Talk:A-League transfers for 2015–16 season

Dates here

@Macosal:

The dates should by date of transfer, not announcement time.

--SuperJew (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think? I based this page on the model of pages such List of English football transfers summer 2015 which all go by announcement, including the explanatory note that many transfers won't go through until 30 June/1 July (I'm not sure that the day after the Grand Final is of any particular relevance contractually). Past equivalents of this page also do the same (eg A-League transfers for 2012–13 season).

I would also hesitate to describe a player as "released" when he may sign with another club before the end of his current contract.

On a related note, what is your opinion on the inclusion of club colours? I'm not a huge fan (I deliberately omitted them) because the page ends up becoming cluttered by dozens of these coloured boxes which may or may not mean anything to anyone - see WP:ICONDECORATION for more on this.

Also re a couple of these transfers - Hoole is going to Sydney (see the source I previously had there) and I wouldn't call De Silva's move a "loan return" given that Roma couldn't sign him before he turned 18 (official sources seem to call it an "option to buy" or something like that).

On an unrelated note, do you think the page title looks weird? I created it in line with previous editions but "A-League transfers for the 2015–16 season reads a lot more naturally to me.

Macosal (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, based on announcement time is ridiculous when some players sign pre-contracts, as the players currently listed did.

The term "released" means released from the club and contract, when signed by another club we add it in.

I think the flags and club colours are great, they help give an easy visual on the players and when sorting the players are sorted according to their clubs which can be helpful.

About Hoole you're right, I didn't notice and have reverted myself on that. Regarding De Silva, that's what I understood about the deal. Read the reference.

Page title, I don't really mind, either way is fine by me, just make sure if you change it to keep it consistent by changing all previous years.

---SuperJew (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen anywhere on any transfers page on Wikipedia where transfer date is used over date of announcement (including past equivalents of this page), and I'm not quite sure why that date when unspecified should be assumed to be the day after the final day of the season (ie there is a strong WP:CONSENSUS through editing to use the date of announcement).

I'm also not sure at all what is being described as "released" here - just that the player or club had said that he wouldn't be signing a new contract? Hoole is a pretty classic free transfer whether or not he had stated an intention to move anywhere first. Adding in the next club a player signs for, whenever that may be, is not really done anywhere but on some of these A-League articles and I'm not sure that a set of brackets is better than just using unattached when a player is actually released (ie has no contract with any club at a particular point) or singed after being a free agent.

I think the point of WP:ICONDECORATION is that some people may like colourful icons added in, others may not, but if they aren't serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose then they shouldn't be kept. Re for sorting, there are plenty of ways to sort things however anyone likes using template:sort without needing to add in elements (the current sorting system, in which brackets are also being sorted alphabetically, is not great). The question of including flags has already been discussed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 57#13 List of Scottish football transfers 2011–12 where a (somewhat mixed) consensus was formed in favour of including them all but omitting the flags of countries other than the one about which the article focuses. To my eye at least that works better than having hundreds of flags and interspersing them with boxes of colour makes the page very dense and hard to clearly read.

And re De Silva, see the official source which doesn't mention the word loan but says that "Roma has secured the right to sign exciting young midfielder Danny De Silva at the conclusion of the 2014/15 Hyundai A-League".

Macosal (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

placing of transfer

@Macosal:

Jets have just signed Brennan. My question is where to put that transfer (and also the latest axing). On the one hand, the Jets are releasing/signing these players for next season and their season is over, but on the other hand, the a-league season is still going.

