Drive-by comments
Would be helpful from an accessibility angle if you added informative alt text to the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} symbols, e.g. something like {{double-dagger|alt=defunct}}
Was only here to mention the alt text, but while I'm here... You're right about the Combination, which was chaotic and never completed. But Newton Heath LYR certainly considered the Football Alliance competitive, even if MUFC 2012 don't. Finishing second in 1891/92 got them elected to the First Division of the Football League rather than the Second like most of the rest. If you were to choose to include it, the results are on Stretfordend here, or on footballsite here (click on Results for each season).
hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- About the alt, done, thank you. About the Ali. League, In the links above you can also see it says Non-League resluts for ManUtd, so thats why I prefer not to add false league information even if United in the 1880's might have found it important. The link in Stretfordend was something I was aware about, but like the non-competetive cups which also can be saw in the menu before the list I choose not to include them. Not to forget that WP:FOOTY, didn't used those stats in the infobox aswell.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by this link it appears the Alliance was a second division to the Football League. As a result I think these records should be included as well as at the moment it could be argued the list is not complete. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, ManUtd sees it as a Non-League (non-competitive), and you mentioned the seasons article above, but if you look you can see the top scorer only includes FA Cups for those seasons which they competed in that league. (also those stats are not included in the players infobox which is acted as league apps and goals only). So therefore, that league should not be included, no matter what some "sources" might tell you or not tell you.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-League" means not in The Football League, not "non-competitive". In my opinion, every league competition that Manchester United and Newton Heath have contested should be included here. You'll note that in the Luton list you based this one on, I included results in both the Southern League and the United League, both of which, particularly the latter, are far more minor than the Alliance. You have the club's results in the Alliance in the relevant seasonal articles (here, here and here), with referencing already intact for a book reference. Same goes for the Combination, the results of which you have here (though no reference; you will have to find one). I would argue that unless the Alliance and Combination are included, the league is not complete as a "league record by opponent"; it is perhaps complete as a "League record by opponent", but nothing more. I apologise for not catching this earlier. If you would like I can give you a hand with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- About the non-League, I meant to say ManUtd stats regard it as non-competitive while a url from a user above said non-league. and few points bellow
- Examples : LFCHistory which NapHit use the data from doesn't regard those pre-TFL as league games, see exemple James McBride - who scored in that 1892-93 season for LFC, but in the source you can see that that amount played in that current season is listed in the Other column, not league, I can give you dozen more like that, such as thier goalkeeper, Sidney Ross, Duncan McLean and all players who played in that talked season. (click the Appearances tab in order to see what I'm talking about). You can also see in LFCHistory website which used in the list bellow this list, LFC Games Competition Stats, which doesn't list the Lancashire League nor the "Test Matches" as league. And the most important is this LFC League Overall which does not list the 1892-93 season as league at all there!, and it says "Liverpool complete league history", I even checked Statto.com (see example LFC against Arsenal) which is used as source for some of the stats and you can see it doesn't list those seasons niether, so if LFC and ManUtd most used sources and even stats books doesn't regard those games as league games why should we?. During the First and Second WW, United competed in War Leagues (so is LFC), technically those are league games aswell (acording to people thinking) even tho the article says they are unofficial and are excluded, but we won't include those even that we have sources for those games. I also don't agree in the League vs league thing, as the next person will say, "Hey wait, Champions League and Europa League are "leagues" aswell, why don't you move the article to "XYZ domestic league record by opponent", as it doesn't include those stats". Now the final and also not less important, Iv'e looked at over a dozen of players articles in WP (many clubs), and their infobox doesn't include those seasons stats there (infoxbox is league only as you might know), so how can we say one thing and do another?, we should stick to what clubs regard as leagues and use it arround WP articles, not only in particular articles.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, regarding non-League football as "non-competitive" and omitting it from statistics only takes place where sports writers are being, frankly, lazy: for example, they may say quite misleadingly that player X "never played League football again", or, in head-to-head match-ups as we are dealing with here, only refer to matches in "the League" (a more extreme modern development of this phenomenon, often seen on television in particular, is referring only to records in the Premier League, which honestly makes me want to scream). I disagree strongly with the assertion that most statistical books do not regard competitions such as the Alliance as competitive: the book cited in the articles I linked, The Definitive Newton Heath F.C., certainly appears to – and is, incidentally, from the same series as The Definitive Luton Town F.C., a book I used extensively while creating the Luton list, which this one is based on. Interestingly, I do remember that The Definitive Luton Town F.C., which was published while Luton were still a Football League club, did not include non-Football League results in its "league record by opponent" table, though the Southern League and United League results were given in a separate section of the book. I had to add them in myself for the sake of completeness, reasoning that if we were only going to put Football League results in there, then we would have to omit results in the Football Conference (which Luton are now in). I am not suggesting there is any fear of this state of affairs potentially endangering Manchester United any time soon, but I do think it is somewhat dubious of us to apply different criteria to different clubs based on their present circumstance. United were not always a Football League club, and their results in league competitions other than the Premier and Football Leagues should (in my opinion) be included here if it is to be complete. Comparison of competitions such as the Alliance to War Leagues and the abortive 1939–40 Football League season are not valid, as those matches do not claim to be official and are never included as such in statistics such as these.
- You are right that most internet sources do not list results in competitions such as the Alliance, the Southern League and so forth, but that does not necessarily make this correct. Certainly they are not only including Premier and Football League results, since most of these (so far as I can see) include the Conference. Where, then, is the line drawn, if all matches played in league competition are not to be included? It is an interesting and good point you make about the Champions League and Europa League, though if anybody were to make that point it could be easily argued that those competitions are not actually leagues but cups, and therefore not properly incorporated into a list of this kind. In any case, it would be no great tragedy to add the qualifier "domestic" to the article title, if it proved necessary.
- Alternatives open for you are to include the Alliance results in a separate section, or perhaps to rename this list "Manchester United F.C. Premier League and Football League record by opponent" (or similar). As it stands, I am sorry to say that this is simply not complete, though it is of a very high standard thus far. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Cliftonian on this. I don't think this list is complete until these records are introduced, yes they may be non-league records, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. I think you're reasoning about LFC history is a little confused, as League history is referring to just Football League. League was and still is a common term for the Football League. If you see here League is separate from the Premier League, emphasising the point. That is why the stats are often in other than League because it refers to Football League. I'm still not sure why you're averse to including these stats, the alliance was a league competition, it may not have been a Football League competition but was still an important competition as the winner gained entry to the Football League. I think you are applying today's standards to a competition that was more important in its own time and that is wrong. Labeling these competitions as non-competitive is also incorrect. My local team Chester recently reformed and are now in the Northern Premier Division, and although it is a non-league competition it is very competitive, if man united regard these competitions as non-competitive then they are mistaken as they are. I think the evidence is here that these records should be included for the sake of completeness. This source indicates the Alliance was a rival to the Football League and as such a "competitive" league regardless of what united say. NapHit (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the Football Alliance to the statistics as per the comments from NapHit and Cliftonian, the 1888–89 abonded season was not added as it is regarded as unofficial. In addition I also added overall record by competition. I put the RC template as it was all about the issue. Hope now you can support it.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For information, it's best practice for the nominator to allow reviewers to cap or strike their own comments when they're satisfied, so I've removed the cap. In particular, the comments capped weren't all about the Football Alliance issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
