User talk:Falastur2/Archive 6

Enhancements to the new PST : capture and representation of the squad re-registration process

I have to ask - does this table provide any way of indicating that a player might have made the 25-man squad for one selection and then been removed later? What happens if a player with appearances in all competitions (except the FA Cup for obvious reasons) is sold in January, par exemple? Falastur2 ^Talk 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this issue. My main concern is that it is affected by both (1) the issue of frequency of squad re-registrations (as being discussed here) and (2) the Vuoso issue regarding what constitutes a valid entry in the PST (as was previously discussed in sections now archived). Therefore, I really don't want to put too much energy into trying to immediately address this issue in any depth until both of those more fundamental ones have been closed to our mutual satisfaction (however that is done!). Because I would rather solve the problem just the once rather than with a case statement of possible solutions that address all feasible combinations of each of the following four possible scenarios:

(1a) 25-man squads have to be (re-)registered with UEFA for every tier (round?) of the Champions League and Europa League competitions

(1b) 25-man squads have to be (re-)registered with UEFA only at the end of the summer and winter transfer windows

(2a) the PST is meant show the playing statistics of all the players officially in the first team squad

(2b) the PST is only meant to show the playing statistics of players that actually played

Thus, for right now, I only want to address (and demonstrate to you) why your question is tied into both of these open issues so that you will agree with my rationale for currently procrastinating on it, so that we can instead bring those other issues to closure first.

Let me first address issue (1). Even if the EPL squad (re-)registration requirements follow scenario (1b) above - and that makes sense because there are no tiers to a league; all 38 games during the season are at the same level - it doesn't really help us if the UEFA squad (re-)registration requirements follow scenario (1a). Because we should either implement Phase 2 of the PST update for both the UEFA and the EPL competitions (viz. the first two PST columns) or for neither of them; not for one or the other. So if tiered registration is a show-stopper for implementing Phase 2 of the PST update for the UEFA competition then it is effectively a show-stopper for implementing it period. Hence my focus only on UEFA squad (re-)registration requirements in scenarios (1a) and (1b) above.

However, for the sake of simplicity, let me just consider the case of only two squad registrations per season as in the case of the EPL (or so we currently believe). Whatever issues that raises only get seriously compounded with a need for multiple (at each tier) squad registrations per season as in the case of the UEFA competitions (and also note that any solution must work for all three UEFA competitions and not only the Europa League competition that City just happens to be in this upcoming season).

If a player such as Jô was registered in Mancini's 25-man squad in August for the first half of the EPL season and clocked up some appearance statistics (and goals too ... after all, he is currently City's leading preseason goal scorer and IMO has demonstrated better than any of the other strikers that he knows where the net is!) yet still failed to impress Mancini and so is dropped from the squad when it is re-registered in January, it raises the question (your question as I understand it) as to how the PST will represent this scenario.

It was my intent that the codes entered into the "Squad" columns of the PST (viz. H4 or F3, etc.) - and not the leftmost "Squad Status" column (which has a completely different meaning) - would indicate only those rows in each particular competition that could contain valid appearances and goals by a player. That is, if Kelvin Etuhu has not been registered in the EPL 25-man squad then there is a problem (viz. editor vandalism or stupidity) if his cells in the EPL column of the PST shows him as having played and/or scored goals in that competition. It was also my intent that the 'H4' or 'F3' codes in the "Squad" columns of the PST would be readjusted after the January transfer window re-registration of the squad.

Thus in Jô's case, his "F" code would be blanked out (because he could no longer play in the EPL competition in the second half of the season) and it either be given directly to (i.e., entered into the EPL "Squad" cell of) the new player that took his place in the squad, or since that would most likely make the numerical numbering of that particular "F" slot out of sequence, the new player would simply take an "F" code and then all of the existing "F" codes would then be sequentially renumbered from the top of the PST again, and this new player's "F" code would pick up its actual number from this renumbering process (and only the "F" codes of the players below this new player in the PST would actually receive new numbers).

The decision to either just reassign the codes of players not re-registered in January directly to the newly registered players that replaced them, or to effectively reassign numbered codes from the top of the PST from scratch (in the same manner as they were done in August) would simply be a question of style. Or maybe not? Right now, in my strawman PST, the code numbering is not tied to anything tangible. The codes are simply numbered from top to bottom for the sake of convenient unique identification. However, if it transpires that the way these 25-man squads are announced in the media (or on the various club, UEFA or EPL official web sites) come the end of August reveals which player occupied which slot on the registration form that was submitted to the relevant governing FA, then obviously we would make the numbering in the PST columns match up with that information.

However, I think that would be a highly unlikely situation. To tell the truth, although I followed (watched) all of Manchester United Champions League games last season, I could not even start to tell you who were the 25 players that were officially in the squad at any given time. Nor do I know where to even look that information up - although, admittedly, I do not spend much time browsing the United web site and the 25-man squads (as submitted to UEFA) may well be defined quite prominently there). One just assumes that United did everything by the book last season, because if it hadn't, the club would have been slapped with a big fine by UEFA for fielding an illegal player. However, that is UEFA and the Champions League. Given all the interest in this topic as it applies to the upcoming Premier League season, things may well change in how this information is publicly reported in the media.

To return back to my example, if Jô was removed from the City registered EPL squad in January to make way for, say, Mario Balotelli (for instance, should City fail to snag him in the next week or so and the deal doesn't then happen until the next transfer window) he would now have no "F" code but statistics in his EPL column "Appearances" and "Goals" cells. Clearly that would look exactly the same as the erroneous Kelvin Etuhu situation described above. So some method of indicating that he had been a member of the squad but no longer is, and that his displayed stats. are thus copacetic, is required. So I'm thinking his situation would best be indicated by changing his "Fn" code to "XF" when he is removed from the squad. Consequently, it would now be possible for the EPL column in the PST to contain more than 25 senior player "Squad" codes after the January transfer window closed, but the codes of all those senior players in excess of the 25 current members of the EPL squad would contain an "X".

Just as an update on my earlier thoughts in the above paragraph, the fact that 3 of the Big 4 clubs (I haven't done a Liverpool worksheet analysis over here yet) were unable to submit EPL and UEFA squad registrations that utilized all of the permissible 25 senior player slots on their respective LIST A and SQUAD LIST forms makes any worrying about accounting for how many eligible players are indicated in the "Elig." columns somewhat of a futile enterprise. There is most certainly something wrong if more than 25 senior players (viz. "FOR", "HGP" or "ACG" designated players) are enumerated in any given "Elig." column, but OTOH nobody noticed that I actually had 26 "senior slot" players enumerated in the UEFA squad column of the version of the PST that you initially rolled out (viz. the updated 25 - meaning, with Balotelli replacing RSC - plus Milner). I later removed Milner, and that is still the UEFA squad that is shown in the PST today.

If RSC had played in the first two Timişoara ties before being replaced in the UEFA squad by Balotelli then his original "F" code enumeration in the "Elig." column would most certainly have had to be changed to an "XF" code for two good reasons - (1) it would indicate that his "AppsStats" in that competition were copacetic and not a spurious entry made for an ineligible player, and (b) it would keep the number of enumerated senior players at 25, because having more than 25 enumerated senior players in those columns is erroneous. However, since Man. United did not include Hargreaves or Bébé in its UEFA squad as expected, and SAF only registered 24 "senior slot" players on 9-1-10, if some time later this season Bébé similarly replaces one of the current "FOR" members of that 24-man squad whom had already clocked up some "AppsStats", and the hypothetical editor updating the hypothetical United PST forgot to "X" that player out at the same time that he added Bébé to the UEFA squad, then there would be no way one could easily tell that something was amiss in that situation.

Just as an aside here, I believe that City is the only club amongst the top six EPL clubs that was able to register full 25-man squads for both competitions (but I have yet to produce worksheets for Liverpool and Spurs). United only registered 24 senior players for both, Arsenal only registered 20 for both, and Chelsea only registered 19 for both. City had to swap out senior player RSC in order to register "U21" Balotelli as a "FOR" player for the Europa League, and Chelsea had a similar problem with the fact that City renegade Daniel Sturridge has not been at Stamford Bridge for two full years yet, but since Chelsea only registered 19 senior players in their UEFA squad, Sturridge was simply added as a twentieth "senior slot" player. Manchester United have a similar problem with their two recently acquired "U21" players Obertan and Smalling, and Hargreaves and De Laet (both included in the EPL squad) were not included in SAF's UEFA squad in order to make room for them. But why not include someone such as Hargreaves or De Laet in the UEFA squad when SAF still has an unused 25th slot in both of his squads? Also, why spend £7M-£8M (?) on a player such as Bébé and then not register him in the UEFA squad? Clearly, SAF has something up his sleeve here. Or perhaps he is getting a little senile! Although Hernández was clearly a smart purchase, I'm not so sure about either Smalling or Bébé, both of whom have yet to do much to justify their transfer fees IMO. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This method would allow the PST to clearly indicate at any time which players were actually current in the squad and which players had previously been members of the squad earlier in the season. This mechanism would probably work just as well in the UEFA situation if it transpires that multiple squad re-registrations are required during the course of one season, and we can probably even come up with an encoding scheme that indicates which ex-squad members were present in the squad at which registration periods - e.g., if there were, for the sake of argument, four registration periods, then the "foreign" "F" coded players that were dropped at the end of the first registration period would be indicated "X1F", and those dropped at the end of the second registration period would be indicated "X2F", and so on. An even more complicated encoding scheme might also be used to indicate which new players replaced the dropped players in the squad with each re-registration.

Having given the ideas that were simply thrown out in the above paragraph some further consideration, I don't recommend that we try to implement my last suggestion of tracking who replaces whom in each squad. Tracking in which registration period someone who is going to be "X"ed was dropped from the squad might still yet be feasible, but my intuition currently tells me that we shouldn't go there either. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I find myself now less interested in keeping a player's records on the PST unless they've actually clocked up games. Particularly with the new advent of the 25-man squads, I no longer view it as worthwhile keeping blank records from so early in the season when they create so much hassle. I would make an exception to this viewpoint if any player consistently made a 25-man squad for an entire season and didn't play a single game, but for only being an unused sub in an early squad selection? No. Not least because at present we have no way of showing what the 25-man squads looked like at different times of the season, so saying that a player used to belong to a 25-man selection is one thing but it provides no real insight as to how they shaped that selection...and incidentally, that's not really a suggestion that we should show how the 25-man squads change over the season. Along a similar line to what I argued on the City season article talk page about saturation of data, while I'm an inclusionist I believe there are very much things that are too insignificant or too extrapolated to be worth adding. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But this now segues us nicely into issue (2). All of the above complex encoding would be fairly pointless if we dropped the rows from the PST of players that never played all season and thus had no statistics to display. Because any part of that complex encoding would be screwed up if some of the players that had been in and out of the various EPL and UEFA squads via multiple registrations (and thus indicated in their squad encoding which other player they replaced in the squad and when) never actually played a game all season, and thus their records were removed at the end of the season. OTOH, maybe we would simply treat a player with such an encoding as NOT having a null record. Because although his PST record displays no actual appearances in any competition (and so no goals scored or yellow or red cards received either) it nevertheless contains vital "link" information WRT the tracking of the actual makeup of the various squads he was registered in during the season.

