Talk:2014–15 Dundee United F.C. season

Club season articles
Just wanted to bring up the changes you were making to the Dundee United season article. I've tried to make that article more consistent with other current season articles, rather than what has been used in previous season articles, and that's why I went for the wikitable with merged disciplinary records as that seems to be the common option. Especially if you consider the discussion at WikiProject Football on a new MOS for club seasons. I also don't see what adding in a management statistics section brings to the article if there hasn't been a managerial change during the season as the W-D-L record can just be read off the league table above so it just seems pretty unnecessary. These are just my opinions though. I'd like to hear your viewpoint so we can agree on what should be used rather than just constantly making changes back and forth. Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My changes brought it inline with other Scottish football season articles including past United ones, personally I feel that's important so would argue all needs changed for consistency. I have no issues with well designed dual purpose tables, however that particular one is a very poor example and is very difficult to follow and in my opinion has accessibility issues with the icons. It only very narrowly ended up being used initially on the Celtic articles it was created for and whilst their was a discussion on it was left as no consensus whilst it was just being used there. Very much against it being used more widespread. The management stats are useful I feel and I certainly would include them as not everyone will be able to calculate win percentages themselves and it is source-able to a few places. I would concede on that no problem, but I see no reason to include the dual table in its current format. I wasn't aware of the new mos discussion and will raise points there as I have a few minor concerns about it.  Blethering   Scot  15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll leave things as you have them just now. Although, depending on what consensus is reached for the new MOS, I may look to make changes in order to bring things in line with the expected format. Username of a generic kind (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * its pretty clear that it's not exactly going to be a set format at this stage more a list of what should & shouldn't be there, if you do make changes then you will need to make same changes to the others as consistency will still stand as an issue. As I've said no problem including a joint table but not that one. It's not in the mos & never will be. It's a wiki table developed without consensus. I would also suggest you discuss on the talk page of article prior to any changes as well. Blethering   Scot  12:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * are there any other workable dual templates you have seen. Blethering  Scot  01:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My preference would be for something along the lines of this:


 * My reasoning is that because the majority of Scottish articles lack prose, we should be wary not to overload the articles with an excessive amount of tables. I think this table works quite well as there isn't much change from the current table and it just adds a disciplinary column on the end. Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)