This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. bd2412T 15:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are two separate championships played over the course of one season (for example, in many Latin American countries with their Apertura/Clausura system) OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment- all of those leagues are determined purely on the basis of league play, hence the use of the word league unqualified is fine. The A-League is comprised of a league competition and a final series which together comprise the A-League season. Hack (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Still don't understand why the format of the season affects if it should have the word season attached to the name. Also both UEFA Champions and UEFA Europa League are not determined purely on the basis of league play and do not have the word season attached to their season pages. --SuperJew (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment- SuperJew, I would assume that the 2013–14 UEFA Champions League is one competition with various stages, where as the 2013–14 A-League is a separate competition to the Final Series of that season (the league acting as qualification for the end-of-season play-off tournament). So, it could be said the 2013–14 A-League season is comprised of two separate competitions.--2nyte (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The UEFA Champions is the same as the A-League in the regard of phases. There is a play-off stage which "acts as qualification" for the group stage which "acts as qualification" for the knock-out phase. --SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that the addition of season to the article name will add clarification. Is clarification really necessary? If so, why?--2nyte (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The English lower league winners are not determined on the basis of those playoff series, they're just a way of working out promotion places (a similar process applies in the Netherlands with the European playoffs). The A-League regular season and finals are distinct but interconnected competitions which are part of a single championship. Hack (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - do we have articles on the play-offs? If not, there is no reason to disambiguate. GiantSnowman 10:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
no, only about the grand final, like most tournaments with cups have. I think we should continue as now, firstly because there is no difference, and secondly (as stated above) both UEFA Champions and UEFA Europa League have a few phases, but do not attach the word season to their page title. --SuperJew (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost all of these articles refer to xxxx–xx A-League season in the lead and the seasons are almost always referred to as A-League seasons in reliable sources. Most of the links to these articles have to be piped in prose because of the awkwardness of xxxx–xx A-League. Wikipedia should be following reliable sources, not inventing usages - especially when the relevant manual of style mentions this league specifically. Hack (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hack, I can see your point, though in relation to links to season articles the same can be said about the Premier League and La Liga. Where xxxx–xx league season or xxxx–xx season is used due to the 'awkwardness' of xxxx–xx league. I think we should really question the manual of style; why aren't all leagues titled xxxx–xx league season?--2nyte (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - If the MOS for this type of article suggests that "season" be added to the titles of these articles, then I suggest that the MOS was badly formulated. There's no need for "season" to be added to the titles of these articles; if anything, it would introduce an element of inconsistency that we don't really need. – PeeJay 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per PeeJay. I just don't see any benefit to this change. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree that the problem here is the MOS, not these article titles. GiantSnowman 10:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Oh this is a vote? Well I oppose too, as per above. --SuperJew (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
marking injuried players in the leading goalscorers box
I seem to have a little problem with this, as we usually mark the players based on the current round, but (i think) we don't do this retroactively. for example, this week Emile Heskey is injured and won't play in Newcastle's game. but if he scores a goal in a couple of months, I have a strong feeling he'll be added to the table, but this round's injury won't be marked. any thoughts? --SuperJew (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should just have a plain list of goal scorers like other leagues without the round by round stats.--2nyte (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the round by round is good, as it can show patterns for players. and the table does not subtract from seeing just the scorers. --SuperJew (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Differentiating between the Griffiths players
I don't mind either way, I'm just saying we've started a format of only using the players last names and I think with a hyperlink it's quite acceptable, though again I don't mind.--2nyte (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's preferable to use only the last names, but if they are the same then it's problematic. --SuperJew (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I know I'm late on the scene and this might sound odd, but there are two Nascar drivers, Kyle and Kurt Busch. These two drivers are differentiated by being noted as Ky. Busch and Ku. Busch. It's the only place I can think of where an issue such as this occurs. J man708 (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It was said on the broadcast (as the attendance is usually), but there are a couple of sources online - just did a quick google search and found 3 sources on the first page, here's one .--2nyte (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Read both discussions, both seem to have gone full circle with no action to be taken.--2nyte (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the tag and the discussions are unwarranted. Pretty sure I'm on your side on this one. Just wanted to point you the origin of the tag. --SuperJew (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems the user who added the overly detailed tag seems to think the article fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, specifically that the article has detailed statistical information beyond interest, and that it would be "just as well served by the existing header and a few lines of prose listing the major players, major events to date and the finals matches when they occur". Also stating "we could remove the stats entirely and produce a far better encyclopedia article".--2nyte (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)