Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Small wall of text incoming, lads! @SuperJew: @TinTin: @Matilda Maniac: @Macosal: @2nyte: @Simione001: @Hmlarson: @Eccy89: @Rjbsmith: (SuperJoob, I stole your ping list! :P )

The current league system table seems to imply that the regional associations of WA are positioned lower than the Perth-based metro league. I find it a bit hard to fathom that a club from Broome would only be able to apply to join this league. I feel as though the top flight of football in Broome would most likely be considered a third tier (behind the NPL) or a fifth tier (behind the two "State" Leagues). I can't quite understand why WA's clubs are shown also in the FFA Cup article with their tiers shown as dashes, rather than the specific number. If clubs in QLD's competitions can have their tiers shown easily (ie. FNQ clubs, GC clubs, etc), then I can't quite understand why WA's don't?

Also, the state league season articles lack a bit of consistency from WA to the other states. The QLD seasons show the largest zone's (Brisbane's) sub divisions behind the NPL; the NNSW's seasons show the largest zone's (Newcastle's) sub divisions behind the State League 1; but with WA, the article shows the NPL, both State Leagues and then the top amateur league division, but nothing further down? I feel as though we should show the lower divisions for Perth's Amateur League, to match the consistency of the other state articles. I'm more than happy to put in the hard yards and make sure that all the relevant info is placed in the articles, but I just need to know that my changes won't be undone and rendered moot. I honestly think that it would be easier to convert the WA articles to match the others (I'm sure Tildawg will love that!), but honestly, I don't understand why WA's articles need to be different to the other states and maintain a different infobox and article set up.

The WA season articles previously showed these lower leagues, but were deleted as what I thought was a knee-jerk reaction to the deletion of my incorrect addition of the Collegiate Leagues in the SA article (the reason why that was incorrect to add was because that comp is only open to College associated teams, with regular FFSA aligned soccer clubs being only open to the State Leagues [or their regional sub-leagues]).

So, what do I suggest?

I suggest we have the men's league tables listed first, initially introduced by two = signs, then with each tier with three = signs). After that, we should probably list the relevant cup competitions listed, as they still are a men's competition, followed by the women's league tables (introduced with two = signs). Currently the tables kinda look as though the women's league tables are a tier below the men's comp. If we add the spiel about the state league cups, it can act as a bit of like a windbreaker between the two sexes, somewhat like this. Thoughts about this proposal? Sorry to once again write up a novel's worth of text! Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

One thing that stuck out as incorrect is the point you made about the South Australian Collegiate League. It is not only open to college affiliated teams as NPL clubs Croydon Kings and Adelaide Comets both participate. There will be more NPL clubs joining in the next few seasons as all NPL clubs will eventually be required to enter a CSL side. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. When I played (which wasn't that long ago), the only clubs which took part were affiliated with a college. Do you know when this has since been the case, Simione? - J man708 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comets Croydon and Vipers all joined in 2016. Simione001 (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet, Raiders' lower grades play under the Croatia moniker in the rebel SAASL? Weird... I reckon the shit will hit the fan pretty soon. - J man708 (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I still cant fathom why there is so much interest and intent to IMPLY that formal 'tiers' exist within certain states - when they don't - and that in turn they have to belong to some notional current league system table that is comparable between states. Why are WA's clubs . . . shown also in the FFA Cup article with their tiers shown as dashes, rather than the specific number? Because they dont have a specific number ! Hypothesizing about whether Team X (let's call it Broome FC) is theoretically level 3 not level 5 is not based on fact, it is based on belief. Editors (in this thread) who have assigned tiers (e.g to Queensland) on the FFA Cup qualifiers article, can have their tiers shown easily, but it doesnt mean that it is correct for an encyclopedia.

A lot of this discussion has been had over the past year on (J man708's talk page). True, I was involved in removing some of the lower amateur league divisions in WA from last year's article. But that was on the basis of WP:GNG, and my assessment that only the Amateur Premier Division and above gets any coverage in the media and the local football community here. Below this level, crowds and coverage is down to the level of wives/girlfriends/mums n'dads. If J man708 is prepared to add information on many lower leagues into these articles, then thats fine.

I will concentrate my efforts - when i can - on adding the top flight female leagues into these state articles - from my Perth perspective, I think they have as much 'exposure' as probably the two State Leagues here in WA; i think that if separate articles were created for the female leagues, they would (rightly?) be removed as not notable; so I feel that they best belong under a member federation's season article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Broome FC would play in the Broome Soccer Association's top flight, from there, they and others can nominate to be included in whichever tier Football West deemed necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that IF a team from Broome were to survive, it could only do so in the NPL (relegation would almost certainly kill it). But, I refuse to believe that if Broome FC dominated their league on many occasions, that they'd not attract the interest of Football West, especially if they were financially set and also had their sights set on semi-professional football. If they genuinely cannot be included in the NPL, then surely they'd be a (2), as the only league higher than theirs which they could enter would be the A-League (much like the NT). If you look at the maps of Australian football, each member federation includes all the areas of the state they occupy, which makes me know that this league (like the other middle-of-nowhere leagues) still fall under the NPL, as they are a sub division of the NPL, which is why it could be seen as a (3). The reason for it possibly being a (5) is the same, but placing the competition underneath the STATE leagues (which is where I'm pretty sure they'd be classified). To me, the name State League seems to be a give away of where the statewide leagues end and the regional ones start. - J man708 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

After studying our Australian soccer league system table again, I would agree with J man708 that the WA structure appears odd comparatively. I think the main issue would be that the "Metropolitan League" and "Regional" should be placed next to each other (like Northern and Southern Leagues in Tasmania). Though we are seriously running out of room on the page to do this! Alternatively we could just add it as "Metropolitan League and Regional Leagues" / X clubs (from 6 Divisions) + 17 separate associations. (Football NSW for instance just groups the metro districts and the regional districts together). But I really do think that it should be changed to the aforementioned Tasmanian example.

Barring that, there seems to be some glaring issues surrounding the WA structure and their pages overall. Now, I'm not pretending that I know anything about the WA Leagues and their structure because I don't. But, I'm not really convinced that the WA "Amateur Leagues" Divisions 1-5 are even notable enough to deserve their own wikipedia pages. Perhaps these should be merged??? I have had a look them are they are nothing more than stubs at this point. They aren't even deemed important enough to be placed in Template:Soccer in Western Australia, nor in the page Soccer in Western Australia etc. It seems to me that there has been an attempt to create a structure and have pages filter down just because the information available. Although, I just checked out the ACT ones and they all redirect to the same page!!! I also says that there are 9 divisions (so not sure what's going on!) For the moment I'm leaving my comment about the merger so that we can bring it up as a discussion point, but there may be bigger issues at hand? —Eccy89 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eccy89: Bingo. I think it's a case of finding where it fits in. I daresay that the State League 2 would be the lowest statewide league, personally (I mean, the name seems a bit of a giveaway, tbh). This leads to regional league first tiers being Level 5. For the issue of space, I created a very rudimentary page, showing the lower FFSA affiliated leagues. I daresay that the lower tier competitions aren't themselves that notable, BUT seeing as how we're in a spot wherein the organising bodies have season articles, the lower tier league tables themselves should have a place. Only a pro player gets an article, only a semi-professional team get an article, but pretty much most competitions get an article. It's a staggered pyramid, really.

As for the ACT, the lower divisions are part of the same step of the ladder (much akin England's EPL being Step 1, The Football League being Step 2, The Conference being Step 3, etc). Because of this, I figured that it was better to have them redirect to the Capital Football State League page, rather than simply red linking. - J man708 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: So ideally, you are saying that on the table, we should really be merging the WA Amateur League / Metropolitan League / Regional Leagues all together? Probably not a bad idea. That also leads me back into my previous train of thought of merging the Amateur Leagues into a single article also...

Re: ACT. Any particular reason why you stopped at Division 3 then or felt the need to go all the way to Division 3? (or someone else did it?) —Eccy89 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eccy89: Precisely what I was getting at. To me, the situation is very similar to what we have in like NSW, where past the lowest statewide division (in that case Tier 5), the clubs are then in the next highest divisions, which is where you get comps like the Bankstown top flight, which would be Tier 6. Ditto the Sydney Amateur League and the Wollongong League. All those teams can nominate to the State League, but they'd be accepted into the lowest state league, (like the Wagga City Wanderers, St George Warriors).

As for the ACT, it initially was down to about the 8th tier before, but it was honestly exceptionally difficult and tiresome to attempt to keep track of things. As much as their competitions are statewide all the way down to the umpteenth division, realistically past about Division 1 or 2 gets to a point where the game is taken less seriously. A friend of a friend plays in like Div 5 and yeah, apparently it's moreso social down at that point. Not that it's not worthy of being mentioned on the page, just that teams come and go so often and can just nominate directly where they'd like to be placed. There's nothing stopping a team of misfits being accepted into about Div 3 or possibly even higher, it's just that keeping track of what clubs has what grade in what table is pretty tiresome. It's easier to draw the line somewhere, which is what I did in this case. If anyone has any objections to where I drew the line, I'll happily change it, but I just didn't want to keep putting in info for a clubs' L grade team at Div 19 or something just as pointless. - J man708 (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: So should we put it to a vote to merge the info in the table? Re: ACT. Wouldn't it just be easier to just do one Capital Football State League square then? I.e. don't worry about ANY of the divisions. I mean, realistically they do all just redirect to same page anyway. I think would look a bit neater for the table. —Eccy89 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and No. I think it should be noted that steps and tiers are two different things. The ACT State League is more of a step (like The Football League) rather than an individual tier (like the Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two). Including just the term "Capital Football State League" seems (according to the article) to relate to the step rather than the tier. Because of the ACT's tiny size, it is quite unique that competitions from NPL all the way to Division 10 (or wherever it goes) are statewide. The correct thing to do would be to show the ACT State League Divisions all the way down to 12 or wherever it stops, because it fails to further break apart regionally, unlike every other state.

Getting back on track, I definitely think that WA's outback competitions have tiers. If the top flights of the Bankstown League, the Gladesville-Hornby League, the St George League all are positioned under the lowest "State League" in NSW, ditto the Collegiate Soccer League, Riverland League, the Silver City League are positioned behind the lowest "State League" in SA, then why aren't the teams in the top flights of the Broome League, the Geraldton League and the Goldfields League positioned behind the lowest WA "State League". Surely they should have their numbers shown also in tiers on the FFA Cup qualifiers page? I fail to see how it's different for WA. - J man708 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eccy89: Forgot to ping you last post - J man708 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: It's ok dude. ACT makes sense I guess (still not sure if three is necessary but all good, main concern is WA). I would agree about the tiering thing for the FFA Cup prelims. However, I think we need to sort out the structure first on the league system page with everyone agreeing first. From there it is very easy to add the tier number. At the moment the "system" is unclear so just using a dash makes sense :-) Hence why I wanted this thing to go to some sort of vote. Nobody else seems to be getting involved though. Should we start a new topic about voting to merge? —Eccy89 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eccy89: Yeah, there's no major reason for all the clubs not to be tiered. We just need to make it clear that the term "State League" doesn't mean that it sits at a specific tier, but rather is utilised as the lowest statewide step. In SA it's a (3) and also (4); in VIC it's a (4); in NSW it's a (5) for example. Definitely best to start a new topic. I start enough of them on here which don't end out getting much in the way of responses as it is! - J man708 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: @Macosal: @J man708: @Matilda Maniac: @TinTin: @2nyte: @Hmlarson:
OK. So here is the fallout from the above section (State article formatting). J man708 and I have been querying the tier system of the Australian soccer league system and certainly by looking at the list most would agree that the WA section seems off. It is of our belief all other states have their corresponding leagues tiered down to the last state league competition (i.e. NSW State League for NSW, National Premier Leagues State League 2 for SA etc.) and finishes with a "regional leagues" component. However, currently WA goes past the final state league competition (Football West State League Division 2) to include Football West Amateur League Premier Division which does NOT promote to the state league. Therefore, it really sits alongside the "Metropolitan League" and the "Regional leagues" which have been placed well below it! Both J man708 and myself believe we should merge those three leagues inside the table. (And to be honest I'm not even sure that the aforementioned Amateur Leagues are notable enough to devote six pages to them in the first place and should probably be merged, but that is for another day). Please discuss and ping anyone else that would be able to contribute :-) —Eccy89 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you go back to the Australian soccer league system article history at say February 2016 - before the edits by @Knowledgemaster2000: - you will see a more realistic summary for WA in the Table. The series of stand-alone articles created by User:Knowledgemaster2000 on all of the amateur divisions could quite well fail WP:GNG - maybe they should be deleted instead of merged together? I have tidied them up a bit, but they're unlikely to progress beyond stubs.

The winner of the Football West Amateur League Premier Division league season can promote to the state league, but the club has to want to ! As amateurs, the move from Sunday to Saturday is an issue. Of late, Joondalup United have gone down that path, so it is certainly possible, but it is not an automatic promotion - Gwelup Croatia elected to stay in the Amateur ranks in 2015, for example. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the input Tily. Just so everyone knows, a quick mock-up would look like this. —Eccy89 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If the lack of space looks unnerving, perhaps we could merge it all to say "Regional" like the others, and use the page of "Amateur league" to discuss all three...? —Eccy89 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that clubs can also decline promotion into the very top state leagues, aswell. As for the physical table, I reckon merging the three WA leagues would be the way to go. Also, rewording the "internal promotion and relegation", as that's step based and not tier based. Perhaps we should base tiers 3 and below on the English system's 9th tier and below. This allows us to not have to stress about fitting in the relevant leagues. I'd be happy to do the hard yards on that one. - J man708 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the step thing (internal pro/rel)? If you are keen to do the hard yards then sure, go for it. Give us a look and if we like we vote yay! —Eccy89 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Listing them on the same line implies it's the same tier. Internal promotion and relegation should be shown as additional leagues, not by placing them all in one box. - J man708 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: haha, well. ok then. you do the hard yards as promised and i will definitely back you up on it! —Eccy89 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I think this is a great addition to the article, good work User:TheDudist. A few recommended changes though:

• I don't think listing every year of appearance works, if the comp goes for many years the current years column will look a bit silly.
• I recommend adding two columns called Winners and Runners-up with the number of wins, runners-up for that team.
• Recommend adding in brackets () after the best result the years the best result was achieved with a comma between years if result is achieved multiple times.

Team	Appearances	Winners	Runners-up	Best Result
Adelaide United	3	1	0	Champions (2015)
Melbourne Victory	3	1	0	Champions (2014)
Perth Glory	3	0	2	Runners-up (2014, 2015)
Central Coast Mariners	3	0	0	Semi-finals (2014)
Melbourne City	3	0	0	Semi-finals (2015)

Do you think this is an improvement? --TinTin (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that if every club is listed this will eventually get unsustainably long. Maybe limit to clubs who have reached the semis or quarters? Also as an aside, not sure how useful the state flags are here. Macosal (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TinTin! I figured it would be easier to monitor which Member Fed teams have qualified over the years.

Yeah I thought listing every year was probably getting a bit much. I was just basing it off the Fifa World Cup results table. I originally just had the Appearance column and that was all, but thought I'd add a bit more.

