unregistered users - 86.29.251.56, 86.25.48.201, 86.25.50.25, 86.29.253.97, 86.29.255.209, 86.29.245.93 - all of which appear to be the same user. Thanks [[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:[[Talk:Football (soccer) hooliganism#Semi-protected|Done]]. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you for the assistance. I realise the article is still not decent, with some sections now ok, and others still a mess. But I plan on keep working on it and now it should be easier not having to deal with seemingly mischievous edits.[[User:Tangerines|<font color="darkorange">'''''♦Tangerines BFC ♦'''''</font>]]·<small>[[User_talk:Tangerines|Talk]]</small> 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

== Break in template ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFootball&diff=126449609&oldid=126432685 This edit] seems to have created a massive amount of <s>white</s>yellow-space in the template. I don't want to straight-out revert the edits, as ''that'' would actually '''break''' some of the templates with the irish=yes bit, but could someone try and rectify the situation to remove the big empty space in it? Cheers, '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 08:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've solved the problem... the price is that <nowiki>{{</nowiki>football|Non-League=yes|Irish=yes<nowiki>}}</nowiki> causes things to break, but an article can't be about English non-League football and about Irish football at the same time, so it shouldn't be a problem. [[User:Tompw|Tom<small>pw</small>]] ([[User talk:Tompw|talk]]) <small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tompw|review]])</small> 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::Cheers! '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Football (soccer) positions]] ==

I have recently been editing or creating articles about players or seasons from the Victorian era, when the concept of 4-4-2 etc. was unheard of. In those days, players played in positions such as "Centre-half" or "inside-left" and the standard formation was 2-3-5 i.e. 2 fullbacks (right and left), 3 half-backs (right, left and centre) and 5 forwards (inside & outside right & left, plus centre-forward).

The article on [[Football (soccer) positions]] describes modern positions, but when writing about a Victorian centre-half, should this be linked to [[midfielder]] or to [[Defender (football)|defender]]? (It should be somewhere in the middle.) Ideally, there should be an article explaining former positions and formations to which articles about the early days of football can be linked. Is there anyone out there who feels competent/knowledgeable to create this? [[User:Daemonic Kangaroo|Daemonic Kangaroo]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:As you point out, all teams (as far as I know) used the same formation in those days, so maybe an article could be created something like [[2-3-5 formation]], in which the positions could be outlined along with their differences from current positions.....? Just a thought..... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Articles on individual games ==

[[User:Doma-w]] has been creating a lot of articles on individual matches from the Olympic games like [[Football_at_the_1912_Summer_Olympics_-_Hungary_vs_Germany|this one]]. What's the consensus on articles on individual games? I can understand articles for, say, World Cup Finals, but is this editor going to find their hard work removed if someone decides to AfD this lot? and if so, might it better to warn them now before s/he wastes any more effort? Cheers, <b>[[User:EliminatorJR|<font color="#330066">Eliminator</font><font color="#FF3333">JR</font>]] [[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="#483D8B">^Talk</font>]]</b> 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes to pretty much all of that. Articles on major cup finals etc. are fine, run of the mill early-stage tournament matches such as this should not have their own article. Besides, those articles consist solely of statistical content which is non-encyclopedic in nature. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Left a message on the user's talk page. <b>[[User:EliminatorJR|<font color="#330066">Eliminator</font><font color="#FF3333">JR</font>]] [[User talk:EliminatorJR|<font color="#483D8B">^Talk</font>]]</b> 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The standard [[WP:N]] criteria apply here, no? Though I assume simple match reports would fall under "trivial coverage", since every match these days get recaps in multiple sources. --[[User:Ytny|Ytny]] ([[User talk:Ytny|talk]]) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Perhaps the test should be some variant of the "will this be remembered in 100 years?" criterion. Cup finals, title deciders and <s>major international tournament matches</s> highly significant matches in international tournaments fall under that but not obscure Olympic matches. Am willing to nominate them all for deletion if no-one else fancies the leg-work. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I guess the justification is that before the 1930 World Cup, the Olympic Games was the major international tournament. I still would support deletion of all but perhaps the games from the semi-finals onwards, provided of course that reliable sourcing can be found for those medal-deciding matches. - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I've rephrased what I said, as it did not convey what I meant. I would balk at most World Cup group matches being covered in the same detail to be honest. In any case the Olympics wasn't the major international tournament, as it was only an amateur contest, and professionalism was in full swing by 1912, in the UK and much of Europe at least. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the deletion of these particular (non-)articles. [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

: Nominate and burn (with fire). –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::I'm all for deleting basically every single one. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

== hoax ==

some editor made a nonsense article about a hoax manager [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Varkki here]]. Please remove it. [[User:80.58.205.35|80.58.205.35]] 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you to whoever deleted the article. You did well. Have a cookie. [[User:80.58.205.35|80.58.205.35]] 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Football teams per city ==