Anyway, I think I have indicated enough food for thought here WRT why it is paramount that the Vuoso and squad re-registration issues are both resolved before we can really start to make any headway with resolving all of the issues that might pertain to the new "Elig." columns in the PST. Let me once again emphasize here that all of the foregoing does not in any way affect the initial roll out of the enhanced PST which simply adds the new "Squad Status" and "Elig." columns assigning each of the first team players into one of four pools that merely indicate how they might (or must) be registered within any competition squad requiring such registration. That categorization is quite general and is not competition specific (although it does only bother to address the various extant qualification criteria that have been dreamed up for competitions to date). Thus, for instance, if UEFA had gone ahead this summer and implemented its "6/5" team makeup requirements for clubs competing in UEFA competitions, then that situation would have simply created more "Squad Status" codes in addition to the four that we currently have. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with your points one at a time as I think of things to mention:

1 - About the ordering of the numbers. I believe (not certain, but I reckon I'm right) that all official announcements of the registration of squads for competitions will be done with the players ordered by squad number. This, coincidentally, is the way you've already got it laid out so that has fallen nicely into place.

Whether my enumerating of the players in the PST "Elig'" columns matches the way the players are actually registered with UEFA and the Premier League via the electronic squad list forms or not is quite irrelevant. As I state in my disclaimer at the very bottom of the new "Elig." collapsible table, the numbering of the players used in those columns is purely a convenient enumeration mechanism intended only to account for all of the registered players - there is no intention to match exactly how they were registered in real life. Maybe I need to make that disclaimer note a little clearer? Perhaps I should add a new row at the bottom of that table entitled "Disclaimer" and move that text note to it all by itself so that it is more noticeable in its own right? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have already made that change in the latest version of the "Player Eligibility" collapsible table here in my sandbox. Please check it out, particularly the newly added entries defining the "X" codes, and give me your feedback ASAP because I want to roll the newer version of this table of definitions out to the article sooner rather than later. :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it very much, that's some great work. I perused your registered players table below, though and while I do still very much like it, but I do indeed have a few comments:

Oh no, the "Registered Players" collapsible table is OLD NEWS! It was my first attempt at producing a legend table for those columns. I agree with almost everything you said about it and if I can make some time I will respond to what you have written below. I decided myself as soon as I had finished that table that it was way too mathematical for your typical artsy-fartsy Wikipedia types, which is why the day afterwards I tried an alternative approach to producing the required table. The result of that effort was the "Player Eligibility" collapsible table which I liked a lot better. There is an old aphorism that states, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach!" One might extend this old saw to say something along the lines, "Those who can't even teach, self-style themselves as Wikipedia editors!" :)

FYI, I did find quite a nice way to both remove that "Registered Players" collapsible table from my sandbox (so that it does not confuse anyone else) while still making use of the effort I put into it. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I originally called the second attempt at the new collapsible table "Player Eligibility" was because I could not give the newer table the same name as the first one. However, once I thought of that name I much preferred it to my original "Registered Players" name for that table and the associated new PST columns. The reason for that comes right back down to the point of my disclaimer. What I'm trying to establish with those columns is to deterministically identify which players are eligible to play in which competition; they most certainly are NOT meant to be an attempt at second guessing how Roberto Mancini actually registers his squads from his PC. So although only "Registered Players" can be "Eligible Players" and the two terms would appear at first glance to be synonyms, there is quite a subtle distinction that I am trying to get across here!

Unfortunately, once again, as with the section on City's kits, you just focused your attention on what was quite unimportant. IMO the section that is MOST important right now (other than this one) is this one. As far as I'm concerned, everything else is pretty much background noise. So please forget that you ever saw that "Registered Players" collapsible table - the only reason that I did not simply delete it was because I thought there might be some useful information in there possibly worth saving. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 07:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• The first is that you defined the left-hand column as 453 pixels in width - I guess that's because you reasoned that it was approximately (or perhaps exactly?) half the width of the whole table which as you wanted it. However, you didn't define the right-hand column's width. To many this would be a minor issue, though to someone like me - I'm viewing this page through a 1680x1050 monitor - the right-hand column balloons out of all proportion. Similarly, to someone still using an old decrepit 840x680, your column is going to cramp up on the right. It's not a huge problem but if you value layout you either need to define a size for the RH column or change the sizing to use percentages instead. The code is around in various tables though I can't recall it immediately - if you're having trouble locating it, I'll stick it in for you tomorrow.

I defined the l.h.s. column as 453 pixels in width because that is what it took on my monitor screen for the two columns to both be full of text and be the same length. The r.h.s. column contains quite a bit more text, so rather than make the two columns the same width such that the l.h.s. column contained lots of white space, I put a width value on it and then kept adjusting it until it shrunk in width to the point that the last line of text in it was parallel with the last line of text in the wider r.h.s. column. I am not sure what exactly you mean by "ballooning out of all proportion" because this obviously works for me on my monitor and with my browser release, etc. But I'm assuming what you mean is that with some (possibly higher) monitor resolutions than mine, because the r.h.s. column has no specified width while the l.h.s. does, the outcome is that the r.h.s. column goes on for ever ... viz. the r.h.s. of the table goes right up to the r.h.s. edge of the physical screen, and appears completely out of proportion to the l.h.s. column.

Ditto, if someone's monitor resolution is lower than mine the inverse happens; the fixed sized width l.h.s. column dominates the screen causing the unspecified width r.h.s. column to be squished into whatever space remains. If this is the problem then please tell me how to fix it (so that I will know for the future). OTOH, if what is upsetting you is that the columns are NOT of equal width then that is exactly how I intended them to be. It sounds to me that what I really need to do, as you suggest, is use a % sizing that always makes the l.h.s. column be in the same proportion to the r.h.s. column thus keeping the text balanced. Am I right in assuming that if I give both columns a width (that are in the right proportion to each other) then the net result will be the same because the table will be scaled to whatever monitor resolution is being used? I ask that because that "width" statement is used all over the place in the various tables in that season article, because that is where I learnt it from ... purely a case of "monkey see, monkey do" on my part, I'm afraid. :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if - again, for no more than aesthetic value - it would be better to align the text on both sides to the top, rather than the middle. Normally I like middle-align but personally in bullet-pointed text I'm not so convinced about its smartness. However...anal comment alert so if you aren't bothered, ignore me, because it's a good bet most other people won't be bothered either.

• Here's the crux of my comments - the maths is great but I wonder if we should use maths or a more straight-forward language prose. Realism guides me to understand that statistically, only a few people reading the PST will open these tables and read them and I'm trying to weigh up in my mind whether it's better to assume that those who read it on the whole will or will not be the sort who prefer the mathematical explanation, but I just fear that for some with less of a mathematical mind it may be hard to understand. On the other hand, the maths is accurate and makes it look professional. I really don't know which way to lean. If you'll allow me, tomorrow I'll try to write up below your table an alternate version in hopefully as many words and not less or more but which puts it non-mathematically, and then we can decide on whether it sacrifices too much information. Alternately you might express a strong opinion one way or the other which makes this unnecessary. If you personally believe that the maths suits the table better, for instance, then I can be swung to such a reasoning quite easily - as I say, I'm on the fence. I myself am semi-inclined to say that the other two tables justify a bit of maths to solidify the point but I'm still moved by both arguments. But, anyway, that is my major concern.

• Oh, and a very minor point about the PST itself (not that registered player table) - your PST table is still showing a few elements of the old style - they being the FA Cup under its full name, and the now-orphaned "*citation needed" comment. You may disagree over the naming of the FA Cup and you may want the citation in for reference, but if you had planned on a copy-paste to implement your new ideas (at present I only see RSC being marked XF but I might have missed something more major) then you might want to bear that in mind. Very minor point, as I say, but I am meticulous...perhaps too meticulous. :\ Falastur2 ^Talk 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the reason I haven't changed the "FA Cup" title in the header of my strawman PST is because when I update the PST with the latest playing stats. I don't copy the header ... I start with the Shay Given entry. I have not bothered to change it in my strawman PST from what I originally had because I disagree with your stated rationale. My title is the correct title of the competition and is therefore more appropriately encyclopaedic. Accuracy of terminology is much more important than popularity in an encyclopaedia. Otherwise we should refer to the various competitions by their more popular sponsorship names - viz. the Barclays Premier League, the Carling Cup and the e.on Cup! Your argument demonstrated to me that you fully acknowledge that the article is not really encyclopaedic in its intent, but more entertainment for the masses (in the same way that the BBC Sport pages are). However, I'm not going to argue this point with you, because it's not that important to me.

Other than that FA Cup column title and the RSC "XF" entry I believe my strawman PST matches the one in the article. The only new stuff that you need to focus on are the lead in sections (where I have buried all that text in collapsible tables - and I want your feedback on that) and the new "Player Eligibility" table which, since you like it, I will roll out to the article once I'm done with this response. As for the now-orphaned "*citation needed" comment I stop my copy-paste updates of the article PST at the end of my strawman PST, so once again, it doesn't get picked up. However, we do need to discuss this particular footnote as it pertains directly to the issue covered by this section, and that is probably where we should discuss it. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 07:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2 - Very minor point, but re: your mentioning Balotelli taking Jo's place in the PL squad: he wouldn't. Balotelli is 19, thus counts as one of the infinite number of under-21s we can register.