I'm torn with the Winners and Runner-up columns. They look good, and add a bit of history to the teams who have won. But the only concern I have is that 99% of teams will have a 0 next to them permanently, especially as more and more new teams will qualify. How about if we just have 3 columns: Team, # of Appearances, and then Best result with the year(s) they achieved said result?

Also, how about if we remove the 'Round of 32 onwards' title from the Results table? I feel that it probably isn't needed since the FFA Cup itself doesn't officially start until the R32 anyway. If the page included all records from preliminary rounds, I'd be all for it, but since it's a page for the Cup Proper, it might not be needed. What are your thoughts?

And yeah I'm not fussed about the flags either. I was just copying from NPL page. Would prefer logos if it was possible to do.

If you like all that, I'd be happy to make the adjustments. -- TheDudist (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)TheDudist

Alternatively if the list is too long, I could always make an entire new page for just appearances Macosal? -- TheDudist (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually like all the appearances, the original idea of cutting it off was just to show a small excerpt of the table, because I was too lazy to update it all. My idea was just to get rid of the year listing of each appearance and concentrate on the winners/ runners-up. But moving the full table to a new article is probably a good idea. Also I think the Round of 32 IS required because the qualifying games are advertised as, and are becoming increasingly looked at as qualifying games, and less related to their original competitions.--TinTin (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A-League teams qualify every year, so that's almost a given. I think it would be better than having a list of all member federation clubs that make the Rd of 32, to have a table showing Most Appearances, in a similar fashion to how some League lists of goal scorers list the top 10-15 or so, not every goal scorer. At the moment, that list should be for those clubs that have qualified 2 or 3 times, and not just once.

Also this article (and associated prelimianry round articles) is currently free of the meaningless 'bling' of logos and should be kept that way. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So maybe: we move the complete table to a new article called FFA Cup appearances, we abbreviate the table on the main article to just have member federation clubs who have qualified more than once and create a new table on the main article showing number of wins and runners up without flags and icons? Does that make everyone happy?--TinTin (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll get onto it. -- TheDudist (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, FFA Cup appearances is now a page, although it could probably use a little introductory paragraph, and it'll need a link from the main page. I've made the change on the main FFA Cup to the Results table. I kept the quarter-finalists for now, although I'm open with that. With the Member Fed appearances, where's the best place to put the table? At the end with the other stats? Or earlier on with the 'Eligible teams' section? And what coloumns should we have? Just Team name and Appearances that are 2 or more? -- TheDudist (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Great Work. I've done a bit of tidying up: I added two introductory sentences to the new article, added a talk page to the new article, added the template to the new aritcle, added the link to the new article on the template and added a further information tag on the main FFA Cup page under eligible teams. --TinTin (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome job! I'm still only new to Wiki editing, but I'm loving it. Thanks heaps. Since we've made a whole new page, should I go one further in making it a 'Full' table? Eg, should I add new columns such as: Winners, Runners-up, Semi-finals, Quarter-finas, R16, R32? (King of like what we've now done on the main page) Obviously this would be way too much on the main page, as we've said, but on the separate Appearances page it might look alright. -- TheDudist (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think as it is a new article, there is certainly more scope to add additional detail. My only caveat being that you probably want to make it manageable so that it doesn't take too much work for future editors to keep it up to date. A couple of people already spend a lot of time / effort keeping the current qualification pages in particular up to date and accurate. So maybe keep the additional columns to Semi-Finals and /or Quarter Finals appearances, to reduce the amount of maintenance? --TinTin (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I'll keep it to just those 4 additional columns (Winner, RU, SF, QF). Agreed about the maintenance not getting too out of hand. I'll happily keep that page updated throughout the qualification process and Cup Proper. If there's any other columns that people want in there feel free to let me know. I briefly pondered a column for each team's 'league', but that'd be impossible to keep up to date, especially with NPL and NPL2 clubs being promoted/relegated every year. -- TheDudist (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the table up a bit on the appearances page. Looks a bit more sleek now. I also got rid of the 'Years' column, as you suggested, and replaced it with 'Debut' instead. 2 things though:

• Would it look better to have dashes for the columns in which there is no results (like on the NPL finals page)? Or does it look neater to have them blank?
• And I like having the year of the achieved result in the 'Best result' column, but it looks a tad messy because the results aren't in alphabetical order. I like the look of the NPL finals table where it just has columns for their results, and the year in that column. Eg, Champions, 1, (2014). The only problem is though that I can't do this for all the teams without having an R16 and R32 column. Or does it just look fine and polished as it is, and I should just leave it? -- TheDudist (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You could feel free to finish the table on my userpage. - J man708 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: Should I add the old Australian Cup/NSL Cup teams to the 'FFA Cup Appearances' page? On one hand, they're separate comps. But on the other hand, the FFA said they were going to merge the A-Leauge and NSL records. What is everyone's opinion? -- TheDudist (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This competition commenced in 2014, this is the THIRD year of the FFA Cup. It is not the Australia Cup, or linked in any way to it. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Maniac. Umarghdunno (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(Moved here to create broader discussion)

I am hoping to discuss your [SuperJew's] recent reverting of my edit on the 2016-17 Sydney FC season page. Although you said that these were not direct transfers, that would mean that no transfer in the A-League is ever direct due to the fact that paid transfers cannot happen between clubs. In the case of Andrew Hoole, Ali Abbas, Jacques Faty and Mickaël Tavares, they were obviously released so that they could directly join the clubs they did. Whilst I can understand these are not direct transfers, I believe it is still important that the page show which clubs they have joined as a result of their contract terminations. Fudgy budgy (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Fudgy budgy, this has been discussed last season. It's a little vague the situation. @Macosal: @J man708: you guys have any addition to this convo? --SuperJew (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And while I agree that Faty, Tavares and Hoole might be obviously released to join other clubs, Ali Abbas was released for opportunities overseas and it took a few weeks until he signed with Pohang. --SuperJew (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This scenario was raised in that discussion but never conclusively settled. Personally I think where it is clear that a player has been released purely to sign for another club, or signs with another club before the expiration of his contract, it is effectively a direct transfer and should be represented as one. Agree re Abbas - was less of a direct connection there, for whatever reason. Macosal (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bringing up here this discussion between Macosal and myself so more people will be likely to contribute. This started out from the recent transfer of Mitch Austin. Austin was born in England and moved to Australia at the age of 10. Hasn't played international football for either country. In Macosal's opinion he should be marked with an Australian flag on squads (or not marked on transfer page per Australians), while I think he should be marked with the flag of his birthplace (in this case England). (Macosal feel free to point any points I might've missed in your eyes). People of Aussie Task Force, Please add your thoughts and improve the discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

On looking through a number of discussions, some key points:

• MOS:FLAG suggests that flags should be used "to show the representative nationality" of a player. Of course, we know that Austin can play for Australia or England (although it also seems far more likely that he would play for Australia than get a chance to play for England). BUT note that there is of course no inherent link between birthplace and national eligibility/representation given the ways in which those rules work - which I feel makes using birthplace as a sole consideration unhelpful.
• Reliable sources are always useful. Soccerway, Soccerbase ALeagueStats etc etc all call him Australian. I'd be very surprised to find any reliable source (or even any website other than this one) identify him as English rather than Australian. I don't think it is desirable to have such a disparity between the sources we use to make this encyclopedia and the encyclopedia itself.

Hope this clears this issue up somewhat, Macosal (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC).

Soccerway also says he was born in Sydney, so I don't know how reliable it is..

This is the FIFA statue regarding nationality (as is on FIFA eligibility rules)

Any Player who ... [assumes] a new nationality and who has not played international football [in a match ... in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association] shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfills one of the following conditions:

(a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;

(b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;

(c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;

(d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

sounds like birth is pretty much the first precedent. Also, as far as I know Austin has not declared himself wanting to play for Australia, which means he is still considered English. --SuperJew (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(Sidenote) If we do however go back to Soccerway, here are more examples of players with nationalities beyond birth place:

Henrique was born in Brazil, received Aussie citizenship and is listed as Brazilian (birth place)

Ali Abbas was born in Iraq and played for their national team, in 2012 received Aussie citizenship and wasn't considered one of 5 visa players from then. listed as Iraqi (birth place).

Dan Heffernan was born in England, though I'm not sure if he got Aussie citizenship or not.

Terry McFlynn was born in N. Ireland, recieved Aussie citizenship and is listed as N. Irish (birth place).

I'm sure you can look for more examples worldwide --SuperJew (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The FIFA order of eligibilities in the FIFA statute means absolutely nothing. The order does not have any "precedence" - players can (and do) meet multiple criteria and are therefore eligible for different nations - there is no need to prioritise with regard to which of the qualifications they meet. Austin was and always has been eligible for both England and Australia (his father is an Australian and therefore he has been an Australian citizen since birth). He is also playing in the A-League as an Australian player, not counting towards the foreign player limit etc. I think there is a need for a reasonable/case by case approach here. Re Henrique, for example, he has always been Brazilian and only recently became Australian, I can understand why in the absence of rep honours you might refer to him as Brazilian. But re Austin, he is literally universally referred to as an Australian. I cannot find a single website save this one which refers to him as English rather than Australian. I really think we are losing sight of the bigger picture if we prescriptively continue to unthinkingly apply a rule with no rational precedent/basis which results in Wikipedia having different information to the rest of the world. As a side note, re the other players you mention, Heffernan is not an Australian citizen; McFlynn and Abbas played rep football for their respective nations (and unlike Austin, all these players were not born Australians). A better analogy would be Tom Slater (universally described as Aussie despite being born in France). I gather you would also call him French but this seems equally strange to me. Macosal (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708:@Matilda Maniac:@2nyte:@TinTin:

I think we have had these conversations many times before with different players, I don't have the time to find them at the moment though. Off the top of my head, I believe the players involved were Awer Mabil and Bruce Kamau. Granted these two players moved to Australia when they were about 4–5, I don't really see the difference between these two and Mitch Austin, other than the fact that he moved back here at age 10 (which some might argue is a HUGE difference...). I think as a minor coming back to Australia (his parents are Australian, yes?) and every major article that I have read about him reports him being Australian I would be happy for his flag to also be Australian. I also seem to remember that a deciding factor of Mabil/Kamau was that they were "playing in an Australian league" so it "seems logical" to be regarded as Australian. The only thing muddying the Austin waters is that he played quite a bit of football in England before returning home (again!). Other player examples include Labinot Haliti - moved to Australia at 14 years (though he did represent Australian youth team) and Vedran Janjetovic - born Croatia, unknown when came to Australia AND played for a Croatian league side NK Bjelovar. In summary, I can see points for and against for both sides. He is certainly a very unique case! I would be voting for Australian, primarily due to precedence set out by the aforementioned examples. —Eccy89 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Both Mabil and Haliti represented Australia in youth teams. Kamau seems to be the same case as Austin, but as you said he moved when he was 4, while Austin was 10 and has played his football in England since the age of 18. --SuperJew (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

As stated before however, Austin was an Australian citizen from birth (and I suspect the Mabil issue was before he represented the Young Socceroos). One real issue is WP:V - does any source identify Austin as English? We know he was born there and it is a fair assumption that he has citizenship, but literally every source positively identifies him as Australian. Easier for that objective fact to be a starting point rather than looking subjectively at ages. Macosal (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like a said before, probably the closest example is Janjetovic - and he is Australian. re: the FIFA eligibility listed a few points above, I took "new nationality" to mean switching nationality... i.e. youth team to senior, yeah? For something to be new, there must be an old right? Anyway, to be honest, I am not sure it really matters. Even though the Mabil/Kamau ones aren't exactly the same, I do recall the consensus around the time was, as mentioned before, "logical to be Australian as playing in Australian league." I'm also pretty sure the comments followed on to say "If they go play in Kenyan league maybe look at changing then." —Eccy89 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:V: Austin, who was born in England --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course he was born in England, nobody is denying that. There is a difference between birthplace and nationality, however. Not one source calls him English. Macosal (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If they've not been capped at youth or senior level, just go with what they're described as in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Are there sources calling him Australian? --SuperJew (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Soccerway, Soccerbase, ALeagueStats, Eurosport, goal.com, Ultimate A-League etc etc. Macosal (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it's the same as Vedran Janjetovic. Taking the article from SuperJew, it can be directly translated as the same for Vedran. "Janjetovic, who was born in Croatia, spend his juniors playing in Sydney. He moved back to Croatia to play for NK Bjelovar, before returning home to Sydney..." Also, not to sound like a broken record or anything, but after re-reading the Kamau discussion everyone voted for Australian nationality including SuperJew because "he has an Australian nationality and is playing in an Australian league. If he was in a Kenyan league, I would say to list him as Kenyan." Not sure why the change of heart? —Eccy89 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, the difference is that Kamau moved at the age of 4 and didn't play football in Kenya, while Austin did play youth football and the beginning of his career in England. Out of interest, does anyone know how he was listed when he played in England? --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between age 4 and age 10? I don't like the subjective nature of many of these assessments (it seems pretty arbitrary) (what if it was age 7?). Many of the sources above were created when Austin was playing in England. I would assume they always said he was Australian. Seriously, if you can find any source claiming he is English not Australian post it here but in the absence of that I just don't understand how we can go against what every reliable source says based on some ad libbed system based on birthdays and club histories. Macosal (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The main point, which was also brought up in the Kamau discussion: He never played football in Kenya and started his pro footballing career in aus therefore should be considered an Australian footballer. Likewise Austin started his footballing career in England. and again does anyone know how he was listed (on wikipedia) when he played in England? --SuperJew (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that was the main point there - it was mentioned by one editor you contributed before that and made no mention of that concept. When Austin was playing in England he was listed as Australian. Macosal (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, what you're saying makes sense and there is pre-existing consensus for it in that case. --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is genuine doubt about nationality for a non-international player (which I don't see here), the nationality can be omitted from the lead given it is not relevant to the notability of the player. Hack (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the primary nationality should always be place of birth, unless they do not have citizenship in the country they are born in, or are otherwise capped by another country. Kamau and Austin should not be Australian unless they are capped - of course they are Australian citizens and call themselves Australians, but for FIFA purposes you can only have one flag on your profile.Ortizesp (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If the sources describe the player as a particular nationality, you have to go with that flag. You can't just make up rules to suit your world view. Hack (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The footnote to the table says "Those players who were born AND started their professional career abroad". If we stick by both these forms of criteria, then we lose the ambiguity. It's really not that difficult, surely? - J man708 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this is re 2016–17 A-League. I agree with you - the footnote, logically, contains three conditions to be satisfied:

1. Born overseas

2. Started their professional career overseas

3. Have SINCE gained Australian citizenship

I think this is meant to capture players like Reinaldo Elias da Costa or Henrique Andrade Silva rather than Mitch Austin, who was born with Australian citizenship or Bruce Kamau, who was an Australian citizen well before he started playing professional football. Macosal (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

The Club colours/icons situation has always been a bit of a mess, but lately it has become a real clusterfuck. There are colours and icons (with little drawings) all over the place and it's pretty ridiculous. Initially I was for the icons, because I do believe for some people it's easier to comprehend colours than words. But lately, some of them have been switched to icons with drawings (like planes and Sydney harbour bridges), which is beyond and seems to me against WP:ICONDECORATION.

I'd like us to reach a consensus on the subject and act accordingly (if it is to remove colours/icons from all pages, or if it is to decide on one set of colours/icons and use them and delete the unused ones).