--SuperJew (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd put them here for teams whose season's are over. I wouldn't be surprised if Brennan doesn't join straight away (playing in the NPL) and I assume the players "released" are just not going to have their contracts renewed when they expire on 31 May. Plus these transfers won't have any impact on the 2014–15 season. Macosal (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Released players

Re adding players former/future clubs inside brackets when they are off contract for a period before/after signing with an A-League club:

• The broader Wikipedia convention is to state players as "unattached" when they are off contract after being released by a club. See for example List of English football transfers summer 2015. I am unsure why the A-League should be treated any differently?
• The current system of using brackets to indicate former or future clubs has been in place for a few years but it is unclear why the practice is undertaken - it is not directly relevant to any "transfer" about which the article focuses and can be very misleading (in some cases a player may have been off contract with a club for many months before signing a new one.
• I doubt a number of readers understand what is being indicated.
• Not only this, but it adds further clutter and confusion to what are already very visually crowded articles. It is getting to the stage where so much information is being jammed into such a small space that it is very hard to follow any of it without significant concentration.
• Further to this, the article size is too large. Last season's article ended up at 90kb - really pushing recommended guidelines (see WP:TOOBIG). This is an easy way to cut this down.

Unless there's a better counterargument than "it's vaguely interesting" which I'm missing, I can't see why these should be included? Macosal (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant to the pedigree of a player and also in your way a player who was off contract for a day wouldn't be mentioned even though in most cases he'd have been released to join the new club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

also in your way if a player is released by an a-league club and later joins a different one it looks like a direct transfer. See for example cases u just fixed of Golec and Jaimeson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Golec and Jamieson were direct transfers! They signed new contracts before their old contracts had expired (see Free transfer (association football) if you want more info. This is exactly the sort of confusion this system creates - if editors don't understand how to use it, then how can we expect readers to understand at all what's going on? Further to this, the problem of transfers between A-League clubs is simply solved by adding a note at the bottom of the table as I twice had and has now been twice deleted (and this also avoids the other problem you raise re players who were only released for a short period between A-League clubs and avoids double-listing. A player's former club doesn't really show "pedigree" (even if it did, would it be any more relevant? I doubt it) - there's no way of knowing whether a player was a regular/youth etc and if readers really do want more info then it's super-easy just to navigate to a player's page. The information is trivia at best, against consensus and largely irrelevant.

For an example, see Jess Vanstrattan on last season's transfer page. What should go in his "brackets"? Central Coast Mariners where he retired many years ago? Central Coast Mariners Academy, where he was a coach? The system is far more misleading than it is helpful.

Apologies for the rant but I just feel that this does not belong in this article for many reasons. Macosal (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

this notes is hard to navigate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's better than having all the issues bunched in one segment (it could be a bit neater if you could indent your comments using ":"s and sign them using 4x~) otherwise the issues tend to get glossed over by comments such as this which take things off topic. Macosal (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant the note on the article, like Danny Vukovic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did notice that the formatting of the note could be improved. Still I think it's a much better system than brackets (how is anyone supposed to know what the brackets even mean?). If there get to be to many notes they could also be combined into a single note along the lines of "player released from old club before joining new club" (needs drafting but you get the idea). Keep in mind I'm only saying this re A-league to A-League transfers (to avoid double-posting). Macosal (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

a generic note is the same as a generic signing (the brackets). How do you know what they mean? That's why there's a linr of explanation in the intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

...No there isn't.(?) I know what I think they're supposed to mean, but evidently it's not the same as what you think they mean (going by your previous edits). They're a confusing system that crowds the page with confusing information which isn't relevant to the article anyway. Macosal (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