Your point has been acknowledged elsewhere ... it is unfortunate I chose Balotelli for my example (but he was very much in the news at the time I wrote that); with 20/20 hindsight, Milner would have been a better choice for my example. :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

3 - I agree that a code for being removed would be useful. My immediate thought was that "RMV" might be more obvious, with a footnote somewhere pointing out for those who couldn't work it out that anyone with a RMV was removed from the squad half-way through. But XF works just as well as long as readers know what it means - and I guess, over my idea it also conveys the squad status that the player in question formerly occupied in the 25 man squad. Obviously an under-21 in the PL can never lose that status (except by being sold, but I figured sold players should be handled differently anyway - for instance the method I always used, which was replacing their squad number with "Sold" - although even this has its downsides.

BTW, I think the "X" mechanism should only be used for squad players that actually clock up some playing statistics while they were an eligible player - so that people can recognize that those stats. are bona fide data for that player, even though he is now no longer a member of the squad. I do not think it would be a good idea to use that mechanism for every player that was formerly in the squad yet never played. Thus, if Robinho is sold in the next couple of days and Milner takes his UEFA slot, I don't think we need to mark him as "XF". I view trying to keep track of all the players who have ever been registered in one of the squads yet never played a game as being an exactly parallel situation to trying to keep track of all the players that have ever sat on the substitute's bench yet also never kicked a ball competitively. IMO it is a Herculean task with very little useful return. Trying to do it is just setting ourselves up for failure.

FYI, now that we have the new "Squad Status" column you no longer have to clobber a player's squad number when he is sold; you can now clobber his "Squad Status" with the word "Sold" instead. That way we can still see what shirt number he wore that season before he was sold. This will avoid situations such as the one in season 2008-09 when you showed Vedran Ćorluka (who was transferred to Spurs at the very end of the summer transfer window after he had played a half dozen games or so for City) and Kasper Schmeichel (who spent most the season out on loan at Cardiff City and Coventry City - I think?) both wearing the #16 shirt that season (something that is surely not possible?). You probably didn't notice that you had done that double squad number allocation because you would have clobbered Ćorluka's #16 squad number with "Sold" after only two weeks or so of the season gone. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, and I now understand and agree. Robbie's now gone, anyway, and sans appearances, which fairly clears up that point really. RSC not being included in the 25-man squads presents some interesting questions, but I believe we have preemptively solved them by these debates. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the recent first team squad analysis I did for Liverpool and have added to my control document. In particular, pay close attention to the worksheet analysis and its footnotes here, the summarizing squad status breakdown table here, and finally the resultant strawman PST here. Liverpool are the only team I've come across so far that require the use of the "X" codes in the new "Elig." columns. The current LFC first team squad is a quite a complicated one and it serves as a good test case for many of the issues I've raised with you here (issues that I had conceptualized without necessarily knowing they would or had actually occurred in real life).

The 4 players in the Liverpool squad that require the "X" codes provide quite a nice cross-section of all the different sort of scenarios that may arise for how a player might possibly clock up some "AppsStats" for a squad in which he is no longer a member. But first note how (in the strawman PST at the very end of my document) the new "Squad Status" column allows you to enter the current "sold" and "loaned" out status for these players without losing their prior squad numbers - in fact, they can now remain in the PST sorted on their old squad number so that you can easily see (if relevant) which player took over their old squad number. Zapping the "Squad Status" column information in order to display this new "sold" and "loaned" info. does not actually lose that information (the way the squad number was lost) because it is still encoded in the "XF" or "XY" codes in the "Elig." columns. This is what I was trying to explain to you up above.

One of the rules for inclusion in an ongoing season PST I am going to add to this section (when I have the time to return to it) is that ANY player who is currently LIST A registered with UEFA or SQUAD LIST registered with the Premier League should be included in the PST (regardless of whatever else his first team status might be). Thus I would argue that Balotelli should have an entry in the Man. City PST even if he hadn't played against Timişoara. Similarly, when I initially saw here that Bébé had not been included by SAF in United's UEFA squad I removed him from the Man. United PST because he failed the "must have played competitively for the first team" criterion that I use to eliminate "fringe players". When UEFA subsequently admitted earlier this week that he was indeed part of the squad (and his name magically appeared on the UEFA.com site where before it had been conspicuous by its absence) I promptly added an entry for Bébé back into the Man. United PST.

Another rule that needs to be added here, this time for non-inclusion in the PST, is that by itself, being LIST B registered with UEFA is an insufficient criterion for inclusion in a club's PST. This season, Arsenal have submitted a 44-man squad to UEFA for the Champions League, but 23 of those players are LIST B youths, and the chances of any of them playing in the CL is probably no more than wishful thinking on the part of Arsene Wenger! In its own turn, City have submitted a 38-man squad to UEFA for the Europa League, with 13 of those players being LIST B youths, 9 of which are EDS players that have never played for the first team and should NOT be included in the Man. City PST on that basis alone.

OK, with those rules out of the way, a few things to specifically note about these 4 particular LFC player scenarios. Lauri Dalla Valle was an UEFA LIST B youth player that had never played for the LFC first team before this season began. Preparing the Liverpool PST ahead of LFC's first competitive game in the Europa League I would have omitted him from the PST based on his lack of a first team debut. His coming on as a late substitute in LFC's first away leg match against Rabotnički is what got him an entry in the PST. The fact that he is "U21" eligible for the LFC Premier League squad and (LIST B submitted) "YTH" eligible for the LFC UEFA squad is then duly noted in the respective "Elig." columns when his entry is created. The important point here being that the criterion that caused his entry being added to the PST was because of his actual playing in the Rabotnički game, and NOT because he was "U21" or "YTH" eligible for those respective competitions. When he was transferred to Fulham on Aug 31 his "U21" and "YTH" codes duly then get changed to "XU" and "XY".

Javier Mascherano was LIST A registered in the LFC UEFA squad (for both qualifying rounds I believe, although he might have only been added for the Play-off round) although he never played in any of the games, nor was he team sheet selected for any of them. So for that reason alone he would had an entry in the initial Liverpool PST even before the season kicked off. Since we know he was in the LFC UEFA squad from the UEFA.com site (and thus had an "Fn" entry in the Champions League "Elig." column) his "Fn" code became an "XF" when he was transferred to Barcelona on Aug. 30. OTOH, one could also argue that this column entry should be left blank. Your thoughts on this please. WRT his Premier League "Elig." column entry, since he was transferred to Barcelona before Roy Hodgson submitted his official SQUAD LIST on Sep. 1, under different circumstances we might have had no idea whether he was on Roy's "envisioned list of the final 25" for the first two weeks of the season or not. However, since he actually played against Arsenal in the opening match of the season it all becomes moot, because we have to assign him an "Fn" code in order for his "AppsStats" in the Premier League column to be valid. Ditto, we have to change that code to "XF" when he was transferred. We have no option about this. To blank that column entry (because we don't really know whether Hodgson would or would not have included him in his PL squad) would make his "AppsStats" appear invalid.

Diego Cavalieri was LIST A registered in the LFC UEFA squad and he played in both of the first two games in the Europa league competition, so there is no question that he should be assigned an "Fn" code which becomes an "XF" code in the Europa League "Elig." column when he was transferred. The same also applies to Alberto Aquilani (except he went out on loan during the last two weeks of August rather than being transferred). The issue with these two players is what should be entered into the Premier League "Elig." column cells for them. I have entered "XF" for Cavalieri because he was on the team sheet as the backup goalie for Pepe Reina for the opening match against Arsenal (and given Reina's bungle in that game perhaps he should have been the first choice goalie!). But one could also argue that that cell should be blanked because the SQUAD LIST had not been submitted at this point and he was never actually fielded in the game. In the case of Aquilani, he doesn't appear on any team sheets for the Premier League fixtures that occurred prior to his loan agreement commencing, so in his case I have left that field blank. Your thoughts on this please.

I know that all of the foregoing covers very marginal situations but they all have to be resolved according to some discernable deterministic rules if down the road these "Elig." column entries are not to become a hotbed of contention, so I would very much like your feedback on the issues I've identified above.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

4 - "But this now segues us nicely into issue (2). All of the above complex encoding would be fairly pointless if we dropped the rows from the PST of players that never played all season and thus had no statistics to display." Well yes it would, but what if those players do have appearances when they are dropped? Say if Mancini tries to send Jo out on loan (again) in January, but he returns in March and is unable to be re-registered, for instance. Anyway, personally I would favour your counter-idea - that players included in a squad but with no appearances don't get blanked, because they at one point (and potentially in perpetuity if we handle it right) provided completeness to the registered squad, just by being there.

I think that's all. I reckon we're pretty much done here - my points are pretty minor and hopefully won't take any real debate to resolve. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your response above suggests that you did not understand the point I was making. Maybe I wasn't clearly expressing myself, plus my thinking on this issue has perhaps evolved since I wrote the text to which you responded. Here is my current position. We could keep track of every player that was ever registered in a squad yet never played, but I feel that is way too much work for little to no return. It's a non-statistic, if you were - c.f. the Robinho example above. Only PLAYERS that actually PLAYED during any given season should have an entry in the PLAYING Statistics Table once that season is over and the article is effectively archived (because now we move on to the next season's article). Thus, if Robinho is sold in the next couple of days and never kicks a ball competitively for City this season, then he does NOT merit an entry in the PST for this season. In fact, we would remove his PST entry as soon as we learnt of his transfer, just like we removed Nedum's entry as soon as we learnt he was going to be out on loan at Sunderland for the rest of this season. Is that clear enough?

