Talk:List of English football transfers summer 2007

Released players
Rather than have them in the article, leave all notable released players here, to stick them in the article whe they get a permanent move. Gran2 18:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth having this list in the article, it's useful information, even though it will change. ArtVandelay13 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree. Just having a section at the bottom called "Released" would do. However, the list isn't at all complete and could do with a bit of a look over. - PeeJay 13:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest, that it be left until the window is closed, so that less work is needed in updating it regularly. But whatever, for the sake of completeness it seems a nice idea. Gran2 13:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be in the main list, without a doubt. Just needs references - I've added them for the newly released Charlton players. Mattythewhite 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuno Morais
The article says that Nuno Morais transferred on 12 May, but he still played for Chelsea on 13 May against Everton. Is his transfer pre-arranged for 1 July? I can't seem to find the news on chelseafc.com website that confirmed he is already leaving. 121.44.13.175 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not listed International transfer
Should international transfer involving foreign top division club and English lower league be listed? Matthew_hk  t  c  14:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I mean the list will get even longer. I'm not even sure about the current system. To many players that I hardly think are that important are already listed. But I suppose they do follow te guidelines. I mean, I don't know who Charlie Lee is, yet he qualifies to appear on the list. So I really don't know. Gran2 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold dates
Why? It's not mentioned in the article at any point. Mark272 16:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I presume its to break up the days. For days when multiple transfers have occured, like July 1, the first date is bolded, to show that that is the starting point of that day. Or something like that... But to be honest I don't really know. Gran2 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dating System
There are two sections in the article, one giving dates before today, and a section for transfers on 1 July. Were the July transfers not released on a specific date? There aren't any transfers until 1 July, so the fact that any transfers are before it means that the date of announcement is the standard for this article. I think the transfers now on 1 July should be moved to their respective dates.mpbx 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't matter when the transfer was announced, they don't join to July 1. End of matter. People do transfer before then, for example Titus Bramble. So the article is fine as it is. Gran2 22:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Format
Might it be better to have one long table (rather than split into months), with one date on each line; that way the table could be made sortable, and you could sort by (say) club to view each club's ins our outs grouped together. ArtVandelay13 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think so, I prefer it like this. Maybe in the future, when the window is closed, it could become a possibility, but not now. Gran2 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely one bigger table, with the dates repeated on each line rather than spanned across all the transfers for that day. Same reasoning as per ArtVandelay13 - a sortable table will easily enable the user to see all moves in for Everton, say, or all players leaving Aston Villa. - fchd 06:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose it could be better, should shorten the page length. Could someone make a mock-up? Gran2 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a major issue now, as many club articles are getting untidy, pourly sourced transfer lists, which go against the style guide. A sortable list on this page reduce the 'need' for that, and just the one list would be easier to manage. ArtVandelay13 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would we still have separate sections for the Summer and January transfer windows? - PeeJay 17:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and put it as a sortable list, much easier to maintain, and as has been said, can easily see transfers in/out of a particular club. Paulbrock 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sortname needs to be used for the players names. Mattythewhite 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Youth players
Should youth players included in the list? Such as Man Utd, every years they will release players, but some of them joined League one or even lower. Matthew_hk  t  c  10:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm for not including them, but that's just me. Gran2 10:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that if the transfer is listed on the BBC's list of transfers and it involves a Premiership or Championship team then it should be included here. PeeJay 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fees
Noticing the Greg Halford transfer from Reading to Sunderland, should we be noting the potential total value of each transfer or the original fee? The basic fee for Halford's transfer was £2.5 million, but it's listed here as £3 million. PeeJay 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to list the potential fee, as with Gareth Bale at £10m, but that got changed to £5m. So I don't really have a preference, as long as its the same throughout, you decide. Gran2 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my thinking was basically that the basic fee is the only guaranteed fee for each transfer. Any other fees are based on things that may or may not happen, and since speculation is frowned upon here, we should just stick with the basic fee. PeeJay 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nani and Anderson's transfer
Where are they!? KyleRGiggs 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither transfer has been completed yet. - PeeJay 10:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Restructure of the Page
Yesterday I spent a little while trying to restructure the List of transfers page, and I came back today to find it has been undone. I thought it looked better the way I had done it, and it also was easier to navigate around.