What do people think about creating a list of football teams in cities e.g. London, Rio de Janiero, Buenos Airies etc. This woule be especially relevant for South American countries, as teams are rarely named after their home city. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think the likes of [[List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries]] cover this. There is also an article [[Football in London]]. &nbsp;<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Slumgum|'''Sʟυмgυм''']]<small>&nbsp;•[[User talk:Slumgum|&nbsp;т&nbsp;]]•[[Special:Contributions/Slumgum|&nbsp;c&nbsp;]]</small></font> 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) I'm not sure what additional information this would add beyond the ''list of football clubs in country/continent'' articles, which list (or ought to list) the towns and cities that clubs hail from, such as [[List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries]] is a [[WP:FL|featured list]] ([[List of football clubs in Argentina]] etc. could easily use the same format, and probably should). [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Was already aware of [[Football in London]] (I started it!) but wasn't aware of articles such as [[List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries]] etc....thanks. I suppose that covers Europe, but what about South America? [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Haha silly me, just checked that CONMEBOL link, thats what I ws looking for, thanks! [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::::If a single, European or South-American, city provides a very high number of notable pro teams, as it happens with [[Football in London|London]] (very good article by the way, I found it really useful), in my opinion it should be eligible for a standalone article. For instance Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires would be, but Rome not, as the latter is home to only three professional teams. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Would there be any value in converting the tables within the lists of top division clubs in each confederation into sortable tables? That way users could sort the list by city to see which cities have multiple clubs. Just a thought.... [[User:ChrisTheDude|ChrisTheDude]] 07:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs|Club-article manual of style]] ==

I was looking at the above earlier today (nice work, [[User:Johan Elisson|Johan Elisson]]) and thought it might be time to bring it more in line with what's actually going into club articles, if that doesn't sound backwards. I've seen elements in several articles that I think would be worthwhile introducing into more articles (though, of course, I'm drawing a blank as I type). I'll refer to the relevant [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs|discussion page]] when they occur to me, and I'd urge others to do the same. With close-seasons almost upon us, it would be a good time to get club articles tidied up, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_%22Dandy%22_McLean_%28footballer%29&oldid=96186374 we'll always have our work cut out with player articles], of course (Eufa Cup, indeed). - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] · <small> [[User talk:Dudesleeper|Talk]]</small> 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:I've been meaning to do something like that for some time (about the same amount of time I've been meaning to write a [[User:Oldelpaso/On Football|football club editing advice page]]), so sounds good to me. One example is that the ''notable players'' section is deprecated in many cases. [[User:Oldelpaso|Oldelpaso]] 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

: Almost all of the manual of styles are somewhat deprecated by this stage (most of the stuff was written by me in 2005... it's amazing to see how much has happened since :]), even though they provide a fairly good start, most of them are in need for some kind of update. I've been less active lately, and considering that the spring has finally arrived to Sweden, I'm not likely to increase my activity in the next few weeks, but I'll help out as good as I can. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:: I've always tried to follow that manual of style. My last few articles, [[U.S. Città di Palermo]] and [[G.S. Mazara 1946]], have been clearly written in that sense, so I guess it is still a valid source. A very short number of possible fixes might be considered for paragraphs such as "notable players" and "notable managers" (as lately I was thinking over about the notion of notability in itself) and some of Oldelpalo's considerations. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of manuals of style, perhaps we should create one for the club season articles which have been starting to appear lately. I've been working on [[Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07]], and I've noticed that the other articles at [[:Category:English_football_club_seasons]] all seem to have different styles, content, and naming conventions. Perhaps some kind of standardisation needs to be agreed on? [[User:Gasheadsteve|Gasheadsteve]] 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

: It might be a good idea. I've looked at the Bristol Rovers current season article, and it looks pretty, but it's full of lists and clearly misses of prose. A good idea would be to add a main paragraph where to describe how and what the club did in the related season. Following this paragraph, all the lists and the table graph (that looks really cute) are good to be included. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::Ok, I'll have a go at that. I think it might be a good idea to write an introduction to each section as well, rather than going straight into each list. [[User:Gasheadsteve|Gasheadsteve]] 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I actually think the club MOS has stood the test of time, which is a credit to Johan :) Although a lot of articles tweak it slightly, this is natural as no subject (club) is the same. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel&nbsp;Bryant</span>]]''' 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

== Relatives in football ==

[http://www.thedugout.tv/community/showthread.php?t=33760 This forum thread] got me thinking: should we perhaps start an article with a list of relatives involved in football? We could include the Schmiechels, Nevilles, Davids, Seerdorfs, Terrys etc. [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

: I have a [[User:GiantSnowman/England internationals|very, very rough draft here]]; ignore the page title, was used for a previous project of mine [[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::I don't know - is there any encyclopaedic value to lists like this, or is it just trivia? - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I think it's borderline [[WP:CRUFT|cruft]] of little real value. Also it's not actually that rare - many footballers have relatives who play, as it's often part of family tradition. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think this list will be far too big to manage. Without really trying I can think of Xabi Alonso, Pepe Reina, Paul Anderson, Scott Carson and John Arne Riise who all have next-of-kin footballer relations, and that's just from one team. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