However, while the season is ongoing (as it is right now) any City player (within certain limits) that might possibly clock up some playing statistics during the rest of this season should have an entry in the PST while that season is still under way, even if his PST entry is null. That is why Robinho, who has not played for City this season or pre-season, has a null entry in the PST right now ... because at any time he might play and clock up some stats. in that currently null entry. The "certain limits" I referred to need to be defined but they would exclude certain fringe players (such as Caicedo, Etuhu, Clayton, Vidal, González, etc.) from being anally listed in the PST (and I think we agree in principle on that approach). Of course, should any of those players just listed (and others like them) suddenly get fielded (NOT simply chosen for the match day team sheet) then we will create a PST entry for them ... just NOT before that point. Those players are no different than any EDS players (such as Boyata and Cunningham last season) to whom Mancini might suddenly decide to give some playing time. Thus Caicedo et al should ONLY be added to the PST on an "as needed" basis, just as we would ONLY add, say, Andrew Tutte or Kieran Trippier on an "as needed" basis too. Is that clear enough? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has already been decided for you by gonads! LMAO here. He treated Robinho's null PST record exactly as I would have treated it ... as soon as he saw that Robinho had been transferred to A.C. Milan he deleted his row entry and created a "transferred out" record for him down below. That is probably what most people are going to do with someone in his position ... as far as they are concerned Robinho has not been a participant in the City first team since the Scunthorpe game last January, and he is most certainly not a part of City's first team campaign(s) this season. Yet, he was registered in both squads and eligible to play in all of City's five games (3 EPL and 2 UEFA) so far this season - he just happened to be overlooked for those games by Mancini (presumably because Roberto knew he was on his way out the door). This is the Vuoso situation all over again! Although you personally would have liked to see Robinho preserved in this season's PST with an "XF" null stats. record "potentially in perpetuity", the rest of us just want to see the back of his prima donna ass and wave good riddance to bad news! Do you now agree with me that the only players that should be indicated with an "X" code in the "Elig." columns are players that have actually clocked up some appearances in the respective competitions before they were removed from the squad? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, and I now agree with you on your last question. I have been convinced. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

VERY GOOD. I think you are now beginning to see why I had to put so much effort in earlier WRT addressing the Vuoso issue before I could even start to move forward with the issues that this section needs to resolve. Everything you were saying to me to justify his inclusion in a PST (and the inclusion of other players in similar situations) just seemed to me to be completely at odds with the way the PST really works ... which gonads has just so admirably demonstrated for us (with no prompting from me, I assure you!). As for RSC having an "XF" code in my strawman PST, I just did that to see if you were paying attention. :) I have not done that update in the article, nor will I be doing so. And here's why ...

In being registered for both squads and being available for all 5 games, Robinho actually had much more of a claim to receiving an "XF" code in the "Elig." columns than RSC does (at least WRT the UEFA squad). RSC was one of the original 23 players registered in the UEFA squad back on Aug. 9, but he was pulled from the squad by Mancini the very day he was due to fly out to Romania with the rest of the squad, and the newly signed Balotelli was registered in his place - and, I'm assuming, Silva and Jô were also added to the squad as the 24th and 25th players at the same time - OR the journalist that wrote the BBC Sport article on Craig Bellamy (that I cited in support of my UEFA squad) simply screwed up and overlooked them, and they were in the UEFA squad all along. Thus, although RSC was originally registered in the UEFA squad, he was withdrawn again before the first game was even played. If we do not wish to commemorate Robinho (who WAS eligible to play in both those UEFA games) with an "XF" code, then we most definitely should NOT be commemorating RSC with an "XF" code in the UEFA column when he was NOT even eligible to play in either of those games!

However, rather surprisingly, RSC remains a City player at the end of this transfer window - where is Mark Hughes when you need him? (because I was half-hoping to see Caicedo, Etuhu and RSC all as Fulham players come Wednesday) - and he can occupy the slot in the EPL squad that Balotelli doesn't need (as an U21 designated player). If RSC manages to stay fit enough to play in just 20 of those games then he will have made more EPL appearances than he did last season! He really needs to get his old confidence and form back; if Jô's situation teaches us anything at all, it is that you should not write a player off too soon. Heck, look at Rooney ... until his penalty goal this past weekend, Rooney hadn't scored a goal since the Bayern Munchen game back last March! Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 07:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

City pages

Oh, I've just realised I posted the warning on his user page rather than his talk page, obviously I'm tired then, haha. Just a silly rag naming Eastlands, the Council House, immature really - needs to get a life I think (and they call us bitter eh?). Yep, I've created some new City pages over recent weeks. I'll see what else I can add in the coming months. Was thinking about a separate 'Club crest and strip' page like Arsenal, but they are quite fortunate in the fact they have a lot of non-copyrighted crests available to use on Wikipedia. Much improved performance tonight in the Valencia game and looking forward to Spuds game on Saturday, exciting times ahead. (Stevo1000 Talk 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We just haven't got the material to make a good page on City's crest, strip etc. or at least as good as Arsenal's page. I'll see what information and free images I can conjure up on the internet in the next few weeks, maybe could create a separate page on the club's crest etc. (Stevo1000 Talk 00:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous questions about City's kits

Why do folk keep making the shorts of the third kit black? Also, I'm not convinced any of those three goalkeeper kits belong to any one of City's three team kits (home, away and third). Because I believe City have used both the yellow/black and all green goalkeeper kits with its third team kit. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 04:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They make the shorts and socks black because they were black last year, and the club announced that the third kit would not be changing - obviously with hindsight what they meant is that the third shirt would not change but the rest would. I myself did unfortunately add the black shorts/socks to some other articles, but that's partly because I was tired and partly because I'm not entirely sure whether the club would still use the black shorts/socks too - some clubs have two variants on the third kit (Spurs for one) and it is conceivable that the black shorts/socks will be used.

Well, you were ultimately proven correct on that one! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WRT your "... whether the club would still use the black shorts/socks too" statement, how exactly do you think we should handle that situation? I can understand simply overlooking such a detail for the main MCFC article because the kits are displayed in a sidebar in it, and so there is no room to address such variations there. Such arcane details must be sacrificed in favor of more lucid and concise format, etc., as well as their overall importance relative to all the other facts that can be stated about City in that article. But the kits are defined in their very own section in the MCFC season articles. There is enough room to display a "Third Kit A" and a "Third Kit B" should we desire to do so. Or even a third goalkeeping kit that only gets used in order to resolve the kinds of clashes you just described in your response to me.

I have now added the second variant of the third team kit to the article as discussed above. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if there are three team kits then by rights each of them incorporates its own goalkeeper's kit, so surely there should be three of those as well, and not just two? If City sometimes swap the goalies' kits around, using the "third GK kit" with the "away team strip", or the "away GK kit" with the "third team strip", etc. then I would suggest we should label them something along the lines of "Goalkeeper Away/Third 1" and "Goalkeeper Third/Away 2" which would indicate both their primary team strip use as well as the fact that they are sometimes swapped. Just more food for thought. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the goalkeeper kits - the club does have a set goalie home kit which gets priority over the other goalie kits - it's all black with white sock stripes this year. There is an away-designate strip too - the yellow/black one according to the OS shop - but the thing about goalie kits is they have to satisfy a condition - that condition is that their colours cannot match any of the two teams' kits and can't match the referee's kit either. They aren't supposed to look like the other keeper either but I've seen this happen on occasion. This doesn't just mean shirt colour, their shorts aren't supposed to match either. So goalkeeper kits will be used all over the place to ensure that the colours don't match, and that means the home kits get used away and very occasionally the away kit gets used at home. Just to complicate things further, there was also the need this pre-season to not let new keeper kits get revealed too early - just like the club rolled out the away and then the home kits in friendlies just after the official release, the two goalkeeper kits had official releases too and weren't allowed to be used early. The green keepers kit from last year was used early on to "hide" the new kits - I'm not aware that the green kit is official this season but if you have evidence to the contrary then please show it to me. Falastur2 ^Talk 09:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the changes that were recently done (by you I think) to the away strip shirt and socks are very good and were much needed considering how long it has been since that kit was "officially unveiled". Thank you (or thanks to whoever did them).

Also, has it occurred to you to add (a slightly modified version of) the text you just wrote to me above WRT why the official goalkeepers' kits are not strictly adhered to (because of clashes with the kit colors of the opposing goalie and/or the kit colors of those officiating at the game) in the "Team kit" section of your article? Not only is it useful from an encyclopaedic standpoint but it would also go a long way to avoiding potential "edit wars" down the road. Just my two cents worth.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also now added to the MCFC season article the text explaining the lack of strict adherence to the official goalkeeper kits that I suggested above.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make those updated kits, by the way, but I did roll them out to some less-read articles, such as the City ladies and reserve team pages. For the actual graphics you can thank VEO15. I've done kit graphics before but they are hard work for someone with as little graphics tinkering knowledge as me. They probably only take 15-20 minutes (could take 1-2 minutes if I was genuinely good at doing them) but they are frustrating in that I feel like I constantly have to check things to make sure I'm doing them right. It's not just a case of designing the kit in paint, you have to use a program like Photoshop which can add transparent layers, and the designing of the patterns can be very fiddly. I'm always glad when someone else steps in. By the way, if you want to know how to change kits in Wikipedia I can show you, but I won't just explain it here without your asking so, for space and time reasons. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this would seem to be a pretty good definitive citable RS for almost all your work with this season's kits, so I've gone ahead and added it to the "Team Kits" section of the article. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Kit usage tables

Do you think this table would be an useful addition to the season article, or does it strike you as being a case of "stats. for stats. sake"? Any suggestions on how to improve it? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmm...interesting stuff - and as usual well presented and well thought out. I appreciate the work you've done and I certainly wouldn't object to it being placed in the article. If I'm to be brutally honest, though, I would question whether it is needed per se. Though it's not bad stuff at all I just wonder whether it's quite so useful as the other analysis we (you) added - I wonder if it would be the kind of information that would really be read and counted useful - it's just a little to extrapolated for me. A simpler analysis of how many times the different kits were used without reference to crossovers (i.e. outfield kit/goalkeeper kit combinations) might be better suited, though I still tend to feel that a graphic of the kits and their uses subtitled is largely all that is needed in that department.

As I say, feel free to disagree, but that's my thoughts on the matter. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that your "too extrapolated" equates to my "stats. for stats. sake". I knew it was a little too complex which is why I wanted your feedback while I thought about it some more. Take a look at Take 2. Same level of detail yet by combining the home/away counts into a single column, instead of presenting them in two separate ones, the table becomes much clearer. Maybe it's still too extrapolated? I thought about just dropping the team kit / GK strip combo. information (as you suggested) but I think it is useful. For instance, to quote your own words from early August above: "I'm not aware that the green kit is official this season but if you have evidence to the contrary then please show it to me." At the time you wrote that I could not have furnished you with any evidence to either support or contradict your statement.

