Talk:2012–13 FC Barcelona season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre-season[edit]

Is there any official source for the games with PSG and ManCity and any for the Gamper Trophy game against River Plate? - Svefnpurka (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PSG and City matches at this moment are all rumour like you've stated so I agree with you that they should be added when it has been made official by either club. La Fuzion (What's up?) 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PSG game announced now, so I added it. Deleted the Bucharest game since it wasn't mentioned in the article, just the HSV, Morocco and PSG game. - Svefnpurka (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer-in[edit]

I believe that it is the consensus that promotions from the Youth Team are NOT a transfer-in. Advise if it is not the case. La Fuzion (What's up?) 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a transfer, personally. It's mentioned elsewhere, both in the body text and on one of the charts. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is mentioned in the Season overview and you can see all the players in the Squad information, should be enough. Though I do see how putting them under transfer in would help with the overview. - Svefnpurka (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supercopa de Catalunya[edit]

I added the game as of this source. Was just wondering if that should be under the Pre-season or not. I'd say yes, since it isn't an official cup. Also, it sounds to me like it is a new version of the Copa Catalunya, so if that's true it should probably be linked to that. - Svefnpurka (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed it as of the Catalan name. - Svefnpurka (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to add this match because normally Barça uses the B players and none from the first team. What do you think? La Fuzion (K lo K) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was posted on their homepage and it mentioned the other pre-season games before and after. I say we keep it in and if they do use Barça B after all we can still delete it then. - Svefnpurka (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds okay to me. La Fuzion (K lo K) 18:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this conversation from last year, I think. No preference either way, just saying that this has been dealt with before. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was discussed last year, that's why I said we should wait and see what team will play for Barca and then either leave it or delete it again. As of now it was announced as a preparation match for the first team. - Svefnpurka (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Abidal[edit]

Where is the source to remove Abidal from the first team? La Fuzion (K lo K) 16:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting XI (Projected)[edit]

Starting XI (Projected)[edit]

I've moved this here for storage, since people are fighting over something that's projected. I think that there are some pretty clear policies about not including unverifiable content, and this runs afoul of them. Wait for games to actually be played before doing this please. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should go up after the pre-season where we can see the Starting XI. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Saint-Germain game[edit]

The FIFA rules clearly states that: "The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match" (Laws of the Game 2012/20138, p.133). That quote can be found here.
So by that ruling the match should definitely be marked as a draw, since that is the standard procedure in play-off games that are only contested over one leg, like in the World Cup, Euro or CL final, for examples.
As of that the game shall be marked as a draw, since the regular playtime ended in such. - Svefnpurka (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So who won the match? La Fuzion (K lo K) 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the trophy. That was my reasoning for reverting the first time. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can clearly see who won if you look at the penalty result. Fact though is that the game counts as a draw if it went to penalties. - Svefnpurka (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was correct in FC Bayern Munich article but not in Chelsea: 2011–12_FC_Bayern_Munich_season#Final, 2011–12_Chelsea_F.C._season#Final. I fixed it there. Let's see the results. Kahkonen (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to ask about this situation on the WikiProject Football talk page. Feel free to state your opinion there so we can get a proper consensus for the situation. - Svefnpurka (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It did not resolve the issue. Meanwhile, we've got a slow moving edit war. We need to make a decision, here and now, please. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't realise that there was a discussion going on about this. For both games against Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester United in the pre-season section it was classified as a 'win'. These games, as stated above were like the World Cup, Euro or CL finals, where there was intention of ending with a result, though it ended in regular play time only due to broadcasting rights. Both games were always going to finish on the 90th minute due to broadcasting rights, but a result was needed (this was stated in the game commentary). Thus, without a 'winner' a quick solution was needed, and as Golden Goal is not used by FIFA anymore, a penalty shoot out was taken. Both games did result in a win for Barcelona, as shown in various sources if you look around. -- User:2nyte 17:33, 17 August 2012 (AEST)