you must of deleted it with all your reckless edits. Last season clearly states: Brackets around club names indicate the player's contract with that club had expired making him a free agent before he signed for a new club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I just did a quick revision history search and no, the words "free" and "expired" were never found on this page so I think you're mistaken. In any case, you need to stop insulting me. It gets us nowhere (especially when you're clearly wrong). I don't appreciate my edits being labelled "reckless" (how are they?). If that's your thinking for what brackets mean, then why add brackets around Michael Boxall, Scott Jamieson or Antony Golec as you recently did? Macosal (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The only difficulty I can see is clubs making arrangements to release a player with the intent of another club signing them, with the player's blessing. This creates a situation where a transfer has occured by proxy of them becoming a free agent momentarily. Unfortunately the A-League has a lot of free transfers at the moment and very few paid internal transfers. The only time money is exchanged it seems is when a player goes off to Europe for a fee. I don't think I can provide feedback on this one, but hopefully I've created a point? - J man708 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I get what you're saying - for mine that should be treated as if it's a single transfer (ignoring the very short period of unattachment); what has happened in such situations is essentially just a free transfer. Yeah transfer fees between A-League clubs are banned I believe, so all transfers are either free transfers, free agents or overseas signings. Macosal (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the difficulty with the A-League and their lack of transfer fees. Back in the 1960's, Australia was banned from FIFA for ignoring club transfer fees. Now they seem to have found a loophole allowing players to transfer via free agency. Transfers like Joshua Kennedy's were quite easy to deal with and he went through a moment of free-agency in order to move to Melbourne City (unless I'm mistaken), kinda like Cahill's move from New York Red Bulls to China. Where would you stand on someone like Kew Jaliens, who was a free agent for a little longer after being sacked, before signing for Melbourne City? - J man708 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Kennedy one - given that he signed long before he transferred, I'd have thought that was more a straight transfer as one contract ended and another began without free agency (but I too may be wrong here). As for the Jaliens one, what I'd propose is that where the transfer is between A-League clubs, players would be listed as moving from one club to the other, but the date would be noted to a footnote reading along the lines of "Player was released to free agency before signing with new club" or something along those lines. This also solves the problem of double counting which would occur if we were to stick to the system of listing Player X: old club -> unattached and Player X: unattached -> new club, if you get what I mean (this relates to the below discussion of what "transfers" should be listed here. Macosal (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I get you. It sounds pretty reasonable. I'm sure the final product in a few months time will be tweaked here and there, but so far it seems decent. - J man708 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Various decisions on the organisation of this page

I think there are a number of potential areas where this page could do with some reformatting, but seeing as my attempts to change it have been met with resistance in the past, I will bring them up here for discussion. Thanks for any contributions: Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Format

The page currently uses a single table for all transfers organised by date. The alternative is to list transfers by club (such as List of German football transfers summer 2015, List of Mexican football transfers summer 2015).

Discussion

As I see it, I prefer the current system purely in terms of organisation, aesthetics and readability - if users want lists by club, the sort function makes that possible. Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am offended that you refuse to acknowledge the I-League transfers for the 2014–15 season. But seriously, in my opinion, since each A-League club is professional enough to announce transfers when they happen we can keep the format the way it is.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

by club is dumb because then transfers within the league get double listed. And you can sort by club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.184.50 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, agreeing with Macosal. The sort function makes this easier to read. Having them assorted chronologically instead of club by club seems more logical with this function available. - J man708 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Going to agree with Macosal. Having 10 tables (with double counting) seems rather silly and is also less maintainable. Rjbsmith (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to these discussions - I've been away for a while. I'm going to agree here that the current system of chronological listing is preferable. Not sure why this was even brought up as no one seems to be for the "by club" method. --SuperJew (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, it was brought up because that is how things are done on other similar lists on Wikipedia. Please remember not to make things personal. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperJew: Apologies if I am wrong here, but I believe that I have very good reason to strongly suspect that you have already been heavily involved in these discussions (under a number of IP addresses). I can go into more detail if you'd like me to explain myself, but I think if you are indeed being disingenuous by attempting to contribute to the discussion from multiple accounts, that now would be the time to drop the stick. If you don't know where I am coming from, I am more than happy to explain myself, but either I am right or this is a very unfortunate co-incidence for which I would apologise unreservedly. Macosal (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No I don't know what you are talking about. Kindly explain. --SuperJew (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Flags

There are 3 options for flags as I see it:
1. Include all flags (current system)
2. Include non-Australian flags (common practice for many European articles, particularly English and a weak consensus at WT:FOOTY)
3. Include no flags (e.g. List of Scottish football transfers summer 2014 and per a restrictive reading of WP:MOSFLAGS)

Discussion

I would be in favour of option 2 - one of my main issues with these articles is how crowded they become when every box contains a flag (or a coloured box - see below). That said I think the nationality of clubs or players is of relevance to the article's subject matter. These articles are also often verging on becoming too big and removing Australian flags (which are ~90% of the flags used on the page) solves this without losing any information to the reader. Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Include all flags. We're not in the dial up mode any more where a couple extra bytes matter. There's high speed Internet ppl!