However, I would now like to offer up my Kit Usage table as Exhibit 1, m'Lord, as proof that the all green GK strip is very much official this season. Out of 15 competitive games played to date it has been used on as many occasions as the all black GK strip (7 times each). So it would appear to be the gold and black GK strip that has been marginalized this season. I didn't develop the table so that I could address that challenge because I had completely forgotten about it ... it was just my own curiosity that led me to compile the table. Reading through this section again after I made my last post here made me chuckle because, without my even intending it to do so, the table nicely addresses your point. OTOH, I agree with you that it may still contain quite too much info. for the average Wikipedia user - as if anybody other than diehard City fans ever access the season article! :) Then again, I have yet to see anybody update the new PST without making at least one error while doing so ... in fact, almost everything in the article is too complicated for most of the people that edit it. Consequently, I refuse to pitch things at a level that appeals only to the lowest common denominator.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I think that it looks better and is a little easier to draw information from quickly, though I think personally I would replace the "n/a"s with simple zeros: I would tend to believe that it should be pretty obvious that the home kit is for home use and vice versa - though I have seen the home kit used away and such, further weakening the case for a n/a - but that aside, I think we can assume intelligence enough for the average reader to understand the idea that a home kit is for home use, etc. If we are agreed that the "average reader" is a hardcore City fan then this is doubly so. It also makes the table slightly neater anyway, since the use of "n/a" instead of zero pushes the colons out of alignment ;) but then I'm a bit of a finickler for exactness, so you should probably disregard that comment as "above and beyond the call of duty", so to speak.

I still question somewhat whether the table is "necessary" per se (necessary isn't the right word but I can't put it so succinctly in fewer words than one paragraph so please don't take that the wrong way) though I feel that this new design fits a whole lot better for its small modifications and it's far from pointless, so I'd be more now happy to accept it in the article. You clearly feel more strongly for its use though, and I don't disagree with its presence, so unless you have more tweaks in mind then I'd say by all means add it. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments re the "n/a"s are simply downright WRONG. "Away kits" are NEVER used by the home side - getting to wear your primary colors in front of your home fans has traditionally been part and parcel of the home venue advantage. It is ALWAYS the away team that must change strip should there be a color clash ... that is exactly why away kits were invented in the first place. Should there be no clash of primary team kit colors then there is no reason whatsoever why the away team cannot use its "home" team kit for such "away" fixtures, and as my table clearly shows, that is indeed what happens (e.g., City used its "home kit" when playing away at Sunderland, Blackpool, West Brom., and vice versa, Liverpool, Newcastle and Arsenal all used their "home kits" when visiting COMS).

Thus "home kits" (read "primary colors") can be used for both home and away fixtures, while "away kits" are used ONLY for those away fixtures that require a change of strip (which is just some of the away fixtures). "Third kits" should really be called "alternative away kits" as they are required only for those situations where the "home kit" and standard "away kit" both cause a clash with the primary colors of the home team (e.g., Chelsea in the case of City). However, probably to spread the wear and tear more evenly across all the available kits, away teams do sometimes opt to use their "away kits" or "third kits" for away fixtures even when they don't really need to do so.

The whole point of this response to your comment is that the relationship between kits used and game venues is NOT an isomorphic one - "home kits" are used for both home and away fixtures while "away kits" and "third kits" are NEVER used at home. That is the distinction I wish to make when I use "n/a" (now "X" - take another look at my sandbox) versus "0". Zero represents a valid possibility that turns out to be null (viz. no home strips were used for these away fixtures) while "X" represents a near impossibility (viz. the home team playing in an away or third strip). I say "near impossibility" (rather than just "impossibility") because I suppose there might be some imaginable scenario where the away team turns up at COMS with the wrong kit for the fixture, so in order to facilitate the match going ahead (instead of being abandoned) City offer to play the game in its away or third colors. But that sounds much more like something out of a Roy of the Rovers comic strip rather than real life ... although I wouldn't put anything past Chappy! :)

As for the table being "necessary" for the article, just like the current PST, I didn't develop it for the article but simply for my own amusement / curiosity. I agree that the current kit graphics and titles (which I already introduced to the article) are quite adequate. But then again, the way the playing statistics used to be displayed was also quite adequate too. I was not seeking your permission here, I was simply sharing with you ... because you appear to be the only person that regularly edits the Wikipedia MCFC-related articles that puts any thought into what he does. Hence I value your opinion. Very few of the editors of the soccer-related articles appear to be subject-matter experts (in fact, most of them come across as not even having watched the games!) with anything worthwhile to contribute ... most seem to be fans that simply want to see their favorite team's latest exploits captured in print on their PC. Some editors even take 27 edits to make an update that you or I could do in a single edit. Others just change arbitrary details on a whim with no sense at all of the bigger picture. I find myself mostly wanting to stick my fingers in their eyes or to dope-slap them in the tradition of Moe, Larry, and Curly! Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I respect your arguments, and agree that 999 times in a thousand you are right, but I beg to differ. There have been occasional circumstances where the home team has played in their away kit. Try searching the following links for the text "away kit at home" (or just put that into google - the speech marks around the phrase are necessary on google to find the right pages, I just hope it didn't find UK-centric links as you might not get the right pages):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2010/09/stevenage_v_crewe.html

http://www.pompeyshirts.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:2-away-teams&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

http://www.ambernectar.org/blog/2005/04/photo-special-bradford-0-2-city/

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=99977

http://twitter.com/jeromepugmire

http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/forum/friendlies/2785-tottenham-hotspur-roma-live-match-feed-2.html

It probably won't happen to us, and yes it's not supposed to happen but it is a possibility: essentially, it's at the referee's discretion. If the away team turns up and the ref doesn't like their kit clash on a spur-of-the-moment decision, he will make the two teams agree a compromise and that can involve playing your away kit at home.

Also, mentioning playing with the other team's kit: it happens also. I'm certain that Portsmouth played a game against someone like Wolves last season and they had a problem with some of their shorts, so ended up playing with Pompey's away shorts.

Getting back to the fact of the matter though, fair enough about your comments re: your reasons for doing it, and thanks for your comments about consulting me. I've said my thoughts already so I'll leave it there though: I like the table, wouldn't object to seeing it, but ultimately remain unconvinced about whether it is definitely worth adding. But as you said, you put a lot of thought into your work and it's certainly creditable. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether you add it or not. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I didn't know about the "last home game of the season dispensation" allowing clubs to feature one of their new strips for the following season (if that is indeed true), and I hadn't realized there were quite so many anomalies to the rule, although I clearly acknowledged there could be some anomalies (i.e., exceptions that proved the rule, if you would). As you say yourself, "It probably won't happen to us, and yes it's not supposed to happen but it is a possibility ..." Thus in my table "X" means "highly unlikely" rather than "near impossible" as previously stated. I still think there needs to be some kind of a distinction made that highlights the lack of isomorphism between the "choice" of not using the home kit for any of the pertinent away fixtures - although it is not really a "choice" per se, as the decision is pretty much determined by the primary colors of the home team - and the "highly unlikely" event that the home team would either choose, or be forced (by the ref.), to forego its home turf privilege.

If you read the Which kit where? MCFC OWS article that is cited as the RS supporting the information presented in that section, it clearly states that the "home kit" will be used "in all home games this season" as well as for the following nine away fixtures: "Arsenal, Stoke City, Liverpool, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Newcastle United, West Bromwich Albion, Blackpool, Sunderland and during the derby against Manchester United at Old Trafford." The other two kits will be used for the remaining ten away games where there will be a color clash with the home team, with the "away kit" only being used for four fixtures and the "third kit" being used for the other six. Also note that that terminology is somewhat anomalous because the kit that is termed the "third kit" is usually the one that is least used (i.e., it is third in usage behind the main "away kit" and the much more often used "home kit"), yet that article applies that term to what is essentially still City's main "away kit"!

So you should think of my "X"s as only signifying an acknowledgment that, based on the information presented in that article (plus the general rule we are both agreed upon), there is no intended home usage of those two "away kits" for those particular fixtures, while the number "0" is used in situations where there might well be future away usage of the "home kit" but none has occurred yet. Don't forget that that article did not (and could not) provide any guidance about what kits City would be wearing in the three knockout competitions (because it could not predict the draws), nor did it address the issue of which GK strip would be worn with each team kit - which is one of the things my table is designed to track. Finally, the "X"s are not immutable; should City turn out at COMS for the Europa League fixture against Red Bull Salzburg wearing its "third kit" then the current "X" will duly be changed to a "1".

Anyway, all of the foregoing is pretty moot at this point because I agree with you that my Kit Usage table is not necessary for the article so, going forward, I will probably just maintain it for my own amusement in my own user space (which is essentially what I am also doing with the various PSTs I maintain). Moving on to other matters, thanks for the first GK strip sock update ... I was hoping that if I put that "_four_hoops_white" design back in there it would finally shake loose the real McCoy! I believe it also needs to be added to the third GK strip as well ... take a look at my sandbox to see my intended update. As for those two GK strips where the graphic title sometimes wraps - your edit title said, "so the box doesn't warp as noticeably" but I'm assuming that "warp" was a typo! - I think it has more to do with which Wikipedia server processes your session / connection. If you observe carefully you'll see that on the occasions those two titles wrap (and they still occasionally wrap despite your changes) the football collapsibles take up two lines instead of one. You'll also notice that all the collapsible table icons in the stuff I introduced in the new player registration and eligibility sections at the very end of the article display slightly differently than they normally do (i.e., when the titles do not wrap and the football collapsibles take up only a single line).

There is no rhyme or reason why this happens as far as I can determine. I can open up two tabs in the same browser window and connect each to the MCFC Season 2010-11 article, and the article will display the one way in the first tab (e.g., no title wrap, single line football collapsibles, etc.) and the other way in the second tab. So it is not caused by a problem with any software on my PC (because the same software is simultaneously displaying the article both ways). So the differences have to be caused by something at the host server end. I suspect that Wikipedia is hosted on a number of closely coupled servers that load share their processing; press SEND on this screen and your message gets processed by server A, press send on this next screen and that transmission gets processed by server B. If the servers are running identical software (which they should be) such load sharing should appear completely seamless to the user. OTOH, if servers A and B are running slightly different software releases (or even more perniciously, exactly the same software but with it configured slightly differently on each) then that situation might account for such differences.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for what I have observed this last couple of months. I would love to know what you are seeing at your end. Of course, differences in what we both observe can be explained by differences between our PC platforms (e.g., Mac versus PC, different Windows products, different releases and service packs for the same Windows OS, different browsers, different releases of the same browser, etc., etc.). But when the same article displays two different ways in adjacent browser tabs (so that those kinds of PC environmental differences just listed are all eliminated) then that is pretty funky IMO. This issue is really way off topic for this section so I'd better stop here. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you take another look at my sandbox you'll see how a Kit Usage table for a complete season (viz. last season) looks. I find the tables useful more for their ability to render immediate justification to the changes I wish to make to the kit graphics and their titles than for the specific information they impart to the reader themselves. The ultimate citable sources for the selection of kit graphics displayed in a season article are web videos of all the actual games, yet the tables (if one accepts the information contained in them being correct) do provide a much more immediate level of support for the choice of the kit graphics and titles displayed. Rather than be something that is constantly maintained throughout a current season (such as City's current league position or playing stats.) perhaps these tables fall more into the category of the sort of information that one would only add into a season article at the end of the season? IOW their value is mostly an archival one. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The "X" looks a whole lot better, to my mind, I have to say, so as far as I'm concerned that issue is resolved. I find myself agreeing with you on whether the table should be a post-season addition. You're right, it does seem archival material, and I think I would agree even more with its presence as part of an after-season statistical analysis (of minor sorts). It's late and my thought patterns aren't entirely cohesive right now so I'll leave it there lest I say something nonsensical in an effort to come up with other ideas to pad out my reply here. Falastur2 ^Talk 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have probably already seen for yourself I did go ahead and add the completed "Kit usage" table to last season's article. We could also make the table collapsible if it appears too much information for the reader but I currently don't think it is. In fact, I take more of the opposite stance; I think it adds a little substance to what was hitherto a somewhat light-weight section. I could probably produce a similar table for the 2008-09 season but that is about as far back as I can go because I need to see ALL the game videos (not just most) in order to accurately construct the table, and such video footage is hard to come by on the web much before 2008. Furthermore, the videos ideally need to all reside in one place (such as on the MCFC OWS) so that they can be neatly referenced as the RS for the information displayed in the table in the footer at the base of that table.