Yes, Barcelona won the games, in penalties. So the game is to be classified as a draw since the FIFA rules specifically say "The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match" (as noted above). Also that would be much easier to clear, if we go where this discussion has been gone since, abolish the colours altogether. - Svefnpurka (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That they are not part of the match does not mean that there is not a winner. Either way, I am altogether against abolishing the colors. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on colors. They are useful, even if we struggle with them at times. chr1st mistakes were made 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting hung up on something that won't be an issue for a vast majority of matches. Still, it is an interesting question. Looking at it from the FIFA standpoint, the match should be marked a draw. However, the purpose of the page is to clearly and concisely convey information, not provide a lesson on the Laws of the Game. With this in mind, wouldn't it be more useful to identify the match as a win, in spite of the fact that it's not FIFA's "official" ruling? I tend to say yes, because in the end, the reader most likely wants to know who walked home with the trophy, not the letter of the Laws. But it's important to be consistent, and the current style would have us record the result as a draw (as noted in the CL results for Chelsea and Bayern). My final take? Mark it as a draw and have faith in the reader. chr1st mistakes were made 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the easiest way to see who won be to actually look at the score? I mean if you already look what the match was for and who played, wouldn't a look at the score only take a fraction of a second anyway? I think that if you just want to see win-loss records a table as will be under Squad stats and under Results Summary for La Liga only. It only helps to look down a long list of games and see the whole win-loss-draws in order quickly, without knowing the result and the opponent. And to be fair exactly that can be seen even easier in Results by Round table, which probably will still have colours, cause the quick overview of win-draw-loss and table position is all it is for. - Svefnpurka (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The color makes the result immediately apparent without scanning details, which I'd argue is the easiest and least confusing method for readers unfamiliar with the template or sport. I'd also argue that the result is what matters, not the score, thus it should be prioritized. As for the Results by Round table, why would you keep colors there if they're eliminated elsewhere? Wouldn't it only take a fraction of a second to look at the single-letter result? Regardless, the template permits the use of colors to designate results. Let's stick with that standard until a decision is made otherwise. chr1st mistakes were made 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it will probably still have colours, if it was up to me I wouldn't use them there either. - Svefnpurka (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. :) chr1st mistakes were made 20:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. So I agree it was a draw; and seeing as I was the only one opposing I guess the discussion is then closed. -- User:2nyte 1:12, 18 August 2012 (AEST)

Starting XI[edit]

Tello hasn't more starts than Alexis Sánchez, i propose to change it.--Greetings!!!. Qban What's Up? 00:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matches source[edit]

We need to find a new source for match reports, as the Barcelona website only gives goal information, not cards, attendance, referee, etc., all of which we're including in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barcelona website gives number of cards for each team, attendance, referee, substitutions etc. All it doesn't give is who got carded and in what minute. - Svefnpurka (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For european matches we can use the UEFA website like this. Stigni (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about, if we change it, we have more than one report for the matches? Like the barcelona.com link we have currently and additionally the uefa.com links for the international games and the rfef.es links for the domestic games? - Svefnpurka (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need two, we need one that covers everything. If you really want to keep the Barca site (I don't see why, a quality source is a quality source, write to them and link to this thread. Maybe they want to be on Wikipedia so badly that they'll add card minutes going forward. I donno. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wante them "so badly", I just think that having the teams official report of a match linked would always add something to a wikipedia article about said team. - Svefnpurka (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike that argument especially. It's pretty much the only place where we use first party/COI sources over equally accurate third party/no-COI sources. I'm not saying that their website has abused the data, only that we shouldn't be in the practice of using the official site because we avoid first party sourcing everywhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of flagicons[edit]

Can we please, please, please stop using flagicons for everything? It's fine when we're in the "Players" section, as nationality is relevant there, but other than in the Starting XI diagram, where some sort of symbol is needed, there's no reason for us to be repating the same nationality/flagioc infomration several more times in the "Statistics" section. Does anyone object to trimming out the flagicons from the "Statistics" section? If so, how strongly? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC) belated sign[reply]

Round of 32[edit]

According to the 2012-13 Copa del Rey's page, the referee for the first leg Alavés vs. Barcelona is José Antonio Teixeira Vitienes. And in this page the referee on duty is his brother Fernando Teixeira Vitienes. Which one have wrong info? Greetings!!!. Qban What's Up? 10:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth System[edit]

What does From the youth system mean (I amtalking about the separate table). What is the exact story of those players, why are they separate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.186.11 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012–13 FC Barcelona season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oldelpaso (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC) –[reply]

I'm afraid this article has some way to go if it is to become a good article, with issues relating to most aspects of the good article criteria.

  • The prose consists almost entirely of a list of items, bullet point style, of the format "On (date), Barcelona did X". This should be extensively reworked into coherent paragraphs. See 2011–12 Sheffield United F.C. season or 2011–12 York City F.C. season for examples of how this can be done.
  • The overwhelming majority of references are to Barcelona's own website. While self-published sources can in some circumstances be appropriate as sources on themselves, they should not be the primary type of reference. A club's own website is unlikely to take an impartial view on events, and there are many independent news sources that report on Barcelona's activities.
  • Wikipedia itself should never be used as a source. Neither should Twitter.
  • As the 2012–13 season has not yet finished, the article is not yet stable, and is likely to be subject to significant change in the next few weeks.
  • The amount of statistical detail in tables seems undue weight. The policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically states excessive listings of statistics as something to avoid. The list of injuries is a prime example, and in any case is unreferenced. These should be significantly cut down. Again, existing football season articles listed at WP:GA can be used as examples of good practice. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

Squad, appearances and goals Table contains minutes on pitch which is not source able and is original research, as does Squad information which again contains original research regarding EU. Table should be converted to one that is approved by WP:footy to remove this original research.Blethering Scot 21:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tables[edit]

Per consensus at WP:Footy Here and Here and Here and many more in the archives I have removed the overall, Overview and result summary tables and assists all of which are either covered by other tables or elsewhere in the article and in addition not sourced. Assists are rarely sourceable and there is no definitive definition of an assist internationally.Blethering Scot 21:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012–13 FC Barcelona season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_FC_Barcelona_season&oldid=1196629141"