Pinging regular contributors who are most relevant: @J man708: @TinTin: @Matilda Maniac: @Macosal: @2nyte: @Simione001: @Hmlarson: @Eccy89: @Rjbsmith:

Cheers! --SuperJew (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see them go, bar the icons on the map itself and the subsequent initial box showing cities, stadiums and capacities (or possibly if they were placed on the Personnel and Kits table). This allows the teams and colours still to be easily distinguished, without being a clusterfuck of decorations. As for the little drawings, the original three stripes method was difficult to differentiate teams with similar colours. We had the early version of CCM's and WP's looking almost identical, ditto the later version of CCM and CGU. Simply put, the three stripes method was fine when Reebok created those shit-house kits back in 2005, but they haven't aged well and are no longer relevant to the clubs in question (MC's didn't match, NCJ's changed from season to season etc.)

As for those club colours anywhere else on the articles in question, I think they're overused (ie - season articles). I also feel as though the state flags are pretty repetitive on all pages, bar the initial FFA Cup table. - J man708 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove, apart from icons on the maps and the subsequent initial box showing cities, stadiums etc. Keep state flags for the FFA Cup table showing where federations have qualifiers from, but not on each team. For the NPL Finals series, keep the state flags for each team. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I totally forgot about the NPL finals series. Keep those aswell. +1 Tildawg - J man708 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not too fussed. It's probably a bit over the top at the moment I guess. --TinTin (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

If we are talking just about USAGE in the A-League page, IMO they should only be used for map and the table underneath. I don't even think they should be used in the rivalries section and they look pretty silly in the Honours section too. Again on USAGE on all other pages, I really think that their use in the list of matches sections (matchday boxes) is fine, but pretty much no other sections.

If we are discussing STYLE - i dont mind the recent changes, the Sydney FC icon might be a look little OTT, but the others are fine. I guess for Sydney FC it helps differentiate from Melbourne City, so probably not much else can be done. As a couple of you have pointed out, the old ones can look so similar to other clubs that there is pretty much no point in having them as they do not help improve a reader's comprehension or aid in navigation (as set out in the MOS for icons...) Therefore, remove old ones... —Eccy89 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be snowballing now. I'll remove the excess ones from last season's and this upcoming one now. It seems pretty unanimous (except for TinTin) :P - J man708 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand in the first place why the colours were changed. As they were in their simple form I think they were fine as a visual accessory to help people who process information visually better, but the embellishment of it makes it ridiculous and severely go against WP:ICONDECORATION. I saw the claim that the new icons make it easier to tell the clubs apart, but tell me when we add flags to we do anything special to tell apart countries with similar flags? (like Australia and New Zealand? or Poland, Monaco and Indonesia?) --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Difference between clubs and countries flags are that they ARE the countries flags... i.e. how they choose to represent their nation. A club's representation is their badge. The new ones technically represent the badge a heck of a lot better than the old ones. TBH, if you are super AGAINST the new ones, I would prefer that we didn't have ANY icons. This is because the old ones, as previously stated, don't help improve a reader's comprehension/navigation etc. which to me, are the main points set out in WP:ICONDECORATION —Eccy89 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are we leaving the icons on the initial boxes? It should be all or nothing? It is either against WP:ICONDECORATION (which it is) or it's not (and then the icons need to be simplified). --SuperJew (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So that the ones on the map have a icon to correspond to. The icons are only used in one place wherein the original, simplified icons were exceptionally hard to differentiate and used everywhere. This is a much better combo of both the frequency of usage and the icons themselves. - J man708 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

C'mon you have to admit the icons are ridiculous. Sydney has the picture of the Opera House, Mariners have this weird yellow splotch. The old versions were basic tricolours with the club's colours. What are these new patterns based off? It seems to me against WP:NOR. --SuperJew (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And Victory has a giant V! What's that about? CCM's is the middle of their logo and SFC's has what is also shown on theirs. They seem to be based off of what identifies them. Let's look at it the other way. How did the previous tricolour Melbourne City icon identify the club better than the current? And what about GCU, CCM and WP's closeness in colours? For me, it seems a no-brainer to keep the icons as they currently are. They can be easily identified. As much as it's an Australian article, I'd be sure to say that these icons (and the subsequent map) are informative to the standard international reader. It's not as though we're plastering the pages with them. It's two sets, one to identify and the other to show the location. The previous icons caused ambiguity issues. This is just logical, surely? - J man708 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of them. They are not helpful. And state flags shouldn't be used for FFA Cup or NPL finals. Clubs aren't representing states, they are representing federations. Umarghdunno (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Could even get rid of them on the map. EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga seem to be managing without. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The NRL and AFL's pages also use icons on the map and they're also representative of their clubs' logos and colours, a lot better than the tri-colour set-up we had earlier - J man708 (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly imo it is more important for an Australian soccer league to be consistent with other soccer leagues than with other Australian leagues. Secondly if you brought up the NRL, their icons are simple bi-colours or tricolours, as was in A-League until recently. --SuperJew (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We could continue this til the cows come home. It's an impasse. We both know where the other stands. My vote's wholeheartedly with Tildoggy Dogg's proposition - J man708 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

New question, which came up here but wasn't really answered: The use of state flags? It was written by someone that in FFA Cup/NPL the teams don't represent the states (but rather federations). First of all I'm not sure of the difference, care to elaborate? What are the federation flags? Secondly, for example in continental champions league, clubs don't represent their countries, they just come from there, yet we still have their country flags by them in continental tournaments. How is this different? --SuperJew (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Umarghdunno: --SuperJew (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No difference whatsoever. Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that there is a stricter guideline for state flags than national flags - per WP:MOSFLAG: "Subnational flags should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article" and "if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. Canada) not of a subnational entity". I don't mind what is done at 2015 FFA Cup too much, where the flags are only used once when the teams are first mentioned and I can see that although not perfectly, there is some correlation (and therefore relevance) between states and teams (not perfect however), but I think this guideline would suggest against using them. The issue you mention about clubs not representing their countries but just coming from them is a common and controversial one (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 71#WP:MOSFLAG in friendlies again) but I would be more cautious still using state flags given their lower recognisability. Macosal (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the NPL regional winners, going into the finals series do indeed represent the state they're from. Obviously they're playing for themselves and not Capital Football or the FFV, but with each state getting one team, I think we can justify their usage on the NPL season articles. - J man708 (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well to put it simply, in FFA Cup & NPL finals they represent their federation, which admittedly is usually, but not always a state. The obvious exception is Northern NSW and Football NSW (which represents Central Coast and south from there.) When I look at the page with FFA Cup appearances I would prefer to be able to sort and see who represents NNSW (for example) rather than just NSW as a state. The sort function operates on the state flags. There are also clubs such as Tweed Heads that are geographically in NSW but play in a Football Queensland competition.Umarghdunno (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about clubs that are geographically in one state, but play in a different competition, it is a similar case to Cardiff City and Swansea City playing in the Premier League. In international competitions they're marked on wikipages with a Wales flag (and usually with a note too - see for example Euro 2016). --SuperJew (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

TBH template:sort should be used here to sort alphabetically rather than by state flag on the page FFA Cup appearances. For mine an extra column, "Federation" should be added to allow that sorting and to disambiguate as mentioned above (and removing state flags altogether from this list). Macosal (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an inconsistency with Wikipedia which should be fixed. The Champions League teams list shows AS Monaco as French, not Monegasque. Ditto the Europa League showing Swansea City as English. Even the link you provided SuperJew has this on the talk page. The consensus seems to be "Represent the country's league you play in, not the country your team is from. If the Nix somehow got into the Club World Cup (by being hosted in Australia and them winning the previous A-League), then they'd be shown as Australian, not Kiwi. - J man708 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Going by those discussions we'd need the member federation clubs to have state flags next to them, with a different flag for the NNSW clubs. and the ALeague clubs would have an ALeague flag next to them? --SuperJew (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I have solved this problem (at least in the context of FFA Cup appearances) by replacing the flags with the federation names. Much less ambiguous, no MOS issue, more sortable. Macosal (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

so we often quote WP:V and WP:RS on Wikipedia. For this project for many things we source things through the FFA site, and their A-League and clubs offshoots. Looking at the latest signing article, I noticed that the "senior career" section seems to have been lifted directly from Wikipedia. Could this not result in circular referencing if this happens often? --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that Chris Herd never played or even trained for Perth after signing his contract, should he still be listed on the transfers page? Rjbsmith (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I was also debating that, but seeing as both transfer in and transfer out are sourced, and it appears on his infobox I say keep it. The first transfer was a legit transfer where he signed and everything and the second one is also a mutual contract termination. A contract was signed and then terminated, not like Chris Naumoff story at Numancia where he didn't officially sign because he didn't pass the medical. --SuperJew (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - the two distinct transfers did actually go through and Herd was contracted to the club, if only for a brief time. Macosal (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Samoan or Australian?

Personally, I vote Samoan. Don't get me wrong, he's an non-Visa citizen and all, but he was indeed selected for the Samoan national side for the 2016 OFC Nations Cup. Granted, he was listed as an absentee in the Nations Cup, but that's just it, he was a part of the Samoan team listed on the OFC's official match reports and hasn't yet been listed as an Australian national team squad member in any matches. - J man708 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would stick with Australian. That is what the vast majority of sources say and further, his absence from the Samoan squad at the games could be indicative of anything from slight injury to an intention to play for a different national side. As a result I think we should stick with Australia for now. Definitely a bit of an ambiguous case and one to keep an eye on in the future either way. Macosal (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian. No indication he intends to represent Samoa. Simione001 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

He was listed in the Samoa squad for 2016 OFC Nations Cup, Soccerway list him as Samoan, and he was listed in the squad in the match against New Caledonia ([1], [2]). I don't understand what further indication you're looking for apart from actually playing. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but he didn't he didn't even travel for the tournament. In my view that puts his allegiances in doubt.Simione001 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Had he traveled, or had he made some statement that he intended to play for Samoa in an interview, for example, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest Samoan. But being called up to a squad and then not showing up is just as likely to mean that a player is not intending to represent that nation as vice versa, in my view. Macosal (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Some one has incorrectly listed the end of season Victory Cup results for 2013 and 2014 in the listing in this article which has a list of the football (soccer) champions of Tasmania by the various methods listed. I am going to remove these listings and replace with the league (table) results to see my reasoning or discuss please add to the talk page here. --TinTin (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@J man708, Matilda Maniac, SuperJew, Macosal, TinTin, and Simione001:

Hey guys. I had a conversation with Jman about starting some NPL season club pages - for the bigger clubs, i.e. the ones that used to play NSL (Wollongong Wolves, South Melbourne etc.) and the Youth/Academy teams of the HAL clubs. We thought it was a good idea and that they would generally pass GNG. I created 2015–16 Sydney FC Youth season page, of which it is now up for deletion. Main reason for creating was following the continued season pages of Northern Fury FC through its NPL campaigns (e.g. 2014 Northern Fury FC season which at the time of discussion remembering most people were for it (dont remember who actually created the page). If you guys could take a look and discuss, would cop it a lot easier from the Aussie taskforce. —Eccy89 (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that these types of articles should be limited to fully pro clubs only. If you start doing this for semi pro then it opens the door for every NPL club in the country. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I can see that point, but what of the Fury situation then? I was really just going under the proviso of aforementioned previously in prior NSL/club offshoot. I have seen a lot of other years Youth results in the respective senior seasons e.g. 2013–14 Brisbane Roar season. Should we just merge then? —Eccy89 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A few points here. Firstly, it's well-established that non-pro seasons aren't inherently notable, there needs to be broader independent coverage. A few of the big clubs might pass this, or maybe regional ones (Northern NSW NPL seems quite well-covered, for example). However, consensus appears to be that there needs to be a very strong level of coverage, given that you could essentially make a complete article for some teams well below professional divisions. For that reason the Northern Fury season might be notable but might face this same issue (as I said above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force#Northern Fury season articles.). As for including the results of youth / reserve sides on the main team's page, I am firmly against that practice. It overcrowds and complicates the page with information which (as just discussed) probably isn't notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Macosal (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, some interesting points there Mac. I think by the "letter of the law" then that the page I created shouldn't exist and so I asked for immediate deletion (has since been done). I guess the argument then is that the Fury one should also be deleted. It is un-referenced which therefore means the coverage is non-existent. I'm not a stickler and I kind of like the page so I'm not proposing deletion, but I'd imagine if someone put it up for deletion it would fail. The whole scenario has now made me wonder if half the stuff we are editing for the NPL is actually notable now or whether we are just doing things for completeness? —Eccy89 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also BTW, I'm with you Mac on not having full results lists etc. of the youth team in the senior's season page (I'm not particularly a fan of the aforementioned Brisbane Roar article). However, I think a small section of prose regarding the achievements of the academy team would be acceptable/appropriate. —Eccy89 (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say in general the whole notability thing is lopsided. For some reason the top women's league in Australia (7th place in women's football in the world) isn't considered notable, but the 10th tier in English football is. A player with 150 appearances for W-League clubs is not necessarily notable, while a 17-year-old who came on for 5 minutes at the end of a dead rubber A-League match is? --SuperJew (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems they are at least allowed season pages (e.g. 2014 Sydney FC W-League season). But yeah, with everything needing to be sourced, it is all dependent on what the media (or "independent sources") deems important... —Eccy89 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As SJ said, it's lopsided. Currently we're in a position wherein an article such as Marcus Schroen's (who was listed in the FFA Cup Team of the Year) can be deleted because he hasn't played a fully professional game, but Teeboy Kamara's article will stand the test of time, due to his sole A-League appearance. I'm just waiting for the day when something ridiculous gets an AfD nomination, such as Ellyse Perry... - J man708 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This table needs to be sorted out: National Premier Leagues#Winners from each member federation. Currently it lists the Finalists from each federation for each year. This is fine but currently it's called the league 'Winners. If it's the Winners then the Newcastle Jets Youth should be listed in the table. Basically it needs to be worked out if this table should be the Winners or the Federation Finalists, and the appropriate heading used. Currently it's a mixture of both which is inconsistent and doesn't work! --TinTin (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the table is included more to be used as "participants in the finals series by year" kind of thing. I do agree that the wording is therefore a bit off. I'm not sure how it's a mixture of the two? As the page is realistically about the NPL Finals Series, I would vote for change of wording to "Federation Finalists" as you have suggested. —Eccy89 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

change of wording to "Federation Finalists" as you have suggested. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Qualifiers" is the word to use somewhere? - J man708 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Qualifiers, or Finalists either would fix the problem as long as its not Winners. TinTin (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying finalists perhaps? —Eccy89 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Member Federation representatives Umarghdunno (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Super Dooper Member Final Qualifierinos? - J man708 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to Federation Finalists for now. If anyone is super keen on Qualifier or similar, I am happy for you to make the change. --TinTin (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, looks good! Though I would be happy to take it further to "Federation finalists by season" and count the appearances in parentheses. —Eccy89 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice additional information with the appearance numbers! --TinTin (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, I added the Foreign players table to the 2011-12 A-League season article. Does anyone object to them being created to go back to the 2005-06 A-League season? - J man708 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Just pay attention that the foreign status is by that year and not current. (For example Ramsay was only called up to Philippines in 2015, and McDonald was called up to PNG in 2014) --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case though, we'd have players such as Connor Pain listed as from Hong Kong, until 2013? As listed above with Jai Ingham, we'd surely have him listed as Samoan if he made his debut today. By your reckoning, a player born in Sudan, who moves to Australia at a young age should be listed as Sudanese and only as Australian after they've played for the NT? - J man708 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If a player hasn't played for either national team, but came to Australia at a young age, they have Australian citizenship and should be listed as such on an Australian page. If he plays/is called up to a national team other than Australia, from the year he is associated with that nation he should be marked as that but not before. SuperJew (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, McDonald was born in PNG and represented them without ever playing for Australia. Surely that's an open and shut case, right? The main issue is of retroactivity. Should the player's new nationality dictate their old nationality? Should a player have chosen to represent Sudan over Australia, then that's just it. They themselves have had the opportunity to choose which nationality they want to be identified as and thus, should be retroactively included.