== Non-notable teams - a helpful tool ==

One of the most irritating things is the number of minor five-a-side, student or pub teams (especially from the UK) who add vanity articles about themselves in. Sometimes it's a case of luck in finding them, but I've come up with a way of spotting most of them and thought I should pass it on. [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] sorts articles by their addition date, and as most authors of these articles mimic the big clubs' articles by using the {{tl|Infobox Football club}} template, by checking the end of the list of articles that transclude it (e.g. with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Football_club&limit=500&from=11000000&back=0 this link]) any recently-added articles about non-notable teams can be picked up. I have the above link as a bookmark and check once a day to identify any non-notable teams from the UK and speedy tag them with {{tl|db-club}} for deletion (aside - this should '''always''' be used as the first option with pages like these - [[WP:AfD|AfD]]s should only be used as a last resort. I'm getting tired of patently non-notable teams going to AfD without speedy or prod tried first so please bear this in mind, thanks).

Anyway, I stay clear of most other countries other than the UK though as I am not sure what counts as notable there, but other members of the Wikiproject will know better than I and might be able to use it for non-notable teams from their respective countries. Hope this proves useful to some of you. [[User:Qwghlm|Qwghlm]] 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I tried it, and the team second to bottom was in fact speediable! Great. Another tip is searching for the string ''User:'' to uncover this type of entries masquerading as user pages. [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 12:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Another method to catch a lot of non-notable clubs as well as other non-notable articles is to check [[:Category:Football (soccer)]] and a few of its main subcategories regularly. Newcomers usually can't handle the categorisation very well and often add their article to the top of the category tree, or do not add a category at all, after which someone doing cleanup drops the article in the top of the category tree for further categorization by us.

:: On to another thing I noticed, the notability criteria for English football clubs was removed from [[WP:CORP]] a few months ago in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28organizations_and_companies%29&diff=108051246&oldid=107580646 this edit]. I believe we need to have a thorough discussion on notability and establish consensus for a few more cases and then create something useful on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability]]. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::: I agree. And by the way, it's not just a UK issue ;) Excluding a few cases (smaller countries, for instance), the dilemma is about (semi-)professionism. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Ed g2s]] and his edits on [[Template:Football squad start]] ==

This user returned changing the header style on the football squad template set, now removing at all every single colour from the table. The result was terribly ugly at my eyes, and as this is [[Template talk:Football squad player#Header colour|not the first time]] he acts this way I reverted all his edits. Please look in particular at the [[Template:Football squad start|Fs start]] and [[Template:Football squad mid|Fs mid]] templates.--[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Added to my watchlist. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but I think [[User:Ed g2s]]'s version is better. The amount of pointless, quite often bright and dark, colour that is creeping in to articles and templates is making them more difficult to read. In my opinion of course. - [[User:Richard Rundle|fchd]] 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that it'd be great if the blue was changed. It hardly befits a Liverpool or Manchester United article. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::We already discussed the matter, and a consensus emerged not to personalize colours according to the teams' official colours. In addition, I firmly believe a fully-transparent header would appear quite ugly. We might instead think about changing the blue to a better colour, but possibly to be unique for all articles. --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::We? We who? I've never discussed it before. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Personally, I like having the light blue colour as some kind of "football article theme". Not only is the colour used for the teamlist, it is also used for the headers in most football navboxes. Saying it hardly befits a "red team" article is, IMHO, pretty much nonsense, as those articles usually are full of blue links giving the article a "blue theme" more than anything else. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::It's merely an argument as to why it isn't a particularly neutral colour. It's not something I'd ever put much thought into before, past thinking "German and French Wikipedia articles look better". I think it'd be better if the blue was removed, I'd always thought it as rather ugly. Zero colour would be better &mdash; I'm certainly not advocating that each team article should use the team's colours everywhere. [[User:Alii h|aLii]] 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reopened discussion [[Template talk:Football squad player#Reopened debate|here]]. Please state your opinion there. –&nbsp;[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Johan Elisson|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|C]]&nbsp;•</small> 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

== Templates oddity ==

I recently added [[Template:Football League Championship]], [[Template:Football League One]] and [[Template:Football League Two teamlist]] to my watchlist, anticipating people adding teams to their promoted/relegated league in advance, as happened last year. Now, they're quite patently getting edited, but they're not showing up on my watchlist and their history shows no record of the edits. Am I going mad? [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:The Football League Championship template, which was last modified on late January, is made up as composition of at least two other templates, [[Template:Football League Championship teamlist]] (which was modified today) and [[Template:Football in England table cells]] (last change on March). Are they on your watchlist? --[[User:Angelo.romano|Angelo]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ahhh, I see. The first two are composites of the standard English template and the specific league list to be stuck on all team pages to save space. The latter is one part of the League Two composite! That does get changed, whilst the former two don't. I'll change my watchlist accordingly. [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)