User talk:BCFC75
|
Hello[edit]
Though I'd better put you a welcome message, seeing as nobody else has... If it was me doing a season article, which I've never been tempted to, I'd have a look at the better ones around, and try and get ideas from them. There are three which are good articles, which means they've been assessed by someone neutral as being well-written, factual, etc: namely Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08, Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006–07, Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007–08. Some go into much more detail than others... I think you need some words, to mention the important things that happen during the season, but there's no need to do a match report for every match or note every little comment that comes out of the club.
As to flags, some people are very keen; personally, I don't have a problem with a flag against an incoming player in the transfers-in table, so long as it shows the name of the country as well (not everyone can recognise every flag), but flags for his previous club, and flags for clubs players are sold to, are too much (in my opinion).
One thing I'm confused about: an editor started working on the 2009/10 season article about the beginning of the April, and I suggested it was a bit soon, and their work was moved to a work area here, and since then they've disappeared. hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Season article[edit]
Technical things you might not know:
- Once the league fixtures come out, they're copyright to the Premier League and its licensees, which means we can't list them in advance. The next fixture is OK, but no more than the next one.
- Wikipedia has a Manual of Style here which sets out in excessively complicated detail how things are meant to be formatted. The bits with relevance to this sort of article would be:
- dates are written 5 June 2009, not the 5 June or 5th June
- headings only have capital letters if they would normally be capitalised: Premier League is good, Player Statistics should have a small 's'
- stupid dashes: your article is called ...season 2009–10 with a long dash, which lives in the box underneath the Save page button, or can be written –. Other such articles also use this "endash", like 2009-10 in English football with a hyphen redirects to its proper name 2009–10 in English football with an endash. It's also used in scorelines: 2–1 not 2-1
- References would normally come after the punctuation, as you have in Transfer notes, rather than before, as you have in the Chronological list.
What I'd forgotten is there is a suggested Manual of Style for season articles (which was never accepted, largely because one particular editor was very keen on their favoured templated layout being used, and it wasn't), which is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. There's bits I don't like, like the whole line being coloured rather than just the result, and the kickoff times, it's the club's job to advertise their fixtures, not ours :-)
Sources: Whatever you write needs to be have a source, and shouldn't be speculative. Like with the Benítez transfer: In your 3 June entry, you source the transfer to the bcfc.com article, but put it after the speculated fee. The bcfc.com article doesn't mention a fee, other than claiming it as a transfer record; if you're going to mention the £6.2+£3m, you need to say whose estimate that is. Like:
- The club broke its transfer record by signing Christian Benítez from Mexican side Santos Laguna for an undisclosed fee,[bcfc.com article] which press reports estimate at an initial £6.2million, rising to £9.2million with add-ons.[article that gives these figures] (like this one from the Birmingham Post, for instance)
I'd advise against including reserves and academy details, first because of size (last season's article is enormous just with first-team stuff), second because of "notability" (there just isn't enough coverage to justify writing about junior teams, and plain lists of stats are dull enough for first teams), third because of reliable sourcing. If you want to do junior team stats, there is a Birmingham City F.C. Reserves and Academy article. As it stands, I tried to include a list of any player having appeared for either team during the season, and that was difficult enough to source, I gave up on it in the end, the information just wasn't there. bcfc.com's very variable as to whether it gives teamsheets or not, but presumably the resses will be in the Premier Reserve league this year, so they might take their reporting a little more seriously. If you want to change the squad sections in the Resses & Academy article to tables of player appearances and goals for reserves and under-18s, and you think you can source it, that'd be fine. Not fixtures and results, though, it's too much detail. An external link to the relevant page of bcfc.com is enough, and should be added.
The instructions say "Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit." and I can do plain black :-) I've put a couple of the existing cuff patterns from Template:Football kit/pattern list on it to see whether either look remotely close (I'm the wrong person to ask, as my colour vision's rather odd). I don't know how to create a new pattern.
Noticed you'd created 1955-56 season article, I'll move it to 1955–56 with the long dash. What source are you using for appearances/goals? If Matthews, Complete Record, be very careful because it's full of typos.
And if you read all this, you've done very well :-) good luck with it all, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And thanks...[edit]
for spotting the "deliberate" mistake in BCFC stats and records (first match at St Andrew's). Proof if ever proof were needed that it's impossible for a person to read their own work for what it actually says, as opposed to what they intended it to say... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Vignal[edit]
The Blues site said yesterday it's a one-year plus one-year option, which is what Lens's site states. Which isn't inconsistent with it being a loan, with it being the last year of his contract it comes to the same thing. I was going to wait till they made their minds up, but if you're going with loan then could you also change the as-of date and the reference to point to the page that says it's a loan. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- done that meself. Pity one of their ten-point pledges couldn't have been to say what they mean and mean what they say :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Starting 11[edit]
Hello. Just to let you know I've removed the Starting 11 table from the season article again, and left a note on the anon editor's talk page to explain why. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Míchel[edit]
Hello, and you're right to mention it. And you'd have been right to revert it, as well, as I should have done. But as they clearly gave Colin Tattum the contract details to go in Thursday's paper, I rather expected it to have happened by now, which is why I never bothered. Perhaps we'd better... thanks, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Season article again[edit]
Hello, and thanks for asking my opinion. The general structure looks fine to me, content looks factual and is sourced, and I think you're wise to save your review of the season till you can look back at it without being overly influenced by whatever just happened, like this totally scary unbeaten run. Though I'm no expert on season articles. Are you aware of the recently-formed Season article task force? whose talk page lives at WT:SEASONS and where you might find ideas or support.
I changed a couple of things: the dashes used in seasons and scorelines should be the first one in the edit box, you occasionally used the second, really long one (it's probably me that confused you in the first place); and in the chrono list, saying Brady & Sullivan were found not guilty implies there was a case to answer, which there wasn't. In the infobox, you might want to add David Gold (until date...) to the Chairman bit.
Other than that, it could do with a quick copyedit for mis-spellings and little words left in or out, as does tend to happen when the brain works better than the typing fingers. (If you'd like me to give it a skim through for typos, I'm quite happy to, and would promise faithfully not to start rewriting it :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)