The flags serve as a visual aid and not having for only some players make the page look inconsistent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.184.50 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They make it look more consistent with other pages such as those relating to English football. But look at past seasons articles - they end up containing so many flags and icons that any reader is barraged by visual cues. For mine the flags are not "a visual" - they do convey meaningful information that the reader would not otherwise know. But when there are so many of them, they may as well not be included at all because it becomes an overwhelmingly colourful mess after months of transfers. Macosal (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mb you think it's a mess. But bringing it up here doesn't help get an opinion as the average reader doesn't go to this page

This is the right place to discuss this, however (where else could you?). WP:MOS has been very specifically drafted with the average reader in mind (amongst other things) and that is where guidelines such as WP:TOOMANY and WP:ICONDECORATION come from - these are meant to inform how we edit Wikipedia. Macosal (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the flags and colours help me see easily at a glance what's happening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.156.62.129 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're agreeing with - it seems like you definitely don't agree with me; are you agreeing with yourself? The colours may help you, but to others (especially those who are less familiar with the league) they may in fact hinder people trying to read the page. The point is, people will always vary on what works for them or what doesn't, but Wikipedia has guidelines in place whose "goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting" which pretty strongly indicate what should happen here. Macosal (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

yes the flags and colours help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a constructive comment. Tell me why you think that. Tell me why you think WP:MOS should be ignored. Let's have a real discussion. Macosal (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say option 2, aswell. The A-League's coloured boxes are over-used far too much. It seems only to be things like the NRL and AFL that use these coloured boxes, but other national sporting leagues don't. I can understand their usage on things like maps, but at the moment, I think we've got them plastered all over everything and they look quite ugly and needless. - J man708 (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

what's next on your list? If the word count on a page gets to high will you delete all the articles (those are words like "a" and "the") because they're over used? I don't think you understand what you are saying but merely parroting what your bureaucratic friends want you to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Once again you are using ad hominem arguments. Try to stay on topic of what is actually being discussed. There are genuine arguments here you are ignoring in order to label people bureaucrats. Also stop using slippery slope arguments. Of course nobody will ever advocate removing the word "the" from a page. That's an entirely different scenario from repetition of decorations which mightn't mean anything to some people without adding any meaning to the article. Macosal (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

oh look at you with your big fancy latin words. The fact that you deny importance from the colour symbols for people who find them helpful is very insulting and I suggest you stop before complaining about personal attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Then stop personally attacking him, and follow Wikipedia guidelines? - J man708 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Option 2, with the exception that is shown for transfers in or out of non-HAL/NYL Australian teams. I don't see a particular need for showing club colours, and I don't agree that removing them would make the page less readable. Rjbsmith (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, might have a look at that to see how it reads. My concern is that it could complicate things to have some Australian clubs with flags and others without but will check it out when some of these changes get made. I probably prefer the consistency (no Australian flags included without exceptions) but I get why you'd suggest this. Macosal (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As an alternative, maybe listing A-League clubs in bold could convey the same information in a different way (would have to see how that looks too). Macosal (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rjbsmith on this one. I think if we so desperately want to cut down on flags/icons we should have only the A-League clubs with no flags and the rest with. That is: Wellington Phoenix would also not have a flag, while Australian NPL clubs would have an Australian flag next to them. Having Phoenix with a flag is extremely confusing.

Personally I really don't think it's an issue to have all the flags & icons like we had last season. It is a helpful visual cue IMO, not everyone are word-based learners. Also the icons made it very clear which clubs are A-League clubs.

--SuperJew (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be fine with a solution involving removing flags for Phoenix and adding them to Australian (but non-A-League) clubs, as long as the note atop the page is adjusted accordingly. Maybe "All players without flags are Australian. Clubs without flags are those participating in the 2015–16 A-League."

