Talk:2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season

Individual match format

I propose that this season, the season page try {{Football box collapsible}}. As is evident, all the leading clubs (e.g. Read Madrid, Juventus,) have been using this format. The advantage of this format is clear. It offers possibility of including other information, such as goal scored by opposition, yellow card, red card information and so on. I don't see any advantage of using this tabulated format. If anyone has opposition to changing the format, please let your opinion known. Coderzombie (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about Manchester United's season, not any other club, so including information about the goalscorers for United's opposition is pointless. If you want to know who scored for Chelsea, go to 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season or click on the match report. Cards should also not be included because they don't contribute directly to the final score. Furthermore, the style of the box is not as efficient as a simple wikitable. – PeeJay 17:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes this page is about Manchester United, but you cannot argue that adding opposition information for a given match is pointless. And BTW, how do you define efficient? Coderzombie (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see more results and more information on one screen when you use wikitables, so less space is wasted. That is the definition of efficiency. And okay, it's not pointless, but it's not necessary either. – PeeJay 18:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I proposed this during the 2014-15 season as pretty much all other clubs in the English professional leagues as well as many top European clubs use {{Football box collapsible}}. This provides significant extra detail, and I would debate that although this page is about Manchester United's season, the goals scored against us are very much a part of our season. I much prefer to look at a 4-3 thriller and be able to see whether it was a remarkable comeback or an up-and-down contest. The format is collapsible and fits more information into very similar space, so the 'less efficient' argument is invalid in my mind. Including cards is a totally optional extra and I have seen many club pages using them and many not others doing so. It seems that this is one of very few pages not using the detailed template - seems a bit arrogant to assume that ours is right and everyone else's is wrong. Wiki should be about completeness in my opinion. Having said that, if it is a majority who disagree then I have no problem with the existing simple table... I just feel it could be brought in line with everywhere else. Bs1jac (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't say it would be bringing the article in line with "everywhere else" because not all articles use the same format. – PeeJay 20:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Every single 2014-15 Premier League club page used the template this season. I am not going to go through the entire football league, but those that I have done some work on (including Gillingham, Brighton, Swindon, Southend, Doncaster) use it as well. The original point being that all comparable clubs (at least in England) are using the detailed template, providing better coverage and completeness to the pages. Some include cards, and some do not, some use [location] and [stadium] separately while others combine into [location] (so that both appear 'above the fold'), but the fundamental format is the same. Logic dictates that we should use the same format here. PS: Going back to an earlier comment about cards not directly affecting the final score: Perhaps not, but an early red may well have a bearing on the eventual result. Who says that the table should only include info affecting the final score (which, by the way, would include opposition scorers)? Does the attendance, date, etc. 'directly affect' the final score, should they be excluded? Bs1jac (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Coderzombie and Bs1jac. Many pages regarding season fixtures seem to be using this format now. In addition, giving the reader the most information is always the right thing to do, especially since this is meant to be a page of an encyclopedia. Bobtinin (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to see a lot of editors agreeing on more inclusive and more informative format. Let's plan for the revamp. Coderzombie (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because many pages do it a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way. As I've pointed out, a fair few do it the same way as this article. Personally, I think it's time we standardised the whole of Wikipedia with regard to football club season articles, and you'll have to go to WT:FOOTY to do that. – PeeJay 07:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