I can probably use the MCFC OWS to construct a "Kit usage" table for season 2008-09 but there is nothing on the OWS for seasons prior to that one. Although the OWS videos are very short they are probably still good enough to establish team kit usage for all the games. However, if there is no shot in the footage of City's goalkeeper then I'm screwed; I'm also screwed if ALL the games are not covered, and if I remember correctly, I don't believe City's UEFA games are represented. However, I can probably compensate for that omission by doing some judicious web searching to locate photos and/or other video sources of the missing games elsewhere on the web. Nor are the pre-season friendly games for 2008-09 covered on the MCFC OWS, but I only included those in the two tables I've done so far simply because I could, rather than because they are really necessary. Not that any of this is "really necessary"! :(

Finally, although this is off-topic for this section (I cannot be bothered to start a new section for it), take a look here at this potential improvement to the current PST. Does bolding the "Player Eligibility" codes make the data in the table clearer, or does it just make it look busier? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Try youtube for highlights from the matches pre-08/09. There's usually various clips around from people who recorded highlights programs.

I'll check the PST stuff and deliver comment later, when I have more time to properly check it. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

YouTube was what I had in mind when I stated I would do "some judicious web searching" above. The issue is not so much finding the videos but locating them ALL in a single location ... or very few locations at worst. 56 separate videos independently located all over YouTube would arguably require 56 RS citations which would end up being way longer and much more detailed than the table I'm presenting, while 56 videos located on the MCFC OWS requires only one RS citation in the table footer (to the area of the OWS where they all reside). Being able to locate videos for only MOST, rather than ALL, of the games played in a season is also no good (for obvious reasons!). Which is why I have no intention of even attempting to produce "Kit usage" tables for any season prior to 2008-09. I might even abandon my efforts for that season if photos and/or videos for all the UEFA games prove too difficult to track down. As for the "PST stuff" all I wanted was your feedback on the "bolding" of the font in those two columns. It would have taken you less time to look than to write that you would do it later! :(

Finally, do you know the 6-digit hex codes of the following colors used in the season 2008-09 City kits (because I have no idea how to access the templates "_mcfc0809h" and "_mcfc08093" used in the kit box definitions of those strips in order to determine that for myself):

• The sky blue shirts of the Home kit - as you can see from my sandbox I've corrected the white socks shown in the article to be blue, plus I've added a kit variant that utilizes blue rather than white shorts (which was used in the derby game at Old Trafford), and the blue that I've used is too dark relative to the blue used for the shirts;
• The dark (navy?) blue used in the orange and blue Third kit - I need to know that in order to correct the white base of the socks currently displayed for that kit in the article (plus I believe that is also the true color of the socks used in the second variant of the Home kit for the game against Stoke). Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, did you create those kit images? Whether you did so or not, could you possibly create a more accurate version of the two shorts I've added - viz. light blue shorts with a white slash down the side (the inverse of the current white shorts used in the article) and orange shorts with a navy blue slash down the side (the inverse of the current navy shorts used in the article)?

So today's the BIG ONE ... will today's result finally mark the passage of power across from the red half of the city, I wonder? I just hope that Chris Foy does not subscribe to the concept of "Fergie time"! Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the derby turned out to be a bit of a damp squib after all the hooplah leading up to it ... or should I say damp squid lest you not understand what I'm talking about? :) Although Mancini is technically correct, and a dour draw is better than a Fergie time defeat, nevertheless I still can't help thinking that City just missed a great opportunity to stick one to its noisome neighbors! I think City showed United way too much respect yesterday and should have played much more on the offensive. As for your giving me feedback on my PST updates, never mind ... I decided italic font looked better than bold font and have already made the update to the article. But I would still like some help with the 2008-09 kits.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please help me WRT my above requests regarding correct color codes and the creation of the two inversely colored shorts kit images (see here in my sandbox). I would also like to add the black shoulder and chest trim to the GK strips if possible. If you know where I can filch something that is close that will work too. I don't have a copy of Photoshop so I cannot create or modify custom .png files, but I am willing and able to mix and match with what is already out there. If you cannot help me yourself, are you able to point me in the direction of someone who can? Also, do you know what strip the GKs wore in City's pre-season friendlies with Celtic and Hamburger SV (so that I can complete my season 2008-09 table). However, it probably doesn't really matter now anyway ... because at the weekend I switched my allegiance and became a fervent Sunderland fan! I wonder if there is any truth in the story that after the Chelsea game Nedum ran once around the Stamford Bridge pitch on a lap of Onuoha? :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been distracted into going off and forgetting to reply to stuff on WP far too easily recently. I've been constantly forgetting to update the comparison table in my Lawro's Predictions subpage after a round of PL games too, despite the fact that another Wikipedian has been helping me out frequently by giving me the code for it. I'm just far too easily taken off topic.

The hex code for the home kit is 9dc6e5. The hex for the navy in the away kit is 002a4f. Honestly the trick I use to working these out is to copy the image (print screen if necessary), paste it into MSPaint, use the "pick colour" tool to steal the colour, then go into "colors" on the top menu bar, edit colours, define custom colours and it tells you the RGB on the right. Then I type those numbers into a hex conversion website such as this one and it gives you the hex. A little time consuming but it works. I didn't create those kits, by the way, the trick is to remember that the individual template images are always found under "Image:kit_" and then broken down by the part of the kit you're trying to view. So if you want to check out a chest design, you'll find it under "Image:kit_body_(name of template).png", shorts are under "Image:kit_shorts_(template).png", plus you have _socks, _right_arm and _left_arm (though the arms work together, so you only need to call the name of the template to get both arms in one go, obviously). I can modify the images however - changing the colours is easy enough with a basic photomanipulation package. Unfortunately MSPaint isn't clever enough to do it since you need to preserve the transparent layer on the bottom of the image, and Paint can't handle images with more than one layer - it merges the layers together and what you get is paint filling in the background with either black or white solid colour, which obviously goes hideously wrong when you try to combine several templates to make a kit graphic. I'll try to get you an image up by tomorrow some time, but right now it's pretty late and I need to get some rest.

About the derby by the way: I think of myself as a pragmatic. I may be young, and impetuous, but my memories of supporting City are wholly of the years of failure and under-performance that we are still trying to shrug off. Therefore to me, the very idea of being able to compete with the scum across town is a totally new feeling to me, and still a little hard to accept. I think even in a theoretical future when we have won everything three times over, in my head City will still always be the band of lovable failures that we always used to be. Therefore I think of any points won in tough games such as the derby to be a bonus rather than a disappointment. I'm just happy that we continued United's run of poor results away from home, and I'm plenty happy that after 1/3 of the season we are still so close to all the top teams. Some may hark on about negative tactics and poor performance - and I agree that several of the players just don't look interested, or don't work as hard as we like players to - perhaps expecting higher levels of exertion than other teams tend to expect, hence why Tevez is so popular with his always-running-after-the-ball-no-matter-how-far-out-of-position style. I however am far happier to simply not concede as many goals as Mark "rather 10-10 and a good performance than 1-0 and a defensive display" Hughes had us shipping every game. Better to grind out a point than play carefree and get beaten. Your mileage may vary. Falastur2 ^Talk 01:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding but my latest Wikipedia focus has been on making sure all the extant MCFC season articles have a common format sidebar "infobox". I'm quite pleased with the way that update has turned out (I still have a couple of more seasons to update). IMHO the City crest makes those sidebars look quite sharp ... and also distinguishes the MCFC season articles from all of the other clubs' season articles because the editors of those cannot get the common "football club season" template to display their respective club insignia in the same manner that I was banging my head in frustration trying to get it to display the MCFC crest. Plus I have never liked the format of that common template ... IMO it is too thin, and almost every piece of information entered in the right hand column requires 2 lines. My sidebar format is not that much wider but the ratio of left hand to right hand columns has been corrected so that most of the info. entered on the right now fits on a single line. And it is really no more effort to maintain than using the "standard template". Plus it is much more flexible ... thus, for instance, it allows us to change the left column heading from "manager" to "managers" (for those seasons when City has more than one manager, such as last season, and God knows how many others over the last 40 odd years!) or "Top goalscorer" to "Top goalscorers" (for those seasons when the EPL leading scorer is not necessarily the same person as the overall leading goal scorer, etc.).

Thanks for those hex color codes ... I have now incorporated those changes in the recent update I did of the 2008-09 season article from my sandbox. (BTW, in the end I decided to make my "Kit usage" tables collapsible.) When you have the two "inverse shorts" completed just go ahead and update them in the actual article. Is there any chance you could help me with the missing black trim required on that same season's GK strips once you've finished those? Also, one of the things that touching each of the season articles out there (in order to upgrade their sidebars) has taught me is that not all of them have a "Team kit" section. Is there a reason for that? Can we redress that situation? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As for your point re the great popularity of the Tévez "work rate" (with, let's not forget, the red half of Manchester, when he was at OT, as well as the blue half now that he's at CoMS) I think that sort of player will always be popular with Mancunians (red or blue)... because his high level of graft appeals very much to the northerners' work ethic. He would also be a tremendously popular player at Anfield or Eland Road. OTOH, Mancunians have very little time for prima donnas or any other kind of pretension. Hence good riddance to both Ronaldo and Robinho IMO. I knew it was hairdryer time for Ronaldo the moment he was substituted in the Manchester derby(?) at OT and he had to sit next to SAF on the bench. and all the while he was rolling his eyes and shaking his head and tutting to himself (fully aware, of course, that the MotD cameras were avidly following his every expression!). I guess Ronaldo was just too stupid to realize that SAF might watch a video replay of the game too (if he hadn't already picked up on his player's dissident body language by that point)!