As for the other flags, I think not. WP:TOOMANY is pretty relevant here. I get that not everyone is a word-based learner, but the flags aren't even saying the same thing the words are. Whilst for some that may be easier for others (including many of the contributors to the above discussion (all but you and the IP contributors)) I'm afraid the numerous flags, and especially the meaningless icons, add little but clutter to the page. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I made the change. Looks clearer to me. --SuperJew (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a transfer?

Earlier editions of this page used much more limited readings of what constitutes a transfer, referring only to when an A-League club signed a player or when another club payed a fee to buy an A-League player. The convention on articles such as the English ones is to include these as well as free transfers. In the context of the current article, this would mean omitting loan returns, retirees and players released to free agency without having signed with another club.

Discussion

I'm undecided on this. WP:Out of scope suggests that loan returns or releases should maybe be omitted as they aren't technically "transfers". That being said, the smaller size of this page compared to English/Scottish pages (only 10 clubs) makes a comprehensive summary of ins/outs much more feasible than it would be in those leagues. Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The page is to see all movements of players in/out of clubs. If transfers, loans, retirement, or releasements. If you have such an issue with the word transfer change the name of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.184.50 (talk)

As I said in the original post, I know what you're saying here. But in a lot of other places on WP, "transfer" means a different thing to what it's being called here. Macosal (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So change the name of the page. Stop being a cunt

Sorry if you feel that way but that is really no way to act on Wikipedia. I'm trying to have an informed discussion here about a number of issues I have with this page and improvements I genuinely feel would benefit the page - it doesn't need to descend into personal attacks. Macosal (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're just playing around with words and their definitions. There is no actual real discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.197.45 (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to have one. The reason I raised this issue is that previous editions of this page and equivalents of this page with a lot more views use different criteria than this one does - last season was the only time that "released" players have been included in this list. As it happens, I think I might agree with you re this issue! I recognise that I'm not sure, and that's why I'm trying to have a discussion on that point here. My intention was not to debate what the word "transfer" means but rather discuss whether the current criteria being used are appropriate. But whatever the case, it's certainly not appropriate to resort to attacking other editors. Macosal (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the status quo on this one. We don't have a huge number of loan returns/releases. Besides, if we're going to track outgoing loans on this page then (to me at least) it makes sense that we track returns as well. Rjbsmith (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree on loans. The bigger issue I think is whether a player just being released to free agency is worthy for inclusion as a "transfer". Macosal (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick with showing all movements (including loans, retirements and releases). Macosal, if you have a real issue with the term "transfer", maybe we should consider changing the name of the page to "A-League movements for 2015–16 season" --SuperJew (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I also don't like the use of the term "Unattached". I think it is better to use "Released" or "Free agent". --SuperJew (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the term transfer (and don't think we should move the page to an unnecessarily ambiguous title). I was merely referring to the fact that similar pages to this one don't list players released or returning from loan on these lists. For a long time these weren't included - I think the fact that they now are is a reflection of changing editors, not changed consensus to be honest. But as I've said, I'm not opposed to the current consensus, so I think we agree. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Name of the page

The current title is a bit clunky:
1. Stay with the same name.
2. "A-League transfers for the 2015–16 season"
3. List of Australian soccer transfers 2015 (in line with other pages in the category "Football transfers summer 2015")
4. List of A-League transfers 2015. (")

Discussion

I'm in favour of #4 for the sake of consistency with other articles and accurately representing the page's contents. Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.184.50 (talk)

Dude, don't be a WP:DICK. Macosal is bringing up this issue the correct way and you're fighting him whenever he responds to your feedback. Why? This gets us nowhere and you just end out looking like a tool. I trust his judgement on issues like this, as he has been an editor of football articles for quite some time. He's here just like you to build an encyclopedia, not to be a bureaucrat. Quit attacking him and give some proper feedback, or face losing editing rights. If you have no feedback, then don't provide any. But adding pointless, shitty snide comments to voice your distaste to someone who has been actively trying to find an impasse with you isn't needed. You shouldn't need to be told this. It goes without saying. Show a little respect. - J man708 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

