Talk:Ipswich Town F.C.

Edit request from 144.124.221.17, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Add Paul Jewell to the managers list

144.124.221.17 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The list on the main ITFC page is for managers who have managed 50 or more games. And McParland is still managing the team until after Wednesday's defeat against Arsenal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Once you find a reliable source, please make a new edit request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the manager list restricted to those who have managed for 50 games? This isn't a restriction on any other English club manager list - and Ipswich have had fewer managers than most clubs. Why 50 games anyway? It's an extremely arbitrary number robeff1 10th July 2011

Also, can the anon editor who keeps editing the squad numbers, please stop? These numbers were based on a report from a fansite that said that the numbers concerned "may give an indication of the squad numbers" for 2011/12. They still have the old numbers on their own page, as does the official site. Maybe worth semi-protecting until squad numbers are announced? robeff1 10th July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Please see List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers for a full article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict Added a hidden note to that effect [re: squad numbers] in the hope it lets well meaning anon editors know and thus resolves the issue. Semi-Protection possibly wouldn't go amiss though, see if things change... - JCJ (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know where the full article is, The Rambling man - that doesn't answer my questions.

• Why is the manager list restricted to those who have managed for 50 games? This isn't a restriction on any other English club manager list - and Ipswich have had fewer managers than most clubs.
• Why 50 games anyway? It's an extremely arbitrary number. This means that Paul Jewell can't be listed under Ipswich managers until he's been there for over a season. It does not make sense. It makes more sense to list permanent managers. robeff1 18th July 2011
  • It's restricted to prevent the main article becoming too big. PJ is mentioned in the infobox in the lead, in the main section of the article too. Should be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not stopping it being too big - at the moment you've got two lines explaining why the current manager isn't listed as an Ipswich manager, instead of one line with his record. 50 is far too arbitrary, it doesn't make sense, and it's not used for any other club. I propose it's changed to list all permanent managers. robeff1 31st July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

I agree, the current rule does not make any sense. I can see the reasoning for excluding caretaker managers who only managed a few games, but Paul Jewell (and Mick O'Brien) clearly should be in the main article Dergraaf (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why PJ and Mick (in particular) "clearly" belong in the main article. PJ is mentioned and his stats are updated both on his page and the managers page. Perhaps the best solution is to move all the managers off this main page, that way no-one can complain. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with lists like this on mainpages is that unless they have a clear criteria (as this one does) you can end up with things like Barrow_A.F.C.#Managers where you have all sorts of odd things (1977 and 1985 for example, we clearly good years). Either you have a clear entry criteria for the list or a prose summary of the most important managers (in this case, Ramsey, Robson and Burley are the most clearly obvious inclusions) and a link to the list as shown. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion is clearly stated: "Only managers in charge for a minimum of 50 professional, competitive matches are included here. " so I don't see a major issue. If anyone really does have an issue then I'll remove the lot and just point at the main list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I had a re-jig. Only permanent managers shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

• It features a sort function
• Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
  • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
  • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
• It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
• It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
• It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Ipswich Town F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to participate in any trial which provides more support for those who have accessibility issues with our content. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)