Fair enough the issue of players playing for one country, then another, but this is about them simply playing for one country and NOT Australia. - J man708 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure about McDonald now. Why isn't he under category 1 then? Or did he go to Australia at a young age? If so it is irrelevant where he was born. No it should not be changed retroactively. The page is to show the snapshot of the season at the time of the season. --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Because while he was born there, he started his career overseas from PNG. He's an Australian citizen, who has chosen to represent another national team. I disagree that a Filipino international should be listed as Australian at any point (unless he'd played for Australia). I'd like to get more input from others. Also, if he had lived here since 1985, why is Miron Bleiberg listed as Israeli in the 2011-12 season article? Surely he should be listed as an Aussie, if players in similar spots have to be listed as Aussies and not their other nationalities? - J man708 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the point though. At those points in time he wasn't a Filipino international, was he? Regarding Bleiberg, I could see arguments in either direction about listing him as Aussie (got an Aussie citizenship) or as Israeli (grew up and was the first 30 years of his life in Israel) though I think the best way would be a reference stating how he sees himself. Anyways as a manager it is less relevant than a player, because players have to adhere to the foreign player policy (only 5 foreign visa players), so their nationality affects how they're registered for the league. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Macosal, Eccy89, Matilda Maniac, Hack, Rjbsmith, Simione001, and TinTin: Can you guys add any insight into this? Also SuperJew, you've gotta stop editing information because it doesn't show what view point you necessarily want until after an answer has been found. It doesn't naturally revert back to what you specifically want to see. (BTW - Deleting information to avoid undoing and inturn not notifying them is a pretty shitty thing to do mate, tbh). - J man708 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the foreign players table, currently we have the current status of foreign players, so by the end of the season the table only shows the foreign players who were playing at the end of the season. Do you think we should add a column for former foreign players (as is done in the Chinese Super League)? --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, another nationality debate. I see points to both sides. On one hand, as @SuperJew: says, season articles are really a "snapshot in time:" so players should be listed as to how it would have been viewed at the time. So this is important to get correct. On the other, in some certain cases, as @J man708: says, players that go on to play for different nations clearly align themselves with another nation and should be represented as such. If we do continue to retrospectively change nationalities, we may perhaps open ourselves up to a few players slipping through the cracks? I see two ways of going about this. Either change the footnote to say: 2Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to or go on to represent another national team; (generic retrofit) or create new footnotes for specific players (e.g. Ramsay: Australian citizen who chose to represent Philippines from 20XX). There is nothing wrong with making these types of notes, especially if the knowledge is available. It all helps the reader, which is the entire point of the article. I think the other problem here is that you both seem to want have a one rule fits all policy, when traditionally, we have always had a discussion about specific players. I think the best way of doing this then is to generate the conversation on the talk page of each season about all players where there is likely to be a dispute (whilst incorporating one of the two points mentioned above). —Eccy89 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sensible suggestions there. McDonald has the added complication of having been called up to the Olyroos once or twice too. Either of the above solutions would remove any ambiguity and be informative too. Macosal (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the footnote should be changed to include such nationality changes (Eccy's first idea). It seems wrong not to include it on an encyclopedia, tbh. Also, as much as Brad McDonald was called up by the Olyroos, he was born in PNG and has only played for PNG at any form of international level. He's as Papuan as any youngster is Australian, who made the move to Europe to further his footballing career. Think about this, what else could he really do to be Papuan? - J man708 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

He could've chosen not to be involved with the Australian youth setup. He actually said "Maybe in the future if it doesn’t work out with Australia, then I can investigate the passport situation again" (here). Were this happening now, I'd suggest that should mean we list him as Australian. All in all fairly clear that Australia was his preferred representative nationality, for a time at least. Macosal (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day chose to represent PNG at the expense of representing Australia. He was born in PNG and plays for PNG. If it looks like a duck... - J man708 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW - Macdawg, if Jai Ingham was called up by Samoa and you said should be listed as Australian, then how on Earth can Brad McDonald be Australian, if PNG is to him what Australia is to Ingham? - J man708 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ingham was called up to Samoa but didn't show without an explanation. That seems very different to a player who said "I want to represent Australia, but will play for PNG if not" to me? Macosal (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You're having this whole discussion with the hindsight of retrospect. As said above the season page is a snapshot in time of that season. Regarding the comment about "not including the info on an encyclopedia", it is included - on Brad McDonald's page, which it is relevant too. His nationality representation after that season is not relevant to that season. --SuperJew (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I still think B-Mac's nationality is Papuan. He was born there and has only played for them. He never played for Australia. Seems pretty simple for me. I understand that Ramsay is a different kettle of fish, but McDonald seems set for me. In the 2013-14 season, before he's played for Australia, Brad Smith is listed as an Australian (although I'm sure SuperUndo will fix that soon) and that situation is even more line ball! He at least played for England. McDonald never played for Australia!

If a player can't have an article created because he's not gotten off the bench for a club (John Solari, anyone?) then we shouldn't include a player who merely accepts the opportunity to train with an Australian youth national team as reason enough to call them Australian. - J man708 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit I may have jumped the gun with McDonald, and should look into it again, however Ramsay is a clear-and-shut case. So is Smith's listing in Liverpool's 2013-14 season (which by the way in the two lists there he was listed with different nationalities in each list). Also J man708 you really inspire people to want to work with you. --SuperJew (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to inspire, I'm here to add to an encyclopedia. Perhaps I'd be a touch nicer if you didn't slyly edit out what you want from a season article without hitting undo, in order to avoid letting them know you've undone their work. Also, constantly undoing things to how you see it and then wanting them to prove to you why it should be the case is a dick move. - J man708 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Shane Lowry, out of interest? Irish youth, more recently featured in Australian squads and declared intention to play for Australia. Consensus is quite strong to list for Australia. This discussion touches on a number of relevant points here. Macosal (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite the same, seeing as he actually played for Ireland. Seeing as he hasn't played for Australia, it's really quite line ball. On one hand, he's played for Ireland's youth teams. On the other, he sat on the bench for the Australian national team. If we add to the wording of "who have chosen to represent another national team" to "or go on to", it takes out a lot more ambiguity. As for Lowry, I see both arguments. I'm not 100% sure which way I'd be inclined. - J man708 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

EDIT - If Lowry is Australian, then Besart Berisha is from Kosovo. Both played for one country and have made the "pledge" to another, without having been capped. - J man708 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Big difference though as Lowry represented Ireland at youth level, while Berisha has represented Albania's senior team and therefore he is cap-tied to Albania. --SuperJew (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Cap-tied... Really? Samir Ujkani's article speaks for itself. As for Lowry, he still played for Ireland's youth team, which is MORE than Brad McDonald did for the Australian team (ie called up to a training squad). - J man708 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I deeply apologise that I wasn't aware of Mr. Ujkani's history. See, I usually follow all Albanian/Kosovo players but just happened to miss him. ::::Even so though, seems it might be different since Ujkani switched when Kosovo were not yet a FIFA-affiliated, while now they are (as of May 2016). --SuperJew (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you don't act in such a patronizing and condescending way perhaps users would want to work more with you and not against you. --SuperJew (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And I apologise for getting hot headed. Thankfully this isn't the comment section of YouTube, where we both get into a year long argument about the promiscuity each other's mothers. I'm cool to refresh here. This link here suggests that Kosovo can pretty much poach who they like for the time being (which probably kills the Swiss team, let's be honest). This info only came to light to me a few days back and I decided to follow it all up. The non-FIFA-affliation is more or less nonsense to FIFA. This is why they didn't give a hoot when Greenland played Tibet in a game that made China go ape-shit at Denmark. China bitched to FIFA to stop the game and they didn't (but that's another story). As for Lowry, the fact that he stepped out officially in Irish youth colours (which is enough to class Jamie Young as English) suggests to me that he is Irish, as much as he leaves himself open to an Aussie call-up. In positions where a player hasn't made a senior national appearance, their next highest/most recent squad listing dictates their nationality. This is why Panos Armenakas for instance is to be shown as an Aussie (as much as we'll have editors frequently changing it to show Greek-Australian, to suit their motifs. Brad McDonald while most definitely having worn an Australian training shirt (and having sat on the bench), never came onto the field to be an Australian player. Ditto John Solari, who has been a bench warming journeyman keeper, but still doesn't have an article until he steps out onto the field of play. If John Solari is "non-notable", then by logic, Lowry has to be Irish. - J man708 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the analogy between Solari's notability and Lowry's nationality is a good one (notability and nationality aren't similar). A better (although still flawed) analogy would be if Solari were to bench for Brisbane Roar, that would be listed as his current club. Macosal (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting about the Kosovo story. As a new national team it seems an exception to FIFA's usually tight-fist over switiching nationalities. I would guess it would have a time limit the option of switching, but we'll wait and see. BTW I saw this article and at from the lead thought it was Besart ;P --SuperJew (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mac that notability and nationality are not comparable, so Solari isn't a good example. Jamie Young seems different to Lowry to me as Young played for England U20, but (as far as I know) didn't express any interest in playing for Australia and wasn't called up. Lowry on the other hand committed himself to Australia, was called up for friendlies, for a World Cup provisional squad, and another friendly. Furthermore he holds by having chosen Australia and is still looking for the call-up. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

But Solari has been on the bench for both Adelaide United and Newcastle Jets in A-League fixtures, Macdawg (obviously keeper substitutions are a rare thing, so he was unlikely to come on). If being included in squads and the like, does that render Jai Ingham a Samoan? What if Ingham plays for Samoa in 4 years' time? Will he be retroactively listed? If making a statement that says you're from Country X is enough to warrant nationality, does this interview mean that we should retroactively add Ramsay as a Filipino? What about players who move here and become Visa players without ever playing international football? Should Cassio be listed as Australian? He's now emigrated to Australia and runs a coaching clinic here. If we're only listing Ramsay as Filipino from 2015, then Cassio should be Australian from 2012. - J man708 (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We're maybe getting a bit caught up in semantics here. The important thing is the player's representative nationality, which is logically made up of (a) which team(s) they are eligible to play for and (b) which teams they want to play for.

Ok Ingham was called up by Samoa, but for some reason he did not accept that callup (we can't say). Mustafa Amini comes to mind as a similar case, called up by Afghanistan but rejected that offer and therefore should be listed as Australian (clearly). I agree with SuperJew's take on this: for time-specific articles, time-appropriate nationalities seem appropriate to me. The caveat I would add to that is that, as Eccy suggested (now some time ago), footnotes could be added for clarity's sake in complicated cases such as McDonald. Yes, Cassio should be listed as Australian since 2012 I believe, given that after that time he (a) was eligible to play for the Socceroos and (b) Declared an intention to play for the Socceroos. Of course there will always be some players who (a) can play for multiple national teams and (b) it is unclear if they have a preference - and that is where reliable sources are most useful. Macosal (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I get Ramsay. I don't agree, but I get it. Also, I think Ramsay should be included as a non Visa foreign player on the 2014-15 season article. He played for the Philippines within the 2014-15 timeframe. As for McDonald, I don't even understand the argument. He was in a training camp and interested in the idea of playing for Australia. Born in PNG, plays for PNG. Ticks the boxes, surely? - J man708 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ramsay should be included as a non-visa foreign player because he played for Philippines after the season had effectively ended. His nationality never affected in the season itself. As for McDonald, after re-looking at it, I agree with you he should be listed as PNG. Why have you added Kwabena Appiah as a New Zealander now? I haven't seen anywhere an inkling connecting him to New Zealand's national team and he moved to Australia at the age of 6, starting his career here. --SuperJew (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing with McDonald: If we look at a snapshot of time, for example 2011-12 or 2012-13. At that time he was born in PNG, but had moved to Australia at the age of 5 and started his career in Australia (doesn't fulfill criterion 1), had an Australian citizenship and had been called up to Australia U23, claiming he wants to play for Australia, but keep PNG as a back-up. He said here: "In my mind it’s just Australia now, at least until I get too old for the under-23s, then we’ll go from there, I always have Papua New Guinea to fall back on if I can’t make it with Australia.” Sounds to me that at the time he is a player born overseas (but not started his career there so not criterion 1) choosing to represent Australia (so not criterion 2). The solution btw might be to change the criterion wordings. --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And Georgievski's or Muscat's does effect the season? I had added him because he's listed as a Kiwi on the CCM team page. He's also listed as a Kiwi here and here. I've never seen an inkling connecting him with Australia's national team, either? Also, you don't need to mass watch my edits, like I'm some small child, SJ. It might be my words that made me seem patronizing and condescending, but its your actions that come across as you knowing better than all, and actions speak louder than words... As for changing the criterion wordings, I SUGGESTED THAT EARLIER. Is this all you want to do, filibuster a point to an extent that nobody can be stuffed to continue? - J man708 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to do any more of these tables. Clearly SuperJew knows better and has edited every table I've created thus far, despite no consensus being reached, so fuck it, SuperJew, you've inherited the table duties. Enjoy.
- J man708 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you ranting on? Because I moved Daniel to a visa-foreigner, as opposed to non-visa, and linked you the article which says they signed him as a visa-foreigner? --SuperJew (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you insta-edit anything I edit these days. It's beyond a joke now. - J man708 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know why both articles currently co-exist? Inter Monaro SC and Monaro Panthers FC seem to be one in the same, unless I'm very much mistaken? - J man708 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The club website acknowledges the history that these are the same club. Umarghdunno (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, support merge (assuming that's what you want to do!) —Eccy89 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A merge seems in order indeed (and now J man708 doesn't know what to do since I agreed with him :P) --SuperJew (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We can't have that! Merge request withdrawn!... In all seriousness, does anyone feel up for doing this one? I feel like creating player and team articles is my weakness. - J man708 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Macosal (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The following sentence causes ambiguity when referring to players who change nationality after the years of the season articles in question:

1 - Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to represent another national team.

Eccy89 suggested the idea of this:

2 - Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to or go on to represent another national team.

The second sentence removes the ambiguity of players such as Iain Ramsay, Dino Đulbić, John Hutchinson, Manny Muscat etc.