He's just saying he doesn't mind. Have you noticed no one is answering him anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not constructive in anyway, shape or form. If you have no opinion on the topic, don't respond. I'm trying to mediate the issue. Please don't add fuel to the fire if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. - J man708 (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer #2. The aim of the page is to show movements for the season in question. Naming the page A-League transfers for 2015 doesn't immediately make it clear whether a transfer took effect in the 2014–15 season (particularly for those that were announced during that season) or the 2015–16 season. It's also consistent with how we name our seasons. Rjbsmith (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right - I've mistyped that in the title. #4 should read "List of A-League transfers 2015–16". Thoughts on this? Macosal (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 to RJB's post. Keeps it consistant indeed. - J man708 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Coloured boxes

No page outside Australia/NZ that I've seen (certainly the ones with higher editor traffic) uses these coloured boxes to represent clubs seen here before A-League club names. They might be seen to contradict WP:ICONDECORATION. Should they be removed, whether the Australian flag would be placed there instead depends on the outcome of the above discussion on flags.

Discussion

I'm against including these. As mentioned above, the page is already very cluttered and large in size, which removing these boxes which may or may not mean anything to anyone would help to simplify. I also can't see how they don't breach WP:ICONDECORATION. Macosal (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you!

Again stop measuring bytes like in the dark ages. The colours are helpful to a lot of readers.gives a quick visual look without the need to read deets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.184.50 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ILIKEIT - these are clearly icons being used for decorative purposes on the page and tell the reader nothing they do not already know. Macosal (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:TOOMANY: "When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant" - I feel like the 100+ icons set to be used in this article is pretty relevant here. Macosal (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of following all those dumb protocols written by diplomats check what your readers want?

I'm very happy to - how would that best be done? I raised it here and on the Wikiproject football/Australia page but have received limited responses. Macosal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I think it's time to let these icons die and have the A-League's articles resemble their European counterparts. They seem to breach the Icon Decoration meta-article you mentioned, Macosal. I can't see much reason to keep them, especially with the club name written right next to it. - J man708 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

well maybe not everyone had the amazing reading skills you do JMan? And maybe for some the visual aid is much easier? Why do the words get to stay but the icons should go? Are the words worth more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The words are unambiguously meaningful. The icons are not. Visual aids are all well and good but the words contain objective meaning. You're right: the words are worth more. I dont think J man708 is suggesting you need amazing reading skills, the names of the clubs are hardly hard to spell/read. don't think many people see the page, think "I can't read the words - what club is relevant?" and then see the icons and say "Oh - blue and white - it's Melbourne Victory!" Macosal (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

of course not as a conscious thought like that, but at a glance reading the colours are mich easier to digest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And yes I personally often feel lost in only monotonic text. This is especially relevant to today's generation who half the time text with emojis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people's texting habits should determine how this encyclopedia is written. Who is "glancing" at the colours? Anyone keen to read the info is still more than able to get it. You need to back your arguments up with Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise we are just throwing random opinions around. I also don't like their inclusion as, at present, they are replacing flags as if these symbols have some official role (which they in no way do). We could put colours next to any number of things, but guidelines suggest that we do not. Macosal (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again you hide behind these bureaucratic guidelines. The encyclopedia is written to help the people in the easiest way possible. To do that you need to listen to what the people want not to possibly outdated and/or irrelevant guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS is THE set of guidelines for ALL Wikipedia articles. You can't just ignore it because you disagree - it is the core guidelines for how the encyclopedia should be written. If you really think it's outdated or irrelevant, by all means raise that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but you can't ignore it just because you want to. These guidelines aren't bureaucratic - they're the product of long discussions, the aim of which includes to be easy for people to read! For example, WP:TOOMANY isn't a rule for the sake of having a rule, it's a rule because "when icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant." (i.e. they make the page less readable). You need to engage with this type of guideline in discussions on Wikipedia as they are fundamental to the encyclopedia, and writing them off as "bureaucracy" is not a satisfactory argument.

