Talk:2015–16 in Australian soccer

Retirements

what is the retirements section for? Any Aussie player who retired? --SuperJew (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on what is done on other pages such as 2015–16 in English football#Retirements, the convention seems to be any Australian player who retires in the season or players who have played in Australia. I'm not sure what level that should extend down to though - maybe only players who played top tier football in Australia (or for the national team)? Macosal (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be Australian players who played on the national team or players who played in the A-League in the year of their retirement and have had a respectable career in Australia (say 50 caps?). --SuperJew (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit restrictive to me, especially given that a number of players may move back to state league before retiring or don't end up coming back to Australia (and 50 caps limits this to about 5 current players). I would stick to top flight in Australia or Socceroos (or W-League/Matildas) - even then I don't think there will be many names on the list. Macosal (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair. Does this include foreign players or only Aussies? --SuperJew (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

FFA Cup bracket table

There has been discussion both in 2015 (here: Talk:2015 FFA Cup) and in 2014 (here: Talk:2014 FFA Cup#Bracket Table) for the main article pages which considered that the bracket table would not be shown until after the semi final draw, as there are draws for each round, and therefore misleading in terms of showing a progression for each round's winner that does not occur (this is different to a tennis draw, or NSW Waratah Cup where the entire draw is known in advance). Does it make much sense to be currently displaying more or additional information on the Season summary page than in the main article? I think that as per the main article, the bracket should not be shown until the semi final draw has been made, at which point the full progression is known and then should be shown. The current bracket has been removed twice (by me) and reverted back twice too. Thoughts ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there is no need for the bracket in the main cup page, since the page details all of the matches and the bracket is therefore only confusing. However, on this page the matches are not detailed and the bracket is the only information, done in bracket form to be concise. To avoid the misleading caused by the draws, there is a note mentioning that the QF & SF are yet to be drawn. Simple. --SuperJew (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a Template to show only a portion of a bracket - that would make it substantially more clear - and probably acceptable for the main article as well? Matilda Maniac (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean-there are smaller brackets which could be repeated 16 times to accurately show what has happened, but I worry that could be too much/a bit repeititive. I do still worry that despite the note, the bracket definitely gives the appearance of certainty in the draw. I also would probably not have the state flags here - almost nobody is aware of which flag represents these states, and clubs aren't "representing" their states I think, that is merely how they have qualified. MOS:FLAG suggests strictly limiting the use of state flags - if the cup was maybe, selections of players representing each state, I think this could be more appropriate, but as it stands I don't think it is helping anyone to understand the draw. Macosal (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I meant whether it was possible to hide the right hand side of the bracket for the rounds that arent known (i.e. only display the first two rounds as it is at the moment). But that would probably mean that additional templates would have to be made for each round which is difficult. Or maybe even colour grey the cells in the right hand side of the bracket for the rounds that arent known ? I disagree with comments above that the bracket is only confusing on the main article's page, it is confusing the way it is presented in this article. and if confusing to some editors, likely even more so for non-editors. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea if colouring gray the stages which are unknown as of yet. I'm not sure technically how to do it though. --SuperJew (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They are there though through the federations. They don't merely happen to come from 1 of the federations. If the FFA Cup took for the round of 32 for example the best 32 in the country, Darwin Olympic would most probably not be there. --SuperJew (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

62 flags on this summary article is silly, when again its not deemed necessary on the main article (again, using the guidance of MOS:FLAG). Look, in any case it's only one click away to actually go to the main article and the link is right there, front and centre. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything on this summary article is one click away. Maybe it should just be a list of links? Or maybe it shouldn't exist? Or MAYBE it should just continue being what it is - a one page summary of the season? --SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cancelled women's Haiti match

@Matilda Maniac:

Is it necessary to include the cancelled Haiti training match? From what I gather from the source (which is also not an official source, just a fans' forum) it was supposed to be a closed-doors training/warm-up. This is also the first I've heard of it, so doesn't seem very notable or official. In short, a seemingly cancelled training match with no official source. Keep or Delete?

--SuperJew (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

THANKS for asking . . . my view is Delete All Three : I think either have all three matches appear as cancelled, or all three matches wiped away. Even the USWNT games may have been newsworthy over the past week, but not not so newsworthy, and therefore not noteworthy in the medium term. Therefore I would recommend to wipe all three cancelled matches; Separately, I hope that there's time to organize something else later in the year when all the (male) pay disputes are hopefully resolved. Matilda Maniac (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the match shouldn't be removed just because it was cancelled. The basis should be if we would have included it if it wasn't cancelled. I feel if they weren't cancelled the US games definitely would have been included (a double friendly against the top team in the world who just won the World Cup last summer), but I doubt the Haiti match would be included. Again, no official source, just fans' rumours. And also supposedly behind closed doors. --SuperJew (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I had seen other references to this match. Will search again. Because Haiti WNT were already in USA - and Detroit in particular to play Matilda's - they were fortuitously able to step in and replace Australia with such short notice. They probably saved FFA a lawsuit. Any match that goes ahead and is deemed an offical 'A' match - regardless of whether its behind closed doors - would be included. At some point - a week - a month - a year - cancelled matches are not in themselves necessarily noteworthy, even if its a top team like USWNT, so at some point i suggest all three non-matches are removed. Leave for a month or two, maybe ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think a non-cancelled match is of itself not necessarily noteworthy at some point? I do actually think the US Tour has noteworthiness because of the reason it was cancelled. --SuperJew (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not permanantly. Matilda Maniac (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My take on this: I don't think the Haiti match should be listed for two reasons:

• There is no reason to believe it was an "A" international. Given that, at least at senior level, the FFA does distinguish between A internationals and other matches quite clearly, I think it shouldn't be included.
• Per WP:V, a post in a forum is not really a good enough source for something like this.

On the other hand, I am definitely of the opinion that the 2 cancelled matches ought to remain, also for two reasons:

• That is the recommendation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Country seasons#National teams
• These matches in particular are quite notable for their cancellation, given the circumstances surrounding the games and tour.

Cheers, Macosal (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of k.o. times

@Matilda Maniac: why do you keep removing kick-off times of games? This is the third time I've seen you do it on this page. --SuperJew (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought it was common practice for games that have already occurred. I forget where, but last year someone was doing that to some sites where I had updated some older results, and removing the times on the basis that for older games, only the dates were notable not the kickoff times, and the kickoff times were generally for information purposes for games that had not yet been played. I thought that was a reasonable practice, so i have sometimes continued that. I will desist for such pages as this which are still obviously 'current'. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at all. Just removes information for no reason. The time also indicates if it is a morning, afternoon or evening game which can interest some people. --SuperJew (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Matildas : Four Nations Tournament

Is the forthcoming tournament the Four Nations Tournament, or just a tournament which just happens to have Four Nations competing ? The 2015 Four Nations Tournament has already occurred in January this year. Two in the one year is that likely ? I still cannot find any reference to the 4th team (rumoured to be South Korea according to the article's Source), nor anything about England's involvement, given the tournament commences in only 2 weeks time from the FFA website announcement. Given dates announced of October 23 to October 27th, it appears this may just be a 3-team friendly affair, rather than the long-running Four Nations Tournament. This section needs some further information. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - for mine, there should be some level of official confirmation from an official source (any of the teams involved) about the specifics of the fixtures before they are added in. The current source being just an independent media relase with relatively vague details is probably not enough in my opinion - if/when the tournament does go ahead the actual dates, teams and tournament will become clearer. Macosal (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)