Pretty simply, this is a vote to retroactively show a single nationality for players who were born in one country and then chose to play for another team. Players who originate as Visa players and then go on to gain Australian citizenship (such as Cássio, Henrique etc.) are still shown on the table with their previous nationality listed, so it seems only fitting to make future changes in nationality retroactive. This proposal allows nationality continuity between season articles, hopefully making it easier for the standard reader to follow. Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this wording. I said previously, the season page should represent a snapshot at the time of the season, and not go and be changed retroactively. For example the fact that Ramsay went on to represent PHI in 2015 has no relevance or bearing on the 2010-11 A-League season. Also making that change opens the door to more cracks and slip-ups of players who changed that no-one will bother to go and change retroactively or who won't be in the A-League anymore. Also changing retroactively could make a change directly effecting the quota, for example Henrique was listed as a visa-listed player at the beginning of his career, but in the past few months after gaining Aussie citizenship, he was listed as non-visa-listed player. This retroactive change would suggest to go back to his early years and move him to Australian nationality player which is plainly incorrect. As it is the A-League doesn't have that many editors covering it (and the club's season pages are largely taken care of by one editor), so to add more maintenance (which would require following all players who were ever in the A-League) seems IMO a ridiculous proposal. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the main purpose of this list is to show how clubs use(d) their foreign player allocation, players like Cassio or Henrique should definitely be listed as foreign if they occupied one of the five allotted spots (until such time as they gain citizenship, for which seasons they should be moved to the sixth, miscellaneous column). Having said that, it's at best a stretch to say this idea "adds more maintenance" in any meaningful way - maybe one or two players a year? Hardly "ridiculous", and a straw man argument to suggest so.

The main purpose of that sixth column is, in my view, to inform readers as to why a seemingly foreign player did not occupy a spot on the allocation. Could that occur with a modern reader looking at a player who has now chosen a different national side in the context of an older season? Yes, I think so. Having said that, I think I agree with the "snapshot in time" concept. It doesn't seem right to list Hutchinson in the 2005–06 list, for example, at which time I doubt anyone even knew of his Maltese heritage, and he would later be chosen for Australian squads. For someone like Ramsay I'm a bit more in two minds given that he (to my knowledge) never made any Australia squads at any level, it wouldn't be misleading to list him with the above note. Macosal (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kind of hard to decide based on the reader's knowledge no? Personally, for example if I wasn't active editing in the A-League I doubt I would have known about Ramsay's PHI call-up. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to decide based on the reader's knowledge, I'm saying it might be useful to inform a reader of a fact which would otherwise not be apparent to them if they looked at this article. Macosal (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But this fact is irrelevant to that article page. --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For mine it's questionable but it explains why someone like Ramsay (a Philipino international) is not included on the list of foreign players.

Beyond that, I feel I've pretty much said my piece on what isn't really the biggest issue in the scheme of things. I'd recommend people look to sort something out / compromise here soon or else head to WT:FOOTY to get a broader range of opinions. Macosal (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think if we do decide to go the retroactive road (which I thing is the wrong way), it should have separate notes for each of the special cases, specifying year they switched nationalities. --11:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the only reason we are having this conversation is because we are retroactively creating the table. If the table was created back in 2006, would we still be having this conversation? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm in Mac's camp that I don't think it is the most pressing concern, but one that I think we should sort out quickly. As I said initially, sure we can retrofit it generally like Jman's outlined at the top but I really believe if we are retroactively fitting it should be on a case-by-case basis and should have a separate note specifying the year (my second idea). It is an Australian league, so if you are Australian you do not fill a VISA spot (obviously!). People like Hutchinson who probably didn't even hold a Maltese passport until he had to speedily receive one for NT service therefore probably shouldn't be on the list. I could be completely wrong on that and would obviously need some clarity/research for his/all other case/(s). Someone like Brad McDonald who was born in PNG and went on to play for PNG should be on the list but with probably a more personalised note as many of you have indicated he held hopes of playing for Australia... I'm still not even convinced Ramsay should be included in his years prior to playing NT for Philippines (had he already left A-League by that stage?) I threw out those ideas to see if others like them, not necessarily fully advocating it. As the only people seemingly to care about it is JM and SJ and Mac and I kinda sitting on the fence I'm not sure we can resolve it ourselves.

Summing up, I think personalised retroactive in very specific cases. (I'm also not a fan of using the flagicon's in these cases, but that is another whole discussion piece!) —Eccy89 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing all the seasons that currently have tables up, I think the footnotes are fine. I would vote to create the tables for the rest of the seasons within the confines of the current outlined footnotes and should there be any player whose nationality is questionable then raise the issue then. —Eccy89 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"It is an Australian league, so if you are Australian you do not fill a VISA spot" - That's why it says "Non-Visa Foreign". At the end of the day, they still have chosen to represent a foreign national team, as a dual citizen. Of course they're playing under their Australian passports. If we tweak it to make mention something along the lines of them choosing to represent another team at some point, it removes this ambiguity and can allow us to retroactively fix each player, case by case (we could add a footnote to show that Player X made his debut with Team Y in Year Z). As for the idea of it creating more work, that's ludicrous. We've already pretty much got on top of all the players playing for other nations thus far, haven't we? - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Have we? Have you checked on every player who's played in the A-League since its inception? --SuperJew (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

They're not really relevant after they've retired, are they? And even if we haven't, the brilliance of it all is that we can add them in. Both on the table and here - J man708 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, if you think it's not a lot more work, be my guest and have a look through all the players who've played in the A-League and make sure we've covered all those who've switched nationalities since. --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not. We manage to cover when all players inevitably die, don't we? Wikipedia is incomplete and there is WP:NORUSH to have every player immediately covered! - J man708 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But we wouldn't want to mislead people because they are reading it now, not when we decide to get around to editing it. My point anyway is that it is adding work. With over 1,000 players having played in the league up until now and an annual turn-over of around 100-150 players, to follow all these players who you wouldn't follow otherwise (because they are not relevant to the A-league anymore) is adding work, and not a little amount. --SuperJew (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Then we should delete all birth days and death days, because there's a chance we can get it wrong? Of course not. Hell, even FIFA gets it wrong and has to change what they have listed as originally as a fact when they get it incorrect. SJ, we both know each other's points of view. What are you trying to do upon this proposal at this point? I don't understand. You seem to be constantly implying that my way of seeing things is wrong and reverting my edits, but you're doing fuck all in order to create a compromise that you'd be happy seeing. This is a proposal for rewording of something. If you're not a fan of it, say that you're not and please, leave it at that. If you have a compromise, I'd love to hear it, but you're not really contributing to finding a solution, just nitpicking at points and pedantically retorting to everything I say. - J man708 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth days and deathdays are not the same kettle of fish. They're added once and then don't change (unless in the occasion that there was a mistake), but you don't need to keep checking a player that he didn't change his birth day (except for special cases where players might try faking their date to play in age-limited competitions, but that's the exception). Regarding death dates, again not something that changes once it happens, but I have seen recently in the South African league a few players who have been deceased for a few years and their articles not updated yet. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And Jman, I'm not going for you personally, but just happens that we are about the only 2 editors who seem to give a shit about the articles and are on a constant maintenance of them (with occasional chip-ins by Macosal and Rjbsmith). Which again brings up my point that it's silly to add more work when there's hardly any editors to do the work already there as it is. --SuperJew (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally, just frustrated at this point. Lol. - J man708 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think the wording should remain the same as it is now, and the players added as per the snapshot of that time (not retroactively). In very specific cases (such as Brad McDonald, where as I wrote in the previous discussion above), there should be a note added for that specific player. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, cool; I think we can get somewhere with this. How do you feel about having the players listed with some form of footnote (or perhaps with their names in brackets). Jesse Pinto is another B-Mac style situation, btw, wherein the player played for an Australian schoolboys team, before making an appearance for East Timor. I know they're both Australians, but they did choose to represent another nation at some later point. For the standard reader, it could cause confusion to see someone like McDonald or Pinto as suddenly listed as foreign players from one season to the next. Unfortunately, the standard reader may not understand the whole Visa shenanigans. - J man708 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinto seems to me much the case like Ramsay: born in Australia, played for Australia youth (U-19) internationally (unlike Ramsay there), and only represented a different country after his time in the A-League. At his time in the A-League he is Australian through and through, shouldn't be in the foreign players' table at all. --SuperJew (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Another idea is to have the wording more like the List of foreign A-League players, having in the foreign players list only players who are ineligible for the Australian national team (at time of that season). --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Vedran Janjetović is an Australian, but is shown as a Croat, how come that doesn't warrant being deleted from the tables? The current Note 2 causes ambiguity, so keeping the current wording doesn't seem to be a good idea. I'm personally strongly for addition of all players such as the aforementioned to be included. Is there anyway that you'd be satisfied with a major revision of Note 2 in order to show that these players chose to play for other teams at a later date? - J man708 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Janjetovic was born and started his professional career in Croatia, I don't see what the problem is? Anyway, he is under Note 1. I don't see the ambiguity of note 2, if you could give an example that'd help. I don't think their playing for a different team at a later date is relevant to that season. Same as we made the change in the last year or 2 in the transfers page that if a player doesn't transfer directly to a different club we don't list it, as it is not relevant (previously it was listed in brackets, regardless of how long until the player joined the new club one of the discussions here). --SuperJew (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Janjetovic is clearly Australian, grew up here and is listed as Croatian, simply because he started his career there. From memory, there's a player whose page I'm struggling to find who is listed as Australian, despite being born and starting his career overseas and never having played for Australia. Perhaps he just slipped through the cracks, or something? Anyway, Note 2 has caused the ambiguity of the last few days worth of discussions! Whether or not you can see it, I'm TELLING you that there is ambiguity. Why would I still be going if there weren't? Again, I'll ask, is there any form of revision to Note 2 that you'd be prepared to see, which would allow retroactive addition of players to the tables in question. - J man708 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the ambiguity of note 2, it is about whether to retroactively list players as "foreign" when they switched nationalities only after the specific season. As I've reiterated I think we shouldn't because the season page is about that timeframe and a nationality switch after the timeframe is irrelevant to that season. In very specific cases (such as Bmac, who was born overseas, and then was called up, but didn't play, and also that was youth so wouldn't make not eligible, and then later called up to PNG, and after that also returned to the A-League) then I think we should have a specific note. I think by now we are just rehashing our respective clashing opinions, and unless there are more editors who want to give their thoughts (doubt it as this has been going on for a few days), I think we should take it up to WP:FOOTY for more opinions. --SuperJew (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Macosal, what about rewording note 1 to something like "Players born overseas who received Aussie (or New Zealand...) citizenship only after starting their professional careers abroad"? --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that just a cosmetic change or are you trying to change the criteria there? It still reads to have the same meaning to me. Macosal (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify it per your change regarding Vukovic. Currently it reads Those players who were born and started their professional career abroad but have since gained Australian citizenship (and New Zealand citizenship, in the case of Wellington Phoenix), which sounds like Vukovic would meet that as he was born in Croatia and started his pro career there. It sounds a bit ambiguous to me as I'm not sure if the "since" refers to birth, starting the pro career or both. --SuperJew (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"From memory, there's a player whose page I'm struggling to find who is listed as Australian, despite being born and starting his career overseas and never having played for Australia." The only ones that come to mind are Mitch Austin, but I think you guys have been listing him as English (I dont necessarily agree with this), the other was Rostyn Griffiths, but it appears he played in U-17's for Australia so he gets loopholed out. Re: the Janjetovic situation, I have never liked him being listed as Croatian due a specific set of circumstances created arbitrarily. To be honest at this stage, I think the less players in the non-foreign Visa column the better. Like Mac mentioned ages ago, the column was really setup for those foreigners that became citizens and became naturalised (thus a year-to-year change) or Aussies (never on the list) suddenly becoming internationals of a different nation (thus another year-to-year change). If the whole column is causing such an issue, I'd rather us just do-away it altogether. For me, it doesn't even really add anything to the article. You can just add a prose of text underneath the table noting that some players were exempt from Visa status for whatever reason including references if need be. You can then, using prose, add players retroactively if you like. Does't necessarily add any extra work either as it does not "need" to be comprehensive. —Eccy89 (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you mean Vukovic or Janjetovic? —Eccy89 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed Janjetovic we're referring to here. The current wording is ok by me re this issue, but if changing to SJ's suggestion as above is preferable / clearer then I don't have any objection to that. As Eccy says, it has also crossed my mind that this column may be redundant / more trouble than it's worth at this point. I think it is informative but not indispensable... Macosal (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes I meant Janjetovic, got my Sydney keepers mixed-up :S --SuperJew (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Macosal can we vote to remove column? —Eccy89 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel like that's possibly a knee-jerk reaction, Eccington. It still adds information (once we come to a consensus, that is). - J man708 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eccy89 - How would you feel about having a player in Iain Ramsay's position retroactively listed, provided that a relevant note were attached to his name (I listed before that perhaps we could place his name also in brackets to further show that it's not a clear cut issue). It just seems wrong to have it listed when Cassio goes from Brazilian to citizen (with solely the Brazilian flag still shown), but Ramsay going the other way only is shown when he goes from citizen to Philippino (with solely the Philippines flag showing). - J man708 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: re: knee-jerk – wouldn't completely agree, the whole thing has made me re-think the purpose of the table and I don't think the "notes" are as important as the Visa players themselves. Maybe change font style to small and I might be more on board :-)

Re: Ramsay, if we are keeping the column, I wouldn't be against him being placed in brackets (no flagicon, dont see relevance) with a specific note. —Eccy89 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually quite like that concept. "You are an ideas man, Steve." - J man708 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: which part, the small font or the no flagicon? —Eccy89 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the no flagicon, but that kinda defeats the purpose, come to think of it... - 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't defeat the purpose because it will be in the specific note. It's nice as a quick look for the Visa players, sure, but for the exempt ones, doesn't really matter because they are being classed as Aussie. If your keen to see, well that's what the note is for... —Eccy89 (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think it could look good indented to the same length as the flagicons, so that the player names appear on the same depth - J man708 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I was thinking something more like this —Eccy89 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@J man708, SuperJew, and Macosal:

Can someone move this page correcting the spelling. Accidentally moved it with the wrong spelling. Simione001 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just moved the info to Marko Jesic and had the mistake (hopefully) redirect. I think I got it right! - J man708 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right is it? That's the dodgy way. Simione001 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the consensus for the best word to describe each component of the NPL? Currently there appears to be inconsistent use of the terms division, conference, state federation and league. I am guilty of mixing up the terminology myself. Just thought I would check on here to see what people prefer and then try and tighten up the usage. --TinTin (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the official websites, I think each component is a "league" (which makes sense I guess). Macosal (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I 100% understand what you mean. But if you mean what I think you mean, I would agree that the word of choice would be as Mac says "league". (Cos you mean differentiating between leagues, i.e. the "NSW League" and the "Victorian League", yeah?) —Eccy89 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If Shane Lowry is shown as an Australian player (despite having played for the Republic of Ireland youth teams) because he intends on representing Australia, then should we show Besart Berisha as a Kosovar player (seeing as he's been capped for Albania) because he intends on representing them?

Before you ask, because he hasn't played for Albania since Kosovo gained FIFA membership, he's eligible to switch nationalities still. This is what happened with Samir Ujkani, Kosovo's captain, btw. - J man708 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm I think it's a bit of a different story. Lowry has actually been called up for Australia and has sat on the bench, and since then has repeatedly re-affirmed that he is committed to the Socceroos and will play for them, given the chance.

Berisha, (as far as I can tell with my super weak Albanian), is according to RTK planned to join the Kosovo national team. That piece was published mid-August, and since then Kosovo have played 4 WC qualifiers, which Berisha wasn't called up for any of them. If anyone has further references about Berisha/Kosovo, that could be helpful.