That being said, I have expressed a number of other reasons why I personally feel the icons are inappropriate and unhelpful, as has another user. When you describe "what the people want", I'm unclear as to how that's anything beyond your own opinion. Macosal (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you can't play that card when it's only me vs you (and your sock puppet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean that literally. If you do, it's ridiculous, but have a go raising it at WP:SOCK. If you don't, it's a poor choice of words, and still equally ridiculous - I can assure you that I have only occasionally had passing interactions with J man708. Certainly I didn't "puppet" him to do anything (why do you think I did?). But again, you're relying on ad hominem arguments. How about having a go responding to the main point I raised about why the MOS should not be ingored? Macosal (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He is quite obviously your little puppet. The only opinions he has here is blindly following and parroting you. And my whole discussion has been about how your stupid guidelines are stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.210.102 (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm Macosal's puppet? Hahaha! I think the only time Macosal and I have actually spoken is during conversations such as this, which is rare within itself. You can feel free to sift through either of our histories if you'd like proof of this. I've come along here to offer my opinion. The fact that my opinion mirrors Macosal's is beside the point. You appear to here to just cause issues and not to build an encyclopedia. Have a proper discussion or leave. - J man708 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"I trust his judgement on issues like this" - read: I blindly follow him like a puppet and his opinion is mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.37 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a puppet because I don't agree with you? Hahaha. Wouldn't agreeing with you and not voicing my opinion make me more of a puppet? You've made claims that your point of view is what people want (even though you haven't backed this up with evidence), but you're completely overlooking the guidelines that have been voted for by many users of WikiProject Football, which Macosal has linked you to. Be WP:CIVIL - J man708 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Series of IP addresses: I have tried very hard to have a reasonable, informed discussion with you about these issues. Several times in the face of antagonistic responses I have remained patient and invited you to participate in the discussion civilly and properly. Your responses have been to attempt to discredit me and anyone else who disagrees with your point of view; to attempt to discredit WP:MOS (ie the main standard for how to edit Wikipedia); consistent personal attacks and insults; at times it has seemed to me that you have attempted to use the fact you have used multiple IPs to make it look like other people share your point of view (I may be wrong but that is certainly how some of your posts read); and less significantly you have made no effort to properly format your posts which has made the discussion hard to follow at times. If you do not want to actually debate the issues at hand but rather fling insults around, I am inclined to go ahead and make those changes for which, excluding your opinions, there is consensus. If not, I again extend an invitation to you to participate in an actual, rational discussion of the points I have raised, without being insulting or rude, in an informed way. There is no need to be abusive here. It doesn't help the procedure, it doesn't make anybody feel good. Discuss the issues at hand and hopefully we can get somewhere. Thank you. Macosal (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As per my comment above, let them go. I don't think they're necessary any more. Rjbsmith (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the coloured boxes can be useful to the reader. I get a feeling from your discussions and Wikipedia guidelines, that there is a seeming consensus on Wikipedia that everybody in the world is a reading, text-based learner. Which is not true, as seem people learn better through visual-based learning (pictures/icons) and some through audio-based learning (sounds). It saddens me a little this seemingly exclusiveness that the guidelines and your discussions based on them seem to advocate. --SuperJew (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Surely even "visual-based learners" could be overstimulated by the mass of icons and flags (uncomfortably intermingled) which pervade a page like A-League transfers for 2014–15 season? Having all these icons creates a colorful mess, which I don't feel is easier for anyone to understand, regardless of "how they learn". But more to the point, WP guidelines (I'll say it again, WP:TOOMANY and WP:ICONDECORATION) make it very clear that those elements are not appropriate for use in a list such as this (for multiple reasons). I hope we can leave it at that. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems pointless to continue this discussion, as you just continue throwing the "official" guidelines at me. I'll just say again how unfortunate it is that the guidelines advocate this exclusiveness. See how much of this site is text-based. Very unfortunate. --SuperJew (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this discussion was over months ago. If you'd like, go to WT:FOOTY, but the overwhelming consensus will probably be not to include these icons anywhere at all. Besides that, this is, at the end of the day, a text encyclopedia. Have you considered that including these icons could be as equally unhelpful and make the site inaccessible to colorblind/visually impaired readers as to the "visual learners" who would benefit? At the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia - which are generally text based. It has guidelines for a reason. WP:TOOMANY: "When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant" - the clutter/redundancy is why they shouldn't be included. WP:MOS#ICONS states that there is a time and place for icons. It is relatively clear, however, that the time and place is not here. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. Macosal (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorting method