Can we try and put it back as it is more easier-to-use as well. Maybe people don't want to read a giant list, and want to look at it month-by-month


 * I prefer the way it is now, especially since the table is now sortable. Good work to whoever did that. - fchd 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried introducing the appropriate templates to make the table sort correctly, but to do so causes the template limit to be exceeded. Now, I'm all for having a sortable table, but if we can't get it to work properly, then what's the point? - PeeJay 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps remove the flag templates, and replace them with the 3-character code (or indeed the full name of the country)? Regardless of the issues with the templates, I still think it is a better article with one large table rather than split on a month-by-month basis. - fchd 06:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So PeeJay, shall I try it again and see what people think? Or just leave it now. - Adam 17:41, 17 July 2007
 * I think it's best to leave it as it is now. I tried replacing the templates with [[Image:Flag of XXX.svg|border|22px]] so that I could put in the date sorting templates, but the template limit was still being exceeded. I think what we really need to do is just try and reduce the number of references on the page to a similar number as in the 2006-07 transfers article. - PeeJay 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed references = no. The 2006-07 is way worse than this page, because of only about five inline cited transfers. I agree that removing the flags is the best option, they don't add much, don't sort and because of the sortable table have a clear gap next to them. Gran2 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to mention it, that is a better idea. Who fancies doing that then? - PeeJay 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have just done it. The article was 99 kilobytes longs, and its now 94. I suppose every little helps though. Adam 21:49 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotta say, I preferred it with the flags - they add colour and information. ArtVandelay13 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, they did add a bit of aesthetic charm, but the nationality of the player is largely irrelevant to the transfer once it's been completed. - PeeJay 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But do we really need all the references? Nani and Anderson was a double swoop, so why have two on there? I presume some players were unveiled and signed together, so why have two of exactly the same references on there? Adam
 * Actually there is only one reference for Nani and Anderson. In fact, all double (or triple, in the case of Nani, Anderson and Kuszczak) signings that were listed together on the BBC have just the one reference on this page. But yes, I agree, some of the references are a bit unnecessary. Personally, I think that we should only list references for the transfers that have something notable about them, though how you would gauge notability is the conundrum. - PeeJay 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I strongly discourage it, as I much much prefer the page to have inline cites for each transfers. It would I think be acceptable to remove them all, and just have the BBC tranfser lists for April, May, June, July and later on August as bulleted links in the References section. Although this is a drastic change to its quality. Gran2 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I would much prefer the page to have as much citation as possible, but we have to balance out whether we think the article would be of better quality with as many references as possible or having the table sorted properly. - PeeJay 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just post the BBC's page for each club? Surely each transfer is listed on there somewhere. If not, |all these pages have it all. They show all the transfers, and have links to each individual news bulletin. Works perfectly. Adam 18:30 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried sorting the table by each column today. Date, Name, From and To work fine, but transfer fees don't sort correctly at all. We could fix this by using the template, but I'm worried that it would make the article go over the transcluded template limit again. We are currently using as few templates as possible on the page without touching the references, but if we want the table to sort properly, we WILL need to remove some of the references. I propose that we use the BBC's lists of transfers for each month as our main references, and only add references to the transfers in the article that aren't listed on those pages. I know this sounds drastic, and time-consuming, but it is a solution. What does everyone else think? - PeeJay 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham
This is probably a bit out on a limb here, but wouldn't David Beckham's transfer to LA Galaxy be appropriate to this list. I mean, I know the transfer didn't involve a club from the Premiership or Championship, but it did involve one of England's top players and so it's relevant to English football. What do you guys reckon? - PeeJay 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, generally because he left England in 2003. Adam 17:59, 12 July 2007
 * Yeah, but what about the fact that he was England captain until last summer. Surely that makes him relevant to English football. - PeeJay 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This page survives AfD only because it has clear concise criteria about inclusion. If those criteria are stretched, and it becomes a matter of opinion who qualifies, it becomes a collection of indiscriminate information, and I'm sure would fall at an AfD. - fchd 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing Question
Just wondering, is it better to have individual references for each transfer or is it better if you can as few references as possible? It's just that there's http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/6258896.stm which lists every transfer so technically you could just have that as the reference for every transfer right? Just thought I'd ask for future reference or whatevers. Arrowny 15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible to do that, but not every transfer is listed there, so we'd obviously have to reference the ones that aren't listed. But yeah, that's the idea we're working towards. - PeeJay 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