As for Robinho, he can only perform anywhere near his best form in front of an adoring home crowd when the ambient temperature is above 70 degrees. Which means he was only any good to City (if not injured) for home fixtures scheduled in August, September, April and May. For the other 30 odd games in the PL season he was a complete waste of time, space and money. He's a player that normally peaks during the pre-season! I'm quite surprised he's playing as well as he is doing for A.C. Milan given that we are already half way through November. What is it they say about oysters? You should only eat them fresh in months that have an "R" in them? They should be avoided in the other months. Well Robinho is the opposite of an oyster ... you should only watch him play in a month that doesn't have an "R" in it! I guess that's why he did OK in the World Cup this summer, while he even made a clown like Marouane Fellaini look like a footballing genius in comparison when he played at Goodison Park last season. :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Did you see this? gonads³ 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing your 67–68 season sandbox. I was going to make a start on adding some prose to it, so that the Ballet on Ice text would have a relevant place to get merged to after the AfD, but then I saw the sandbox still had placeholder details from another season, and made a start on that instead. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City FC strip

Hey again Falstur, I've decided to start a Manchester City strip page, its in its infantcy at the moment but is coming along nicely, just researching new information to add. I'll probably be using some of the most notable and favourite kit designs used on your season pages to highlight the kit progression over time. I'm looking for the past 2 City crests/badges though, we've got the past one (white circular badge, Lancashire rose etc.) and current one at the moment with the eagle but the two previous to that I can't find anywhere (the one with the Maltese Cross I think it is?). Even if the earliest crest was about pre-1950 we could probably use it, as mentioned in the Arsenal crests, there is a loophole in the copyright law that states that after 70 years of the crest/badge/insignia being introduced, its copyright is void and therefore can be used anywhere, including Wikipedia. Its finding them on the internet that is proving difficult. Anyway, feel free to add information etc. to the page if you see fit.

Also about the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. and Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I was a bit peeved about that to put it lightly. The guy who put it up for deletion didn't have the courtesy of telling us two, the two who created and added to those pages, that they were being put up for deletion. I thought that was dictatorial of him, especially as he seems quite passive about our arguments to keep it. Regards (Stevo1000 Talk 11:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the page its coming along well. Don't think it'll be able to reach the standards of the Arsenal page because of the free images they have at their disposal, but the page is informative and only Arsenal have another page like the new page. Thanks for the heads up about the kits, they will be useful as well, I was trying to find out where I would be able to get the 60s kits etc. earlier. The table looked a bit odd having a kit from 1892 and then a century gap to the kit used in 1997, so that'll look better with some of the mid 1900s kits in there. Anyway, I'll keep building the page and have a look to see if I can expand the Manchester City history page into different eras, but that'll take a lot of effort to even get up near the standards of United's or Liverpool's for example (Stevo1000 Talk 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack Angus

Hi - I see that in the 1891–92 Ardwick A.F.C. season article, Angus is shown as having played for Ardwick in April 1892, whereas my Southampton reference books say that he joined in August 1892. Are you able to confirm the date? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fun

Does this help find what you need for last season? I'd be interested in the result. gonads³ 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost Manchester City FC articles

Where have articles and templates like these gone:

• History of Manchester city F.C.
• List of Manchester city F.C. managers
• {{Manchester City F.C.}}
• {{Manchester City F.C. seasons}}

Anyone know?? Stevo1000 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been messing with the links on the Manchester City page it seems Stevo1000 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

These articles and templates are NOT lost (i.e., deleted); they are all still in place ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manchester_City_F.C._managers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Manchester_City_F.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Manchester_City_F.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Manchester_City_F.C._seasons

Without really digging into this issue, I would suggest that someone has merely "clobbered" the links to those files in the main MCFC article (or wherever) in order to prevent others accessing them. By using a "binary-chop" search of the article edit history you should be able to very quickly determine which edit(s) clobbered them and who did that/those edit(s). It might have been accidental on their part, or alternatively, it may have been an act of malicious vandalism. If you think it is the latter then you should report that person so that he gets blocked from being able to make any more of those kind of edits. I'm not sure from your post exactly where the links are broken otherwise I would have fixed them all myself, but you can now fix them yourself using the above correct URL strings. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: In my previous response I posted the raw URLs so that you could both see the correct strings on your screen and also click on them to see that they also work. However, with the two URLs strings ending in "_City_F.C." you can see that the Wiki parser gets its knickers in a twist and does not interpret the final period in those strings as being part of the URL (so clicking on either of them as displayed on the screen does not work). And that might possibly be part of the problem for those two links in the article(s) in question if that Wiki software (that does the parsing in order to spot URL strings) has been updated recently. But I assure you that both those strings work properly (with the period correctly added back in) if you drop them into your browser and just hit "GO". Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Hey Fal. How's it going? Just wondered how you edited those socks? I found a pattern list here, but couldn't see how you've added _mancity1011t. More curious than anything. Thanks. gonads³ 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And there was me thinking you might provide something super technical. Your answer made me laugh. Good answer all the same. I wasn't aware of the other languages, guess I'm still learning. I wonder where the _mancity1011t sock is? Must be stuck in the washer. Thanks again. gonads³ 15:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The creator seems quite the artist. Did you see these? gonads³ 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Starting 11

Did you see the addition of the this table and graphic? I like the idea of the table but the graphic looks a little clumsy to me. Know of anything better to represent it? Any thoughts? gonads³ 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what other clubs offer. I'll come back with any findings. Thanks. gonads³ 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the enlarged image does look better, this is a good example. But, I do prefer your idea of the perspective view. It could look good, but might be just as contentious. I might have a go and sandbox something. Interestingly I note that PJ deleted this addition from the other teams season page. Thanks. gonads³ 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's sorted it. :) gonads³ 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the way this might pan out? I'm thinking it might get messy. I'm struggling to see how this table might even work over time. gonads³ 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've no doubt MLITH will find a way to improve it over time. gonads³ 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I don't like that section either. I think both the table and graphic are/were pretty chintzy looking, particularly the team formation graphic. Static team formations are inherently anachronistic IMHO because the days when a team stuck rigidly for the whole 90 minutes of a game to the team formation identified on the team selection sheet that was pinned up by the manager on the changing room notice board are long since gone. IMO they disappeared somewhere back in the late sixties, but most certainly back in the seventies after the Dutch introduction of "total football" (which was just a fancy name for the fact that Ajax and the Dutch national teams both contained defenders and midfielders that could all shoot at goal - but, unlike Nigel, keep their shots on target and actually score! - while at the same time were able to dynamically adjust their team formation to cover for the defender or defensive midfielder that had temporarily turned striker in this fashion). The dynamic flux in the Dutch formations was really needed (invented?) in order to allow Johan Cruyff to wander all over the pitch wherever he wanted to go and dispense his particular brand of football magic there, but in providing cover for him it also allowed the normally more defensive players to do their "wandering out of position" thing too.

Another (much later) fancy name for allowing a very good player to pop up all over the pitch - in order to excel in attack, midfield, or defense - is "box-to-box" player. But long before Cruyff and "total football" or the original (and probably still the best ever) box-to-box player, Patrick Vieira, there was Colin Bell (hence my comment in the section below). Bell's phenomenal work rate would make even Tevez look like a lazy player, and his extraordinary stamina (that allowed him to run the length of the field backwards and forwards box-to-box all game long, and always pop up where he was needed) would make Stevie Ireland's personal pursuit of super fitness look rather tame. Bell was a thoroughbred amongst ALL athletes of his day, not just footballers, hence the nickname of "Nijinsky" that the City fans dubbed him with. To my mind the fluid style of play that the classic title-winning City side of the late sixties and early seventies played - incorporating Colin Bell's talents at the heart of it - was really no different than what Ajax were doing contemporaneously with Cruyff over in Holland. The only real difference is that the Dutch gave what they were doing a name ("total football") while City just got on with it!

To return back from my little digression there to the subject in hand, team formations are intrinsically POV IMHO. Ten different fans could watch City (or any other club) play and identify the team as using ten different formations. That is partly due to the fact that ten different observers can have ten different subjective opinions WRT to the same observed phenomenon, but is mostly due to the fact that any team worth its salt will change its formation a number of times during the course of a game depending on whether it is being forced to defend or whether it is the team piling the pressure on the opposition, and so on. Substitutions frequently cause a team to restructure its formation even if it would otherwise like to stick to just the one formation for the whole game. So I think that the whole right hand side of that "First Eleven" update (the chintzy, blurry graphic) is a stillborn concept. I reverted that portion of it using a POV rationale simply because I could not fairly object to it on aesthetic grounds (because aesthetics are subjective).

As for the table on the left hand side of that "First Eleven" update, the introductory text portion of the original edit made it a pure "fantasy eleven" that existed ONLY in that particular editor's mind. But rather than just revert the whole thing I decided to try and help him make at least that portion of it into something more objective and supportable. But I still don't like it - IMHO it's both chintzy and arbitrary. It only works right now with City having played just the one game. Ten games from now that table will almost certainly be nearly as long as, and probably much more complicated and more arbitrarily subjective, than the current PST - or, as you expressed it, it will get a little Lionel Messi! At which point it can be removed. It's also not supported with a citable RS. The original cited RS in the table footer was the main MCFC article - which is incestuous. I couldn't fix the footer (I did try but eventually tired of messing with a macro that I don't even know the parameters for) so I removed the footer completely and replaced it with the "citation needed" statement instead. I suspect the editor (or editors) that would like to see this particular update will not bother to address that missing citation aspect, and unless someone else does it for him/them, then the table can be later removed for lack of citation.