I think this case is actually closer to Jai Ingham/Samoa, though in Jai's case he was actually named in the 2016 OFC Cup squad, but didn't show, for reasons which I haven't really found out yet. --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I reckon we should show Ingham as a Samoan on the Victory pages (at least from the time of his selection onwards), seeing as how he has never been selected for an Australian squad. Should he play for them, then we can go and retroactively change it. Currently, we've got him listed as Samoan on the A-League pages and Australian on the Victory ones. - J man708 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree regarding Jai that he should be listed as Samoan. We had a discussion about it here 4 months ago and Macosal and Simione001 were in favour of marking as Australian. I originally changed him also on the Melb Victory pages to Samoan, but since then user(s) (if I recall correctly IPs) changed it to Australian and owing to the non-consensus about it I left it as is. Any other opinions about Jai and also about Berisha? Regarding Berisha, maybe ask at WT:FOOTY? --SuperJew (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Before Lowry sat on the bench for Australia, he should have applied to FIFA to switch nationality. Finding this documented publicly may be a bit of a challenge. Hack (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Ballarat Red Devils article has been renamed to Ballarat City FC. It seems like the new club has taken the Red Devils spot. Could someone familiar with Victorian soccer confirm whether this is purely a renaming/relaunch or if this is a new club? Hack (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Football in NT is less prestigious and popular than in other Australian states, however there are currently really limited coverage in Wikipedia of football in NT. For example the article on the NorZone Premier League contains no list of previous winners, which I think is a minimum. Also there is no article on the leagues in the Central Zone or Southern Zone / FICA. As there is no NPL in NT, these leagues are the highest leagues in the NT so therefore I think important to be documented and included. --TinTin (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL makes it clear that playing in a fully professional league is the general requirement for footballers. WP:FPL lists the W-League as NOT being fully professional. Are W-League players then generally not notable, if they haven't played for Australia, won awards or had long and distinguished careers? Jodie Bain is the article I found - only 9 games in 1 season with no significant coverage that I can find. I PRODed her, but it was removed without reason by a IP editor. Before I take it to AfD, I'd like to check if there is any assumed notability attached to playing in the W-League or not. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous for us to have the same notability requirements for men and women leagues, as (unfortunately) they don't get the same treatment by the sporting world. In general men's leagues are considered higher, more professional and get more funded. For example just look at all the battles the Matildas have had this past years to try to get a decent salary. On WP:FPL There are 75 countries listed with fully professional men's leagues (with some countries having more than one league listed) as opposed to the 3 fully professional women's leagues. Even in the "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" list there are 35 men's leagues and only 4 women's leagues.

Australia is one of the leading countries in the world regarding women's soccer and it is astounding in my eyes that by "official Wikipedia rules" the players are not notable enough.

--SuperJew (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this several times over last 6 months on individual players articles already undergoing AfD (where the talk discussions get repeated, but then get removed as the article gets removed), so I'm also going to raise it in a Talk Page that wont be deleted : WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues - HERE, and try and promote some meaningful discussion about whether the same guidelines developed for one gender necessarily apply to the other. (and @The-Pope: thank you for making the effort to ask rather than launch straight into AfD). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty straightforward failure of WP:GNG based on what I can see on Factiva, EBSCOhost and the Fairfax News Store. I'd also note that there'd be some male players would also struggle to pass WP:GNG even though they would pass WP:NSPORTS Hack (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The reference for the Australian W-League on the WP:FPL essay is dead and has been for awhile. WP:SPORTCRIT states (w/ emphasis added) "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." It's not the Olympics, but it is the highest professional competition for women's football/soccer in Australia. Hmlarson (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that its not "professional", strictly speaking. All players are not given a professional salary - in fact, until the reforms last year which resulted in 20 or so players being given a professional wage, all players are semi professional. Macosal (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fully professional", "professional" and "semi-professional" - the terms have different connotations in different countries. What "fully professional" is hasn't been cited anywhere in WP:NFOOTBALL nor it's perpetually incomplete and poorly referenced essay of "fully professional leagues" which also indicates its outdatedness and need for revision.Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, however, the W-League wages are actually very low (around $7.5k per player per season on average) so by any definition to call it a "fully professional league" by any definition is probably a bit of a stretch in this context. Macosal (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No one called it "fully professional". Professional... now that's a different story. They get paid to play a sport. They devote their lives to developing their skill as a professional athlete. They compete at the highest levels in their country. Hmlarson (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

These points by @Hmlarson: are spot-on, and why what I'd really like is to just remove the 'requirement' of "fully professional league" from the criteria about whether female players are notable or not. Why does the actual amount of money matter - $7.5k per player per season on average? is $20k satisfying that threshold? $40k ? $110k ? AUD/USD/ZIM$ ? also the W-League season only goes for 3 months, and a number of 'professional' players compete in Europe / USA during the long off-season ; and conversely, a number of foreign 'professional' players compete in the W-League during their northern hemisphere off-season : they're competing year round, but not in the same way as an 8-month long European Men's league. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - the exact wage is not important, however, most of the Australians who go overseas either have played for the Matildas or go to a fully pro league (I can't think of any counterexamples) and so in such cases the system does work. My only issue is that, as far as I can tell, there are a number of players with (maybe significant) W-League experience who simply do not have enough reliable 3rd party coverage to write a full article about them. This is, as I understand it, what the GNG is there specifically to avoid - i.e. articles which are not and cannot be "full" articles. For that reason I think that merely playing in the W-League should not lead to a presumption that a player passes the GNG, although of course W-League players may well be notable. Macosal (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by counterexamples? What you are saying is not quite clear. Does every World Cup and Olympic athlete have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG? No. Based on your argument, they should be excluded as well. Hmlarson (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By counterexamples I mean that I can't think of any Australians currently playing overseas who don't satisfy NFOOTY. Of course not every Olympic or World Cup athlete has enough coverage to meet GNG, but the consensus is that enough do such that they should be presumed to. Definitely they would seem more likely to meet GNG than a W-League player. See below for some actual analysis of this. Macosal (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd try to make this a bit more real by putting some numbers on it. Just did a quick survey of the Victory, Jets and Wanderers W-League teams re players who played in the most recent season:

• 13 players satisfied NFOOTY. Of these, one was rated C-class, seven start-class and four stubs.
  
• 39 players did not satisfy NFOOTY. Of these, one was rated C-class, two start-class, 17 stubs and 19 had no article.
  

On these numbers I find it hard to argue that playing a W-League game should lead to a presumption of notability. Of course stubs do not mean that there aren't enough reliable sources to write full reliably sourced articles about players; but given that only three of the 39 who didn't satisfy NFOOTY as it currently stands had better than stub class articles, I think it's fairly hard to argue that we should be moving towards more articles on W-League players - especially given that those who pass NFOOTY seem substantially more likely to have longer, better sourced articles. Macosal (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

How often do you as an editor or other football Project editors go through women's football articles to re-assess class yet alone check for additional references to improve stub articles or create new articles about women's footballers that meet notability requirements? The answer to this would be helpful in assessing the reliability in the numbers you've presented.Hmlarson (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Understand your point about lack of reassessment but these stubs are really as stub as you'll find - i.e. a single sentence with one reference in most cases. E.g. from the Wanderers the 6 stubs of players who don't satisfy NFOOTY are Rachael Soutar, Helen Petinos, Jordan Baker (footballer), Michelle Carney, Linda O'Neill and Hannah Beard. Those 6 articles contain a combined total of 11 sentences. My concern is that if you say "all W-League players are presumed notable" you will see a significant rise in these very short articles. Of course editors should try to add sources and expand these articles, but I can't support broadening the threshold of presumed notability when there is no evidence that such players can or will be developed into full articles. Of course, should a full article be created on such players that is a different story (I note your good work on Cassandra Dimovski, Briar Palmer and Jamie Pollock (soccer, born 1989) amongst others) but the unfortunate truth is that such articles are a small minority at present. Macosal (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Macosal, you mentioned here that based on the fact that due to stub articles, there shouldn't be presumed notability of W-League players. However, don't you see many fringe players who get a handful of games have stub articles in the men's senior leagues too? You do because of this presumption. I just think what we're trying to say here is it should be the same case for the top level league of both men and women. Either presume notability for all of them (and hopefully having the stubs will push for more referencing and work on articles) or also for men who haven't done much not presume notability, but rather have to have them comprehensively referenced. Some examples: Tom Slater, Jacob Poscoliero, Trent Buhagiar, Alastair Bray, Josh Bingham, Jake McGing, Matthew Fletcher, Bruce Kamau, Stefan Mauk, Mark Ochieng, Dylan Smith, George Mells, Ben Warland, John Hall, Daniel Margush, Antoni Trimboli, Riley McGree, etc. etc. etc. (that's only players from this season from Adelaide United and CC Mariners. I can find many more from other teams and previous seasons). --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but am also wary of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here. My issue is simply: I am not convinced that players in the W-League who don't satisfy NFOOTY are likely enough to have been covered sufficiently by reliable sources that there should be a presumption that they are notable. One way of attempting to assess whether or not this is true is by looking at such articles. On doing this, it becomes clear that the vast majority of the articles contain only one source. As such, I cannot see any evidence of why such players ought to be presumed to be notable. It may be that the average W-League player does have enough media coverage to write a full article. I'll look into it myself too, but should there be evidence that most players who have played in the W-League yet do not satisfy NFOOTY do in fact satisfy the GNG, I would be all in favour of presuming that such players are notable in the future. Macosal (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue is being brought up again in the AFD for the more than adequately-sourced Georgia Plessas. Per the discussion there, I propose we draft up a modified notability guideline for women playing in top leagues. Apparently all that's required to update the guideline is a "consensus" of editors in a talk page discussion. Sounds like a task for the Australia + women's football taskforces. Hmlarson (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What most frustrates me about this whole story is that the W-League definitely seems going to the direction of professional (see Guardian's and ABC's articles from today), yet as I mentioned in the mentioned AFD, the change won't be the factor to change the coverage of the league. Which to my eyes means the professionalism of a league is a poor way to judge the assumed notability of the players in it. The whole of WP:NFOOTY needs an update, but the editors who've been at it for ages have real issues even addressing that their guideline might not be the right way to go. --SuperJew (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another example to further my point, the Dominican Republic's league according to WP:FPL is technically fully-pro. In reality, out of the bunch of players who play there who do have articles about them, the majority are stubs (with the majority of players in the league not having articles at all), and some of the clubs don't even seem to have full squad lists. Soccerway doesn't even list games for players there. The point here is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the point is that professionalism of a league is the wrong way to determine assumed notability for player in it, and must be re-thought. --SuperJew (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Give your opinions at the discussion on sports notability page. --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have placed an WP:AfD on Football West Amateur League Division 1, on the basis of failing to meet WP:GNG. Currently with articles like 2017 Football West season there is listing for the top 4 tiers of the various Perth-based competitions - NPL, State League 1 and State League 2, and the Premier Division of the Amateur League. These teams regularly play in national competitions like qualifiers for FFA Cup, doubling as the main local knockout cup competition - Football West State Cup. This article for the lower division (and for the 4 divisions lower than this, was created in 2016 and has not been regularly updated. I consider the article to have been created just because the information is available in some of the on-line sports statistics packages. Therefore there is also an element of WP:NOTSTATS here. On local radio in Perth on dedicated football programmes, and in local blogs, there is discussion of the various competitions, but with regards to the Amateurs, only for the Premier Division and not for the lower divisions.

Depending upon the outcome, there are also articles that were created at the same time for Football West Amateur League Division 2, Football West Amateur League Division 3, Football West Amateur League Division 4, and Football West Amateur League Division 5, and have the same issues in terms of general notability. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

All of these have now been deleted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Before we get into the new season, I thought now is a good time to raise reformatting the clubs' season pages - I think there are a few small potential changes. Expecting this discussion to be of particular relevance to SuperJew due to his volume of edits on team season articles (which he deserves a lot of credit for) but all thoughts welcome. Changes I would suggest based on the template of 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season (a WP:GA) and WT:FOOTY discussions:

• Transfer sections (e.g. 2016–17 Newcastle Jets FC season#Transfers in): Currently, we're using the "fb in2" templates. This gives us no flexibility in including various information / not including others:
  • No listing of the actual date of the transfer.
  • A "transfer window" column, which doesn't really fit in with the A-League system of transfers which occur throughout the season.
  • A "transfer fee" column, which is usually rare or blank for A-League clubs.
  • An "age" column which is not directly relevant to the transfer.
  • Require template inputs (e.g. for transfer destinations) which are clumsy, and not always in existence.
  • Put flagicons directly after foreign clubs (without a space) for some reason.

I think we should change to something more similar to 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season#Transfers, which avoids the above issues. Being a table, we could also rebrand the "fee" column seen there to "type" to allow noting of releases/retirements/loans etc.

• Secondly, I don't think we should include all the bookings in the stats tables (e.g. 2016–17 Newcastle Jets FC season#Squad statistics). It makes them far denser and harder to read, with more columns devoted to booking information than the far more relevant stats. Again this is a product of the template we're using, I'd suggest we go for something more like the table seen at 2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season#Player statistics, which uses a table which still includes bookings but just in a total column for all comps rather than devoting three columns per comp to these stats.

Feel free to add any other suggestions below. Macosal (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding transfers: I agree it would be preferable to have the transfer date, though question might be "is it enough that the reference is dated?". About transfer window I agree it doesn't really fit with the A-League system, though we do split it into pre-season and mid-season (also on the season transfer pages). Transfer fee is indeed usually unknown/undisclosed or free (for intra-ALeague or loans), so it can go. While age isn't directly relevant to the transfer I think it can help piece interesting info about whether a club is bringing in experience or young-guns. I don't have a preference either way to the template input (and you can bypass it), though it seems like there are a few editors at WP:FOOTY who are looking to delete as many of the Fb templates as they can. Where the flagicons go is the template's issue, I'd suggest bringing it up there (yes, it does look a bit odd).

My only question about a change to a hardcoded table is whether it will be less intuitive to edit.

Yes, it would make more sense to have centralised booking columns (especially as the league is the bulk of the matches anyway). Problem is the template is very helpful as it totals the stats automatically. Having a hardcoded table means the editor has to total the stats, which doubles the work every time stats are updated (which is a pain as it is). Also, if we are changing the table I think it'd be helpful to make the table sortable (for example for seeing top goalscorer) (also the transfers table should stay sortable, though less critical).

--SuperJew (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I think re the age issue, ideally trends as to who clubs are signing should be included in the prose (unfortunately limited on most season articles at present). As for the dates, I think we should operate on the basis that people aren't looking at each reference to get specific dates for transfers. I think the decrease in the number of columns will hopefully make editing significantly easier rather than harder.