National flags?
Deleted? Why? KyleRGiggs 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, when making the table sortable using the SortName template, the table reached it's maximum number of transcluded templates or something like that. Either way, I believe the consensus was that the table looked better without them anyway. - fchd 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Unattached" or previous club?
I have been taking most of my transfer information from the BBC's list of transfers. There, Richard Martin - signed by Manchester City on 10 August - is listed as having been unattached before signing for City. However, he had only been released by Brighton & Hove Albion six weeks previously. Similarly, Henrik Pedersen and David Unsworth are both listed as having been unattached before signing for their new clubs today. Therefore, this begs the question: do we, in the "From" column list the club that the player was most recently at, or do we put "Unattached" per the BBC's list of transfers. I'm not saying the BBC is the be-all-and-end-all of sources, but I do believe they are the most trustworthy. - PeeJay 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were previously "unattached", then it's not a "transfer" anyway. - fchd 21:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is it then? - PeeJay 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if you use a ridiculously literal definition of the word. A player being released, or signed out of contract is called a free transfer. Transfers = the ins and outs of football clubs. What on earth would be gained from leaving them out? Christ, it's the Owen Hargreaves debate all over again. ArtVandelay13 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Owen Hargreaves was due to a miscommunication though. Whereas Hargreaves had to be released from his contract with Bayern to sign for Man Utd (as all players do when they move clubs), the players I am referring to had already been released from their contracts before signing contracts with their new clubs. Therefore, for a time, they were unattached, and that is what the BBC were trying to reflect in their list of transfes. However, that is not the issue. The issue at hand is whether or not we should follow the BBC's example and put "Unattached" in the "From" column in these cases. - PeeJay 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the arguments are very similar to those used in the discussion as to whether Hargreaves belonged in the Man U players category. Over-literalism, with no regard for what happens in real life, and what's useful and informative. ArtVandelay13 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clearing that up. But what about the issue at hand? - PeeJay 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If a player is contracted to a team, and is then let out of a contract to join another club...list the previous club. If a player's contract expires, and he then goes and signs for another club after a period of time (like the example listed by PeeJay above where the guy was without a club for six weeks) then he should be listed as unattached. Batman2005 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename article
Some of you may have noticed that this article is getting absolutely huge. I suggest that the article be renamed to something like "List of English football transfers 2007 Summer Transfer Window", and then create a new article for any transfers that occur between 1 September and 31 January called "List of English football transfers 2007 Winter Transfer Window". Of course, these names are just ideas, but we either need to cut down on the size of this article or split it into two for after the summer transfer window closes. - PeeJay 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well either that ot take the drastic step of axing the Championship transfers. So only transfers that involve at least one Premiership side. Gran2 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would that include creating another separate article for Championship transfers? - PeeJay 09:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but thiking about it, your system would work better, as we wouldn't have any double transfers. Gran2 10:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was just about to bring up. So when should the cut-off date be? I was thinking that this article should end on 31 August 2007. The next one should start on 1 September 2007, and then go on until 31 January 2008, before starting the Summer 2008 article on 1 February 2008. - PeeJay 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Gran2 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

References broken
Is there anyway to fix refs not displaying past #349? One work around would be listing the ref info without the use of the Cite news template. Dave101 →talk  12:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of Value
I was wondering if there is any way to have the table list properly when viewd in value order? At the moment it shows values in order of the largest first digit, so 22k would list above 16.1m etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * One way is to display all fees in millions, i.e. display a 500k transfer as £0,500,000 - as I have done with the Scottish equivalent article. Forbsey 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I beleive one way is to add a space after the £ fot valuse less than 10 million, i.e. £ 1,000,000. glennb28 t • c  09:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Or we could remove the majority of the transfer references and replace them with the lists of transfers at BBC.co.uk. Then we would be able to use Template:ntsh to sort the table properly. - PeeJay 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay lets do it. We only have 2 days left and most deals will be done on Friday so we had better be quick. Adam 15:16, 29th August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, any transfers not mentioned in the main lists should have their references left alone. - PeeJay 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In what main list? What and where? Adam 18:39 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC lists of transfers that I have referenced at the bottom of the article. - PeeJay 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)