For me, it is just a suggestion. It would be good to standardise across wiki, and we are one of the pages that are non-standard as far as I can tell (just tried another dozen random clubs from France, Scotland and Spain, and all I tried were using a collapsible template with core match details including opposition goal scorers... haven't found one that doesn't - although I'm sure there are some). Can see no reason why this format would be the one chosen. I agree that being in the vast majority doesn't necessarily make something right, although I still feel that in this situation it is the case. I am not going to push it any further though if somebody 'in control' is adamant that they don't want the change.Bs1jac (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen opposition from anyone except one editor, even though there is no logical reason to oppose it. Coderzombie (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I implemented it. Cashewnøtt (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably haven't seen much opposition because most people are quite content with how the article looks right now. – PeeJay 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also for the footballboxes, but I am afraid that as long as PeeJay has this article in his tight grip not many changes will be made. Qed237 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought nobody owned a wikipedia page (WP:OWN). It seems obvious that the footballboxes improves the page. Cashewnøtt (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, think about it this way: this article is about Manchester United. The primary source(s), especially for early seasons in the club's history, are the club's own statistical records. The vast majority of these only include the club's own goalscorers. Recent years have made a change, but I personally feel maintaining consistency between all of the club's season articles is more important than making a change for just the most recent few seasons. What are we actually missing by not using the collapsible footballboxes? Just the opposition goalscorers and the referee? The referee is easily added by adding a column to the table. The other argument against the footballbox template is the inefficient use of space. Look at the boxes and there's far too much whitespace. You may get 15 matches on the screen at once, but that's only by hiding information (which is contrary to WP:COLLAPSE); if I take last season's Chelsea article as an example, I get 14 matches on the screen at once when the boxes are collapsed, but only six (SIX!!!) when they're expanded. Last season's Manchester United article, however, gets 24 matches on the screen at once and all the necessary information is readily available. The Chelsea article (and others) include bookings too, but those aren't necessary either; bookings aren't usually recorded in statistical analyses, so it's a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to do so. If you want referees added to the table, we can do that easily. Otherwise, I see no benefit to the collapsible footballbox. – PeeJay 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you make decent arguments. I would counter by saying that every match is played between two teams, and the timing of the opposing team's goals is very interesting for Manchester United as well. By having that information, it gives much more information about how the match progressed. Now, I was going to cite the MOS for season articles, and argue that we should follow that. However, I see that it supports your view. So I'll rather support a change there, and let this lie. Cashewnøtt (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the opponent's goals, but I think if readers want to know who scored for the opposition, they can look at the opposition's own season article. Plus, it should be mentioned in the article's prose anyway. – PeeJay 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also for using the template. Arguments can be seen above and are the majority around here. (But, you may have to bring this up to Footy maybe to get a change... 5 for, 1 against seems pretty good to me though) Kante4 (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but decisions here aren't taken based on numbers of !votes, it's on the strength of the arguments. I'm clearly in the wrong position to judge that, but from what I can see, the only decent argument on the side of the footballbox template is that it includes the opposition goalscorers, which should be mentioned in the prose anyway. It also includes the referee, but as I said, that's easily added to the template. And on the negative side of the template, it's actually against WP:COLLAPSE. – PeeJay 09:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think now the issue is definitely worthy of broader discussion. I'd suggest let's take it to WP:FOOTY Coderzombie (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because of one user's stubbornness, season page for one of the most popular club is stuck is 18th century. Congratulations, PeeJay2K3 122.167.23.1 (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You can be as derogatory as you like, but this format is preferred by many users across Wikipedia, not just me. If you don't like it, take it up with WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please make like FC Barcelona

Make like FC Barcelona, more clearly and neat. Informative For current season, there should squad information like FC Barcelona and young/academy players. Competition also must be like FC Barcelona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.28.50 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing neat about the Barcelona season article. Please read the above discussion. – PeeJay 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate EPL table positions

One can clearly see as of now, 14 September 2015, that Man Utd are in 3rd place and not 2nd. In addition, they were never in 1st place during the last five weeks of the 2015-16 season because Man City always had more points than them during the last five weeks.

Even the EPL table displayed on the article indicates that Man Utd are in 3rd place, as of now, and not 2nd place.

Is there a reason for the inaccurate EPL table positions of Man Utd?

WaterAndWater (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The "inaccurate table positions" reflect the correct table positions immeditately after the matches involving Manchester United were played, and is the same position as the sources show. This is the convention for season articles, I think. Cashewnøtt (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's actually the position the club was in at the end of the day the game was played on, but what you say is essentially correct. The positions are all sourced as well, so there can be no argument about their accuracy. – PeeJay 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As said above, it is position be matchDAY and not matchWEEK. Qed237 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If such is the case made by the three posters above, then couldn't one argue that Man Utd should have been in 1st place during the 1st week because they played before every one else after they defeated Tottenham at home? WaterAndWater (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because as we have said, it's the team's position at the end of the day. Check the sources. – PeeJay 10:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Guillermo Varela

Where is Varela? Why isn't he in the box? --Giacomo Antonio Lombardi (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Poor quality page

Compared to other leading clubs, this season page is of such a poor quality. No formatting, minimum information, and looks like other users opinions are completely ignored. 156.107.90.74 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no formatting"? And yes, the information here is restricted to what's actually needed on the page, not a list of every bloody statistic you can think of. This is an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. If anything, the page is still too stats-heavy. – PeeJay 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That is good to know, PeeJay2K3. If the page is too "heavy", please delete all the information so you can run Wikipedia as per your own point of views and policies. Enjoy! 156.107.138.10 (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Bye! – PeeJay 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)