On a side note Macosal, at the beginning of May 2015 you implemented the manual sorting function by family name/club name, and even then I told you that the previous sorting method (default - by nationality) would be easier to maintain. You replied "Not much harder and I'm happy to do it." From having a look at the source page right now, I think I was probably correct: It has not been maintained well and half the players are sorted by your sorting method, and half by default. Basically a mish-mash. Could you please sort this out to either way? Personally, I think it would be best to go back to default so it will be easily maintainable. Don't forget there are the end of the pre-season transfers and also all the mid-season transfers yet to add to the page! Thank you, --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It all looks a-ok to me? I know some use the "sort" template, other the "sortname" template; this is merely because some players need "sort" to include but not sort the flag, whilst players without flags do not (the results of both are the same). In any case, when I click to sort by name, I get a perfectly alphabetised list of players by surname, do you not? Macosal (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sørensen is out of place. Clubs out of place: Rockdale City Suns, Blacktown Spartans, FC Utrecht (Should be sorted under Utrecht I think).

I was referring though in general to how messy the edit page looks, especially to new users. --SuperJew (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes you are right. Sorensen is fairly recent; the Australian clubs are a result your own recent edits. Re Utrecht - clubs should be sorted by the name visible on the page. If you think the club should also be listed as just "Utrecht", go ahead (I have seen both used fairly often).

As for new users? I don't think we should make articles less accessible just to make edit pages more accessible... If anything, it's a chance for new users to learn and observe how to use some templates which are relatively simple. Macosal (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Lambadaridis

@Macosal:

Bringing this up for discussion. George Lambadaridis was released by Brisbane Roar after his contract ended. After that, he spent 4 months without a club, trialling with Melbourne City and with Brisbane Roar. Following Henrique's knee injury, Roar signed him on a two-month injury replacement contract. I think both moves (Released from Roar, and signed by Roar on an injury replacement contract) should be included on this page. It is very similar to the case of Ivan Necevski, bar the fact that Necevski played for Rockdale City Suns in between. Despite not having a club between his two contracts, Lambadaridis was still unattached for 4 months, and his current Roar contract is different to the previous one. Thoughts go. -SuperJew (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I get what your saying - but what then about someone like Miloš Dimitrijević, who wasn't on Sydney's initial retained list after his contract expired but then re-signed soon after (or several other players whose initial contracts had expired before they signed new ones? I'm willing to believe there could be a line somewhere between Dimitrijević and Lambadaridis but I'm not sure where it would be (maybe the trialling at other clubs, as you say, but that was the reason for my removal of his two listings from the page (along with the fact that it seems a bit clunky to me for his release and re-signing to both be listed when he didn't miss anything or sign anywhere else). Macosal (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Dimitrijević re-signed soon after. Lambadaridis was 4 months without a club, including trialling with other clubs.

Also, there's a question of the club's initial intentions. Sydney FC wanted to keep Dimitrijević, but he was debating a different contract, which is why it took time to re-sign him. Sydney FC re-signed Dimitrijević regardless of other factors. Roar on the other hand planned to release Lambadaridis and the only reason they re-signed him 4 months later was because of Henrique's injury. Roar re-signed Lambadaridis because of other factors (Henrique's injury). --SuperJew (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can believe there is a line somewhere there as I said. So I guess go ahead and re-add for now. That said, it still doesn't feel quite right to me but not too big a deal either way. Macosal (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)