As for stats tables, another alternative would be the EFS template, as used at 2013–14 Central Coast Mariners FC season#Squad statistics would automatically add things together. The downside being this table has no column for cards at all (which could be included in a separate table). Macosal (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

E.g. of what I'm thinking:

No.	Position	Player	Transferred from	Fee	Date	Ref
	MF	Kosta Petratos	Perth Glory	Free transfer	25 January 2017	1
	FW	Mario Shabow	Western Sydney Wanderers	Free transfer	5 April 2017	2
	FW	Roy O'Donovan	Central Coast Mariners	Free transfer	20 April 2017	3

I thought you suggested getting rid of the "fee" column? Also I would say we can have no flags for the A-League/Australian clubs (like is done on the transfer pages). And I think it is good to have "end of contract" column. --SuperJew (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree re the flags. Maybe "contract length" could work as a column? And yeah, meant to change the "fee" column to "type" - could include loan/retirement/release/injury replacement etc - thoughts on that? Macosal (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say either "end of contract" or "contract length" works... I'd say the con for "end of contract" (as it is currently) is that usually it's end of season, but not always, and the con for "contract length" is that usually injury-replacement contracts don't have a specific length attached to them (at least not in the references). Agree that we should have a "type" column. --SuperJew (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'll add another point I'm not sure about. In the statistics table, I have debated if to have the H&A stats together with the Finals stats or separate. On one hand, sites like soccerway treat them the same (though ultimatealeague separate the goals, but not the caps), on the other hand the golden boot is given to the top scorer of the H&A season. --SuperJew (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you propose we do with confirmed player sales, which have dollar values like Caceres' move from CCM to Man City for $300,000? Personally, I'm for keeping that columns. - J man708 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess either not have it in the table (as it is I feel that the rare fees confirmed, are usually confirmed long after the original transfer reference, and then the fee is updated but the reference isn't) or have it as a note. --SuperJew (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Still though it's not much of a reason to change that column. I feel that we should keep it as a Transfer Fee column as they are utilised at points, they match similar articles and will quite possibly come into action in the near future. - J man708 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm envisaging a column which can be used for transfer fees if they do occur but can also be used to describe the other types of transfer I mentioned above. Not sure what the catchall word I'm looking for is but something like "type" or "information" seems close. As for the finals thing, I think separate finals columns work well. That said, they are technically part of the "league" statistically, so a bit of a grey area as you say. Macosal (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Type/Fee? - J man708 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, @Macosal: @J man708: do we have any decisions from this discussion? I would like to start next year's season pages, as players are starting to get signed, etc. (for example). --SuperJew (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects here, I'd go ahead using the new format as above (with "type/fee" and either "contract duration" or "contract expiry" as columns where relevant). I've already given it a go at 2017–18 Central Coast Mariners FC season - any thoughts on what I've done there? Macosal (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Macosal. Would you mind re-formatting the transfers in of the Jets so I can see how you envision that one? --SuperJew (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Macosal: I gave it a try on WS Wanderers' new season page. Let me know your thoughts. --SuperJew (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice, looks largely pretty good to me - although the "end of contract" column does look a bit off somehow. I do think "contract length" (as used in the renewal table lower down the page) or adding the month of expiry would make it a bit more polished. Macosal (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I left it like that because the injury replacement contracts are usually unspecified time-wise (at least in the online publications) --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's exactly true. e.g. Iain Fyfe signing for the Jets last season had an initial term of 7 weeks (source). Macosal (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm changing it, and trusting you to help with sources for injury replacements :D --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hack, 2nyte, TheSelectFew, TinTin, Macktheknifeau, and Matilda Maniac:@ArsenalFan700 and Rjbsmith:@Macosal: @J man708: @SuperJew:Recently someone has been moving the page to Tom Rogić diacritic (comma) on top of the C. It's my opinion that since Tom is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the english alphabet that the page should be moved back to Tom Rogic without the diacritic. Thoughts?

I could see arguments either way, but currently the consensus is as you say, that Australian players are written with English letters (even if the source is not-English). I def think if someone wishes to change this it should be opened for discussion here or on WP:FOOTY and not just move on whim. --SuperJew (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's whats happened. Some user has moved it twice in the last two days.Simione001 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Galekovic's doesn't and that's the same concept. I'd rather see them without, but moreso I'd rather see a blanket rule across all. Also, Ned Zelić contains the diacritic, just for the record. - J man708 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, shouldn't have the diacritic. If need be, should be the same as Ante Covic and Jason Culina but with the "Serbian language" link. That should please all users. —Eccy89 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not really fussed if I am honest as long as it's consistent. --TinTin (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to the party but diacritics can't be used on Australian birth certificates so, unless the name with the diacritic is in common use (very unlikely in Australia), the non-accented version of the name should be used. Hack (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Could someone who knows how to do it (J man708 maybe? I see you did a lot of work on the file), update the NYL map to show CoE as defunct and to add Canberra United? --SuperJew (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah dude, no issues. I'll try and do it tomorrow. - J man708 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks mate :) --SuperJew (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, do you reckon we should redirect the Northern Fury page to NQU, or create a new page completely for the club? - J man708 (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

From the limited information I can find, it is the same club with the same board, just a change in name, logo, etc. so I would think re-direct. Umarghdunno (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - seems like the club are calling it a rebranding rather than a fresh start. Macosal (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Some articles state that he is born in Iran [3], others say Sydney [4]. Can anyone provide a definitive answer to this question?Simione001 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Official A-League season guide says Sydney. Page 33. http://howe.how/football/HAL_season-guide_201718.pdf Umarghdunno (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

this World Game article also says Iran, as does this Herald Sun article (behind a paywall, but saw the relevant text when I searched "Daniel Arzani Iran born" on Google News). --SuperJew (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i saw that. Not sure what to believe. Simione001 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring up a frank discussion on whether there is a need to have both "Youth" and "NPL" team articles for each A-League club. As every team (bar Wellington) now has their own NPL team competing I thought it would be a good time to bring up this discussion. Obviously there are some minor technical details regarding both teams - can field some over-23s and senior players that have played more than 10 games etc. in the NYL whereas you cannot in the NPL. Therefore the squads can be slightly different. Another reason for this is obviously the timing so I think the 'contracts' are only restricted tournament to tournament. Baring all this in mind, I still think there probably isn't enough information for there to be two separate articles per youth team. Even the English Premier League teams on wiki use a "Reserves & Academy" article and separates from there e.g. Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy and Manchester City F.C. Reserves and Academy. In all reality they are essentially the same team/same function just competing in different competitions. Also, it can be a little confusing for some as sometimes the NPL is being reported as Youth (and linked to the Youth team) e.g. 2016 Football NSW season#2016 National Premier League NSW Men's 2. I'm happy to go with consensus, but I'm leaning to merging the articles... Love to know your thoughts @J man708, @Matilda Maniac, @SuperJew and @TinTin and please invite others to the discussion. Eccy89 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to just have one main article with both squads perhaps listed and a note mentioning why there are two squads. I'm with you, Eccy. I don't think too many people would be against it. You're right by saying that not enough information would be out there for two articles, as opposed to simply two sections of the one article. While we're on the NPL Youth topic, if anyone wants to create the proper page for the Canberra United Academy FC, I'd be really thankful! - J man708 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed someone mentioned this a fair while ago with Perth Glory FC Youth. I looks like they have merged those two teams. However, the Melbourne teams still exist (and somebody has recently created a Sydney FC one too!). Not sure how to proceed with merging though, never done it before. Eccy89 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we have already touched on this topic (and other related issues and queries) in above discussion on this page. I don't believe there is a need to have two separate pages for both the NPL and Youth side. Perhaps we need to change the name of the NYL/NPL pages to eg Perth Glory FC Youth & NPL or something to this effect. Simione001 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That would probably be the best way of doing it. It would probably be most effective for consistency across all pages. I believe Central Coast is currently Central Coast Mariners Academy and I know that term has been thrown around at Sydney FC too. Probably would need to change this name for consistency (or use "academy" for all?) Also Simione001, how did you guys merge the Perth youth one ages ago? Just adjusted the "Youth" one and put a redirect in the "NPL" one? Eccy89 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would hold of from taking any action until a consensus is established. Simione001 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, I wasn't going to do anything tonight. Was just interested in the merging process. I had a peek through edit revisions for the Perth stuff, looks like they just cut and redirected like I suspected. Eccy89 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Youth should suffice. The Olympic teams are called Under 23's, despite being allowed three over-age players. If they're referred to as Under 23's, then surely we can just keep them as "Youth" - J man708 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Previously I wasn't sure about merging these, but reading your discussion it sounds the best option. I think "Youth" would be enough to cover both teams, as in the NPL the youth team competes. Academy should only be used IMO when that's the official name, as in the case of Central Coast. Regarding Phoenix, I'm not sure they should be named like the rest as they are in a different boat. --SuperJew (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wellington Phoenix FC Reserves. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd support one Youth article per A-League club with sections on each competition they send teams to. Being generic in this way also allows such articles to cover ad-hoc and pre-season competitions which may not perfectly fit with either NPL or NYL squads. --TinTin (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd support one Youth article per A-League club with sections on each competition they send teams to. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we have reached a consensus then :-) well in! —Eccy89 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a bold edit to all "youth" team articles removing the word youth and replacing it with reserves. It seems many people are getting confused when they see the word youth in a players infobox under senior career when such player has played in the npl which is a senior comp (this issue keeps coming up over and over again as per[5]). Since the npl is s senior comp it by far supersede the NYL so ive changed the names of the clubs to reflect this also. @TinTin:, I think its time to merge the two Melbourne City articles (Youth and NPL). Seems like we reached a consensus a while back. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge Melbourne City NPL

As part of the above proposing the merger of Melbourne City FC NPL into Melbourne City FC Youth with separate sections for each team in the same article. --TinTin (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that a discussion was previously held over this, and I'm too late to the party to take part in that - my loss, but whatever. I have to oppose this, though, for Melbourne City in particular (I honestly haven't looked at the other clubs to see if the circumstances are the same). I would be all for it if the club itself were treating the teams for the two competitions as two aspects of one team, but it's quite clear from looking at Melbourne City's website that it believes they are two distinct units. They've been given separate squad lists (Youth) (NPL), separate fixture lists (Youth) [http://www.foxsportspulse.com/team_info.cgi?c=0-10178-160768-337121-21800675&a=SFIX (NPL - yes, this is where the official website links), and it's very noticeable that when they hired a manager for the NPL side in its first season they did not choose their youth manager (Joe Palatsides) although he now does fill that role, but instead they opted for the man who ended up as the W-League team manager (Joe Montemurro).

Going back to one of the arguments raised in the section above, by the way, if we are talking precedent then using the Reserves and Academy articles from England is a poor example. The reason these two (i.e. clubs' reserves and their academies) were grouped together originally is because neither team played in competitive football, or particularly as part of the national league structure. That for a start does not apply to Melbourne City NPL. However, the bigger picture is that I believe the trend among English teams and their articles is going to increasingly looking towards favouring the splitting up of U-21s and the rest of the academy. We already have articles such as Arsenal F.C. Reserves which specifically does not include the Academy but is solely for the U-21s. Furthermore, in a parallel of what we are looking at here with the creation of NPL teams in Australia for A-League sides, the talk right now is that very soon the U-21 sides of Premier League clubs are going to start playing in the Football League Trophy - not even a league competition, just a cup, but a competitive one against actual league pyramid sides - and when that happens then I guarantee you you'll see all of those teams creating separate articles for those teams now that they have a background of competitive competition. I will be leading the way in that regard - I've considered making a separate Manchester City Elite Development Squad (i.e. U-21) article for some time and right now I'm just waiting for the announcement that they will be playing in the said cup competition before I do it. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right you are both too late and outnumbered. Unless you find many other users to back your opinion I think you have been outvoted and the two articles need to be merged and your new text about the U21s included within the existing article. --TinTin (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support merge.Simione001 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Was about to close this one the grounds of a stale proposal with no consensus, on the grounds that the case of Melbourne doesn't seem to be the same as the general case (arguments above), there was one well-reasoned objection, followed by two votes against which produced no counter-arguments or new arguments in favor of the merge. Remember that merge discussions are not about voting, and that numbers for/against are less important than the arguments/counter-arguments made. On the grounds that the specific objections have not been refuted, I was planning on closing this stale proposal. I also note that since the above discussion the youth team page has changed its name to Melbourne City FC Reserves, which further complicates implementing any merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, please see the discussion here regarding proposed deletion of A-League captains navboxes. --SuperJew (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, please see here and here regarding TfD wishing to delete typing-aid templates used by this task force, and comment your thoughts at the discussion. Pinging active editors: @Simione001, Umarghdunno, J man708, Macosal, Hack, Matilda Maniac, Rjbsmith, and FastCube: --SuperJew (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

At WT:FOOTY they were looking for extra eyes on this discussion about the A-League "Level on pyramid". Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your inputs are welcomed in Template talk:2018–19 A-League table, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, if anyone has some free time, the Northern Fury FC page is in dire need of some updating from their time in the NPL Queensland, rebranding as North Queensland United and subsequent demise. - J man708 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if there has been many actual articles on any of that. NPL Qld not the greatest coverage at the best of times. Also, does anybody know what is actually going on with the finances and how FQ is run? With Gold Coast City and FNQ/Cairns FC that makes three "big" clubs folded in two seasons. —Eccy89 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. An edit war is near on the cards between me and User:J man708 over the use of Melbourne City's club icon. Several months ago I uploaded what I considered an improved version (all sky blue) but that was promptly changed back and I was told to perhaps incorporate something from their logo as opposed to just a blue slab. So fair enough that is what I did. That doesn't seem to satisfy J man who looks like he wants to die in a ditch over this, never mind my icon I would argue is a fair and accurate representation of the club's primary colours (blue and red) and their logo. Anyway, rather than go tit for tat I thought I would be willing to submit my icon and J man's preferred icon to fellow wiki editors. If a majority prefer the original them I'm happy to give up pursuing this. Here are the two icons in question. Which do you prefer? EDIT: Have since added a third option, which is an update to the aforementioned "blue slab" icon.
(1)

(2)

(3)

Pinging active editors: @Simione001, Umarghdunno, Macosal, Hack, Matilda Maniac, Rjbsmith, FastCube, SuperJew, and J man708: Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted the edit once and when you undid that, I offered up a compromise. Seems a little "pot calling the kettle black". The icon you're suggesting I don't feel conveys the club as an icon as well as the original did. That's all. - J man708 (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't undo your reversion, I actually followed your advice and provided this new icon, so I hate to sound petty but let's at least acknowledge that I offered a compromise well before you did. Not sure why you think my icon "doesn't convey the club as well as the original", particularly given that original includes a colour the club (navy blue) it used for only two seasons, but obviously we disagree on this so hopefully some fresh eyes can help out. Global-Cityzen (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the elimination of these such icons entirely, under WP:ICONDECORATION. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The end result will be deletion of the icons. Just a heads up. The reason why I'm not a fan of your suggestion is that the cross isn't shown on their kits, nor is the colour red at all. I feel as though the blues cover the club's different kits a lot better. Adelaide United didn't have blue and yellow in their early seasons. Victory didn't have a V in season 1. Brisbane Roar didn't have black in the early seasons. But overall these colours cover them best. But, as I said, it matters little now. It will be voted out and replaced with having no icons. Thanks. - J man708 (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Matilda Maniac. Where are we even using them that this has become an issue? I thought they were deleted a long time ago. —Eccy89 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify a point of view, any icons should be used to help improve navigation or comprehension. The first example looks like Sydney FC colours so that would be too confusing for readers and the 2nd and 3rd options aren't instantly recognizable as Melbourne City to me. In summary, what MM said. —Eccy89 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is part of why I don't think these icons should be included. While I guess I would say #1 is the better of the 3 options, I don't believe these are in line with other similar articles from other competitions nor adding a lot to the page. Macosal (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The third option probably comes in closest to representing them although it's questionable as to whether the colour red would officially be recognised as club colour. I think it just lingers as a throw back to their Heart days on their logo and their away kit. I think a club's colours are embodied by their main kit, i.e. sky blue (or city blue I think they call it) and white. Umarghdunno (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the navy blue to the red is because the navy is used as a trim, being around the club crest, the shirt names and numbers and also being what the sponsors are shown in. Currently red isn't anything to do with the club, outside of the St George cross. - J man708 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Currently red isn't anything to do with the club, outside of the St George cross”. That is inaccurate. As well the cross on the logo (a fairly prominent feature of any club I would argue), red is their main away kit and is in fact the only colour to consistently have been used by the club since their inception. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Your preference for navy blue is a little mystifying; the shirt names and numbers are white this season and have been ever been navy once (last season, previous to that they were sky blue when they had a mostly white home kit, same is true for sponsors). Also it’s a little strange to argue for navy blue on the basis that it "is used as a trim around the club crest”, which has miniscule visual impact compared to the red cross. All the more reason I favour 2 just ahead of 3, with 1 a distant third.

