Talk:List of English football transfers summer 2017

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 April 2017 by reviewer Yash! (talk · contribs).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

flag icons

I don't mind next to the name of the player, but the formatting for the other columns look poor with flag icons, maybe remove them from the club columns? Govvy (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Sources

Why is this needed? This has never been needed in other English Transfer lists, and this list uses the same format as those. Evertonfc13 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but all the previous articles seem pretty poor for sourcing to me, even this one, I think it would be a lot neater, although more work to have a simple ref column like you see on Harry Kane international goal table. Govvy (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and notes

I don't think you need to put the dates in bold text and the notes should be on the end column. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the notes are in the first column is because they have to do with the date that the transfer goes through, so it is in the date column. Evertonfc13 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unattached?

Why are there so many players going from "unattached" when they have left one club for another one at the end of their contract? I don't want to just edit them all, but surely this would be more informative and accurate to put the club they have left? Unattached implies there was a period between leaving one club and joining another where they were not under contract. --Rcclh (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unattached should be separated from the list, this whole article is floored and frankly very poor, loans and signing should be in separate tables. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like the article is very poor, then make some changes. Make sure that theres a good reason for the changes though. Evertonfc13 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they sign a contract the exact second at midnight that their previous contract expires, would you not say that this is a period where they are not under contract? Evertonfc13 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The time they sign at is not relevant. It is the date the contract takes effect from. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the contract does expire at midnight on June 30, and the new one takes effect on July 1st. So i think the unattached should be changed to the club that the player left.--Rcclh (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about we change the section name to "Players out of Contract" or something similar, and then have a "previous club" and "new club" column? Then there is a debate of whether to include players released by an English club that join a foreign club. Evertonfc13 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a player is released from a club and is signed up by another club in a space of one hour, that's not a transfer, that's a signing. There-for by logic doesn't qualify to be on a transfer list! Govvy (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I would argue that major players are signed this way, and we should include this information in the article. Perhaps we can change it to have a new section called signings where all of the unattached players are put Evertonfc13 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think three different tables is the way forward, transfers, loans and signings. Govvy (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U23/B Squad players

Should players signed by clubs and then sent to the U23 squad for example be included in this list? Evertonfc13 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't matter where they are sent to in a club, premier league cups buy youth players for a million here and there and send them straight into their academy, it's still a transfer. Govvy (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

transfer footnotes

Is there a way to put the transfer footnotes directly under the transfers instead of right at the bottom of the page? Govvy (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Which footnotes are you refering to? Evertonfc13 (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transder Fees

Regarding the transfer value of Vito Mannone from Sunderland to Reading, surely it is better to use the official club release's than a third-party site that has a fee that is "reported to be"? --Dave logic (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave logic: The problem with that is that basically all of the fees are not disclosed by the clubs, so all of the fees would have to be erased. Also, the Sunderland 2017-18 wiki page and the Vito Mannone wiki page both use this source. Evertonfc13 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evertonfc13: I understand what you mean about all the fee's saying undisclosed, but if the clubs aren't officially announcing a fee then surely any fee listed is pure speculation? On Vito's page i think it's fine as the text says its "around" that value, which is backed up by linking to the BBC source. However on the Sunderland 2017-18 wiki page it shouldn't be listed a £2mil as the source used doesn't mention any value. --Dave logic (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave logic: I wouldn't call the BBC source "pure speculation", they are a pretty reputable source. Evertonfc13 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evertonfc13: well, yes the BBC is usually a reliable source, but my point is if neither clubs have disclosed the value of the transfer, then there is nothing official to confirm the value of the transfer fee. And whilst the BBC, SKY, ESPN etc. are usually reliable source they do sometimes get things wrong. An example of why I think adding transfer fees which aren't official stated by the club is shown here. Example I'd say the Teesside Gazette would be a good source for transfer info regarding Middlesbrough (in the same way Reading Post and Reading Chronicle can be for my team Reading) but the club coming out and correcting the transfer values they've stated shows that even with good sources in a club, they're not always correct.--Dave logic (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave logic: So would you rather have none of the amounts disclosed or trust the BBC? I believe the consensus has always been to use the BBC, but we can continue to discuss this on the talk page of the article to see if the consensus has changed. Evertonfc13 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Evertonfc13: I don't see it as an issue of trust with the BBC or similar, more that you can't 100% guarantee that it's the correct figure unless it comes from the clubs involved. Also what happens in the case that neither club disclose the transfer fee and then two reputable source have differing values in their report of the transfer? There is also the question of where do you draw the line on sites being a reputable source? I understand where you're coming from, so more than happy to continue this on its talk page and see what the consensus is.--Dave logic (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave logic: Often times two clubs in a transfer will report different transfer fees, so you can never 100% guarantee the correct figure even when it comes from the clubs involved. I still think that using the BBC is better than deleting all of the fees. Maybe we can add a footnote for the prices saying something along the lines of "Reported fee comes from the BBC and may not be 100% accurate"? Evertonfc13 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]