• Finally with respect to deletion of icons; they do exist and are quite prominent on many A-League/W-League pages and maps, so it would be good if we could keep discussion to the merits of these icons, unless your seriously suggesting all A-League icons will be gone from Wikipedia within a week. Global-Cityzen (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: There have been quite a few discussions about getting rid of these icons, both here and on WT:FOOTY and the consensus is mostly to get rid of them. --SuperJew (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's more mystifying to me to promote red which has never been used on the kit and is merely on the St George cross, but to shelve the idea of using dark blue? Perhaps we should follow the colours the A-League uses in marketing the teams as seen here?. - J man708 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Jman. Red has always been on the Melbourne City kits, be it in their Heart days as the home or since the CFG takeover in literally every single away kit. If your contention is seriously that navy/dark blue has more relevance to the club than red than you are just plain wrong. Red is such a prominent colour the tension said associated with diminishing it in favour of the sky blue home kit is discussed on the actual Melb. City article. Navy blue just isn’t. And SuperJew, if these icons are going no problem by me. My point is just that we shouldn’t delay action in this regard just because of the spectre of deletion. If it has been decided to get rid of these icons then let’s go ahead and get rid of them from some very prominent A-League related articles. Global-Cityzen (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: Be my guest :) I'd take care of it myself, but I have been unjustly blocked the past few months and I have a heap of stuff to catch up on first (as well as real life being busier than in the past recently). --SuperJew (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I vote for none. It doesn't add anything to this article or indeed any of the other Australian articles that these icons appear in.Hack (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Red was Heart. Blue is City. People bitched about it and City ended out making "amends" to this by making the Heart colours an Away kit. That's about it. If we're adding in the St George cross, why not add the sheep, cow, boat and Moby Dick? Why should the colours of Melbourne Heart, a dead entity define their colours when again, the A-League logo when in Melbourne City trim shows navy blue? - J man708 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, add the sheep. Please add the sheep ! I wont comment about WP:ICONDECORATION again if you just added the sheep. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Because red is a Melbourne City colour J man708 and we don’t just blindly follow one solitary official source to the detriment of common sense. Ask any Melbourne City fan, observe any Melbourne City crowd (particularly their active support), consider any Melbourne City away kit, consider the dominant colours of the Melbourne City logo and you will note the distinct presence of red, and not navy blue. But bring it on, this discussion has appeared to settle on deleting these icons, so delete them from every Wikipedia article i shall, notwithstanding that in my view some articles actually benefit from their use (WP:APPROPRIATEICONS). Global-Cityzen (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? It's a Melbourne City colour? For someone complaining that navy blue was in only one home kit, you seem to be pretty quiet that red is in precisely zero home kits! Red isn't a colour that is used by the City Group. Neither New York, Man City nor Melb City use it. The only one that does is Yokohama, which is a club the Group doesn't own! So, I've given you now two large points in that the colour red appears nowhere on any of their kits and that the FFA themselves use navy blue when advertising the league in the Melbourne City colours and you've argued WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not much more. - J man708 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I will say it again. Red is the only colour to have remained part of the club since its inception, which was in 2009 as Melbourne Heart. It’s now used as their away kit, despite the CFG takeover. , and has been retained in their crest (which was a deliberate act on their part). Frankly what colours the other CFG colours are is irrelevant. The FFA use City’s own sky blue colours in their advertising and we don’t rely only on official sources like those which is just an advertising campaign, we prefer WP:SECONDARY. No amount of editing can replace notability, and the simple fact is red is more notable than navy blue for this club for all the reasons I’ve outlined above. “you've argued WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not much more.” Pot meet kettle. Global-Cityzen (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'll number my points so you can retort to them. Please convince me why red should be seen over dark blue for city's third colour.

1) The club was rebranded in 2014 as City. That means that Heart is gone. Kaput. Finito. The amount of "colouring" that City uses in their kit (which is focussed on their crest alone) is nothing more than a token gesture.

2) For the record, away kits mean very little. Should Germany be defined by the Irish green they used in their away kits of the 1950s-1990s? Of course not. As for the CFG colours, I'm sure you'd be more than happy to use it as a part of your argument if one of the other CFG clubs utilised red...

3) If red is such an important colour and so clearly the tertiary colour that you're alluding to, why is it on a grand total of 0% of their home kits, outside of the crest; whereas dark blue actually is used as a tertiary colour?

4) Why has dark blue been used in the A-League advertisements and not red?

5) If Heart's colours are so important to show, why are we avoiding the first City A-League kit's (2014-15) two large stripes of sky and dark blue?

Look, we both agree that Heart was red (and white) wholeheartedly. But Heart is dead. This isn't them anymore, "This is City". - J man708 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

1) Yes the club was rebranded in 2014, rebranded being the operative word. They took over the club, changed the name, brought in new people but preserved the history, literally and symbolically. This is one and the same club, they way I know this is that we didn't create a new article when CFG came along and kept Melbourne Heart FC. Unlike say Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, which were separate clubs and merged to form the Brisbane Lions. The colouring City uses, or any club for that matter, on BOTH their crest and the kits is critical to determining what kind of icon should be used. Otherwise your preference of navy blue is just as much of a token gesture as any other colour.

2) Sure away kits can be meaningless, and often are for clubs that chop and change. But are you seriously suggesting that because this is the case for one team that the same must be true for City. As one single club in effect since 2009, red (and white) have been common to at least one of the home and away kits since day dot. If Germany had preserved green in their kits and crest since the 1800's, then yeah a Green-inspired German icon would be appropriate, but as you correctly note that isn't the case.

3) Dark blue is NOT used as a tertiary colour by the club. Not on their current home kit, not on any of their home kits except for 2014/15 and 2015/16, and even then it was only a minor colour. Red is a tertiary colour for the reasons I have outlined and their current away kit is relevant because of the history of their home kit, which like it or not, was red (and white) at the start. Red is also one of three predominant colours on the crest, navy is not.

4) Doesn't matter. We are not obligated to follow an A-League marketing campaign. What an absurd doctrine that would create.

5) I can only repeat myself. Red IS a City colour, just not on their home kit any more but certainly on their home kit for several seasons and now preserved on their away kit and crest, which as I pointed out in my link above was a deliberate decision on the part of the club. None of this is true for navy blue, which is why I submit any City icon would be best to include red, or at least include it ahead of navy blue.

But I suppose this is an elementary argument. There is a consensus for deleting these icons, so I'm happy to continue that slow process across the many articles these icons are featured in. Global-Cityzen (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help deleting the icons Global-Cityzen :) While you're going through, make sure also to look through old club season pages (2013-14 and earlier I think). --SuperJew (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

1) So if the colouring on "BOTH their crest and the kits is critical to determining what kind of icon should be used" then why do you believe that red takes precedence over dark blue and that the crest should take precedence over the kit? What about sponsors? Shouldn't that also come in to play then, seeing as how they are also changed to be dark blue on the kits? (Etihad's logo is gold normally, but has been changed to be dark blue on their shirts). What about the shirt name and number? From memory, they've been dark blue each season. If red is such an important colour to City, why do they themselves seldom use it?

2) Right, I'm saying that away kits and third kits shouldn't be counted in this discussion, as they can be defined by literally anything. What next, goalkeeper kits being on icons, too?

3) "Not on any of their home kits except for 2014/15 and 2015/16" - That's 40% of their kits overall? That's pretty relevant, wouldn't you agree?

4) Again though, you're missing the point. Let's take a non-judgemental person and call him "Mr A-League Marketing Man" and tell him to pick three colours per club to use in a new A-League advertising campaign. Why is it that a random, completely unbiased marketing person(s) has decided that dark blue and not red is the best way to convey Melbourne City?

5) If red is a city colour, why is it not used for even little things, like trim? I mean, it's not like blue, white and bits of red are already marketed in CFG kits or anything, huh? - J man708 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

PS - The icons are also used on other language Wikis. Best get deletin'! - J man708 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I've deleted enough icons for now, especially that navy blue City icon. I'm considering filing for a request for deletion for each of them, considering we all so enthusiastically consider them obsolete. But I know how hard you've worked on them @J man708: 😉 and I don't want to be petty. Global-Cityzen (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you are going to agree, nor get much consensus from the rest. Maybe add a red stripe to option 1 and call a truce. Umarghdunno (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Global-Cityzen: Don't be pointy. The consensus is to remove all the icons when removing them, not just City's. As I currently don't have time to go through all your deletions and delete the rest I'm reverting all your POINTY deletions for now. --SuperJew (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"We all so enthusiastically want them deleted" - proceeds to talk about why the colour red is so important.

"I don't want to be petty" - "I know how hard you've worked on them".

Do you even know what you want? Sure as hell sounds like you're flip-flopping to come across as being on a winning "side" to this.

For the record, I didn't actually "work" on any of the icons apart from Melbourne City's (which I did in MS Paint in about 15 seconds), that would be Yoka Genkaku from Wikimedia Commons. You seem less interested in making an encyclopedia and more interested in trying to cause issues and win arguments. WP:DBAD - J man708 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@J man708: I long since past the point of not caring about this, right around the moment we decided to delete these icons. I'm sure you could accuse each of us of proof by repeated assertion, but you might like to pause and consider that the only editor (who wasn't originally pinged) to have interjected him/herself into this debate was Umarghdunno, who says and I quote "maybe add a red stripe to option 1 and call a truce" which would be fine by me but if your repeated assertions are anything to go by, I don't think that would satisfy you. Global-Cityzen (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are 'long since past the point of not caring about this" then simply stop editing, and move on to other ways to contribute and strengthen this encyclopedia. But I do suggest that beginning with comments of "I don't want to start an edit war but . . . " are not helpful in engaging other editors seeking input and ultimately some form of consensus. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Macosal went with option 1, what's your point? I was prepared to find a compromise, but you went and kneejerk style deleted everything like it was going out of fashion. Nobody else would've done it, because nobody else really cared enough to even talk about it. - J man708 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. @J man708:. I began the process of deleting icons from various pages because that is what we agreed to. The MCY icon, and all A-League icons, have been cut substantially as a result of my beginning this discussion, and I've deleted them from several articles/maps, including the most high-profile pages. When you reverted some of my deletions because pins were not added, I did exactly that. Deleting some icons seems to be a pretty good way to start going about deleting all icons. So irrespective of my opinion, a consensus around deletion was formed and I followed through with it. Pretty much exactly how wikipedia is supposed to work. The one user to suggest a compromise to the icon was Umarghdunno who suggested modifying it by adding red, but we both know you don't agree with that. And @Matilda Maniac:, contributing and strengthening this encyclopedia is the sole reason I'm here, perhaps that's why I was invited to join the women's soccer task force and the Women in red project. We all contribute here, all of us with good intent, and I think your an exemplar of that, so I'm a little disappointed you apparently aren't willing to grant me that same courtesy. Global-Cityzen (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you want from me? The discussion on Melbourne City's colours should be over after you decided that a consensus had been reached and deleted them all. Now you're lecturing me about how I'm wrong. What are you honestly trying to achieve at this point? - J man708 (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Does it seriously surprise you that someone might respond when you say slanderous things like "You seem less interested in making an encyclopedia and more interested in trying to cause issues and win arguments". Frankly, I think you've misrepresented my point of views repeatedly in this discussion simply because you decided that red had no place in a MCY icon. That's fine, but don't act holier-than-thou when someone chooses to respond rather than simply ignore. Global-Cityzen (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Then make an encyclopedia and don't retort 48 hours later with "I'm long since the point ignored caring about this" and then proceeding to flog the dead horse. - J man708 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going over W-League transfers for 2018–19 season and trying to add outs from last season (harder to come by in the W-League). One of the things I'm noticing is many players are at club A for a one season loan, return to their parent club, and are then loaned to club B. I'm debating how best to show it on table. Currently I've had the "from club" as club A, "to club" as club B, and added a note saying they returned to parent club in between. (in A-League transfers for 2018–19 season Mauk and McGree also went this path). Any suggestions and thoughts. Pinging @Matilda Maniac and Lanna1990: being active editors on the W-League this season, where this issue seems more widespread. --SuperJew (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, its a bit tricky that. Women's football seems to have a lot of unofficially shared players aswell, who spend half a year here and the other half in the US in order to make a career out of it. Can't say I blame them in the slightest, just that we're left with trying to figure out exactly which way to show the endless merry-go-round of transfers. I guess if they are at the parent club and their parent club has no fixtures before she is transferred again, then we could probably cut out the middleman, even if it is their parent club.

Food for thought - Look at mid-season manager transfers for something kinda similar. If a manager goes from A to B, they're listed as joining B first as the position was vacant prior to club A being vacated, so on our tables it shows them being at their new club just before leaving the old one. I dont really know how to word my point, but something something chronological order not as important as showing it concisely?... Shit, I don't know. - J man708 (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The articles on US based players invariably are from the viewpoint of a Loan, whereas there is scant evidence provided that these players are on long-term multi-year contracts with teams in the NWSL, for example Rachel Hill. The paradigm is based on what occurs for the men's game, and may look good but not in fact be accurate. A player can play for Orlando Pride for six months, then go and get an independent contract to play for Perth Glory, then sign another contract and go and play for Orlando Pride the next year. Where is the evidence that they have been loaned ? Where is the evidence of a transfer merry-go-round ? The reality seems to be that most players sign single season contracts and may have multiple contracts during a year, and are not chattels of the clubs that are loaned out similar to the men's game. If you don't accept the validity of a transfer merry-go-round then that changes how that transfer table is structured/displayed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the state of things is in the NWSL, but as far as I know in the W-League, up until last season players would sign one season contracts every season (hence why I put in the "Re-signings" section in the W-League transfers page). Since last season there seems to be a want to move to multi-year deals (as van Egmond's joining Jets last year, though seems it wasn't completely official) (also read this). But I think this move will take time anyways. Do you have a suggestion how to structure/display the transfer table Matilda Maniac? I agree with you Jman that we need to show it in the best way. Debating what that way is :) (and anyway I think it should have a healthy use of notes to explain anything which might seem strange to a reader/editor with more/less info) --SuperJew (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tildawg, see I didn't even know that was the case, I thought it were just a series of loans and co-ownership. Guess that shows what I know. - J man708 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)