Until then, let's "suck it and see" where this update goes. Maybe the editor(s) of this update will start to realize sooner rather than later that he is (they are) painting themselves into a bit of a corner with this particular table and remove it of his/their own volition. Epiphanies come to some people much quicker than they do to others. ITMT let's assume and show good faith. BTW, if you take a look in my sandbox at where I personally would like to see the PST headed, you will see that almost everything (that the person(s) who did that update wanted to depict in that new table) is already handled by my own improvements to the current PST. But, given the extent that Falastur2 has procrastinated to date on the Phase 1 changes I suggested I don't expect to see anything currently in my sandbox to be implemented any time this season. :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Sandbox looks good BTW. Is there a good place to comment. Thanks. gonads³ 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. You can comment on either my Talk Page (start a new section there) or, perhaps better still, start a new section here so that Falastur2 can follow the conversation too (because he is now the one sitting on this, and I have no idea for his turnaround on this issue - a week ago he was willing to roll out a Phase 1 that was not as good as it is today). Just keep the conversation all on one page though because I hate this to-ing and fro-ing back and forth between user Talk Pages that is the Wikipedia default. I would rather see the whole conversation in just the one place, particularly if it is a 3 or more way conversation. BTW I appreciated the addition of the "References" section - although any cited refs. in my updated PST would simply be merged into all the other ones in the corresponding "References" section in the article when my updated text is copied over there, nevertheless having that section in my sandbox version does still allow me to see that I have the refs. correct and properly linking (which I cannot be sure of when I just look at the text after I've added in the edit window). Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I apologise, I've got a lot on my mind right now, and most of it is nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm working on rolling it out now. I'm going to update the table right now because that's the important bit and I'm going to find a space for the table explaining the codes (i.e. HGP etc etc). However, I hadn't realised how expansive your sections explaining the home-grown player provisions et all had become. If I'm to be honest, I think they're rather large to be placed into the City article - they will dilute the rest of the information that article portrays and stand as like a dividing wall between any info either side of it. Also while I admit that the definitions are necessary, I'm not sure they are necessary in this season article. I'm trying to ponder ways around it - ideas include shoving that information in another article and providing links, but I'm going to try to implement some code into the table which hides the bulk of the text so at least the table of codes can be minimised - I'll have to do that tomorrow, I just don't have the time right now.

By the way, I'm heading out on holiday on Saturday and I will have zero internet access for a week or so. I'm sorry, I meant to mention it before. If you haven't trusted me when I've said that I will do this before, though, trust me now when I say that I won't be going on holiday without finding a way to get the table and as much information as I can into that season article first. I'll stay up all night if I have to. I've wasted enough time already, I admit that, and I apologise. At least I'm now going to be getting away from my workplace, which has been tiring me out each day since I started my job a few months back, and after I return next week I have taken an additional week off work so I will have plenty of time to fine-tune and sort out any other stuff you want to discuss. In the meantime, please spam my talk page with ideas or comments, I will read and respond to everything when I return. Also, if you could respond (just very, very briefly) on each section on this talk page which you've been involved with, with a very quick comment stating either whether the case is ISSUE RESOLVED for you or if you have anything additional to say (or you want more comments from me) then that would be helpful, though if you don't consider it worth it it's cool - it's just for my own self-organisation, but I can sort it out either way. In case you hadn't wondered why I haven't archived more stuff, by the by, it's because I am very anal for a reason I can't explain about insisting on keeping my talk page items in exactly the order they were posted. I know that I could order it all correctly later, but for some reason something inside me just wants me to do it this way. Sorry for the clutter, but I am shelving it all as soon as each successive top-placed talk item is fully resolved. Falastur2 ^Talk 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow that looks good. Let's see how long it is before any other team articles use it. Excellent work gentlemen. I've a few comments for you both to ponder. I'll place them on MLITH's talk page, assuming that's okay. Thanks. gonads³ 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C. supporters page

Coming along nicely don't you think? Tried to get a good amount of information there, nearing the finished article. Still working on the strip/crest article. Good result on Saturday too I thought considering we have an awful record against the Spuds and White Hart Lane isn't an easy place to go especially for what is a 6 pointer. Got to see it as an improvement from last season, a point gained for and 2 points lost for Spuds, regards Stevo1000 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Under famous quotes you might add, "Johan Cruyff? Isn't he just a Dutch Colin Bell?!" Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, I'm sure if I re-read the City books I just bought that I can find a few choice quotes from, say, Bell, Goater and Trautmann's autobiographies. All of them to one extent or another suggested at one point about how much they loved the fans, and I'm pretty sure Goater and Bell made quotes about how overawed they have felt at times by the level of support they were offered - and Trautmann made comments along the lines of that he still can't believe that to this day he can still get mobbed by well-wishers and autograph hunters, 45 years after he stopped playing. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City match articles

Notifying creators about the nomination for deletion of an article is not regarded as mandatory, and I personally think it's pointless for a number of reasons (e.g., why only the creator and not all users who have contributed to it? also, if an article is deemed important and you have created, you have it automatically into your watchlist, don't you? etc.), that's why I usually don't do that. The fact Stevo1000 had only one day to respond is untrue, since deletion discussions are open for at least seven days and may last even more in case of lack of consensus, so he had all the time to post his point on such article (which he did, in the end, actually). Also, please note AfDs are not polls, where the one option with most number of votes wins, but real discussions, and it's up to the closing admin to give an interpretation to such discussion and take a decision - indeed, the outcome of a AfD may vary according to the interpretation of the closing admin; that means that, if you can provide a strong point at the very last minute of the discussion, it might win over the other weaker ones, or the timing of the discussion may be extended in order to debate over it. Also, I said this more than once, but I have to say it again apparently: the fact I am an admin is irrelevant, I would have acted the same if I were a regular user too - to me being an admin means just to have a very few additional powers I seldom use (I hardly block accounts, and I normally delete only articles and files who may meet speedy deletion criterions, and on a very occasional basis) and I have used no admin powers in the events above (all regular users may nominate an article for deletion, not just admins). There's nothing one-sided on what I did, I would have done the same if there were similar articles involving Man Utd, or even my favourite team (Palermo). Regards, --Angelo (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I forget that: if you need a copy of the articles on your user space, I can provide it for you. That's one of the things I can do as an admin. Greetings again. --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Task force

My main issue with task forces is that I've rarely seen one work. Most of those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects are inactive. The possible exceptions are the MLS editors, and the non-league project which worked well enough for a while. If something affects articles beyond MCFC, then it should be addressed at WT:WPF, which has a lot of eyes on it. I have noticed an uptick in editors, but you need to sustain a number of active editors in double figures to get it to work. Less than that and a combination of article and user talk will suffice. Anything particularly pressing can always be cross-posted to Talk:Manchester City F.C., which I'd assume anyone interested would have on their watchlist, or WT:GM. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly wouldn't call it finished, I think the 67–68 article can be moved to mainspace now. Seeing as its in your userspace, I'll refrain from moving it myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the copy and paste move and used the move tab instead, so that the page history was preserved. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're the only one to have edited it, it doesn't matter what approach is used, but if more than one person's contributions are present it needs the history for licensing purposes. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that England 3-1 win over the Swiss count as an away fixture win for Man. City?

No really. Rather than the English national side that team fielded by Capello appeared to me to be more of a Manchester City team featuring some well known guest players from other top of the table clubs. :) I'm not sure that that England side mix was quite what FIFA wanted to encourage with its "6+5 Rule". :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hi Falstur, just a quick update on how progress is on Manchester City pages. First of all I've split the Manchester City history page into 2 separate ones for the time being:

• History of Manchester City F.C. (1880-1965)
• History of Manchester City F.C. (1965-present)

The page went from 25 bytes to 85 bytes which isn't ideal for easy page reading so I had no other option but to split it into two. Also I've been working on the Manchester City F.C. ownership and finances looking for extra references particularly. The supporters page is finished I think and the City strip, crest etc. probably need a bit more work but other than that everything is good. Regards, Stevo Stevo1000 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yes my hands are aching now. I've been really endeavouring to get this history of the club sorted out, other clubs have brilliant and very thorough pages about their club's whereas ours was a bit vague and not very interesting with few images and tables. Luckily I've managed to find a lot of free images and sources on the net and in books which have helped give the pages good verifiability. Also thanks to your seasons page too, it really helped so I could ascertain how far the club progressed in competitions too. Like you say too, I could probably split the history of the last decade of club into another page quite soon, not sure whether to split it as a "2008-present" page considering the significance of the takeover or the "2001-present" considering that is when the club found stability again. The "1880-1965" page is shorter but it is still in its infancy and I just need to type up the information I have found. Also I've had a few Blue-mooners posting forum threads about City Wikipedia pages which is quite pleasing as at least you know people read your work and find it very interesting. Anyway, keep up the good work, Stevo Stevo1000 (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

sco.wikipedia.org

Hey Fal. How's it going? Did you see this edit? It redirects here. I'm amused by it, but wonder how it's been allowed to stand. Any thoughts? I've been keeping an eye on your Lawro's predictions table and stats. It really does show how much a a funny old game this really is. Keep it up. Cheers. gonads³ 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawro's Predictions table 10-11

Hey Fal, I've had a go at creating something that may help update that troublesome table. I've created it in Excel 2010, any earlier version can't cope with the output. It's fairly dynamic, so just needs the Actual and Lawro tables updating. I've updated my sandbox here with the updated output so far. I've emailed you the excel document too, hopefully you have 2010 or it will just show #Value errors of the WikOutput sheet. Let me know what you think? Cheers. gonads³ 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How about an accuracy table? I've updated the spreadsheet and show the output here. Any thought? gonads³ 10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Round 7 finalised. What do you think? Any errors? Usual place plus email. gonads³ 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fal. I've an idea for the minus/hyphen-minus issue. I'll get around to updating the code within a day or two. I'd like to see the table split into home/away stats. Do you have anything that shows these for him, just to save some time. Thanks. gonads³ 10:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made those improvements and updated the sheet too. I've updated the usual place for a Quick look. Could you check the Lawro data? I found a few errors when comparing the original table to the home/away sheet. I think I have them right but it would be worth a check. I'll probably add to the sheet with the position per round for both actual and lawro data shortly. Okay? gonads³ 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you take a bet on Lawro's next Arsenal away prediction? :) gonads³ 18:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the absense, I've not been to good lately. I'll email you the latest sheet with round 9 info. I notice differences in our tables, I'm guessing you're comparing with his round 10 data too. As for the number of hits last saturday, I have no idea. Perhaps Lawro himself might be using the data to learn where he's going so wrong. Perhaps an Admin could help? Some new tables in the sheet too for you. Did you notice the minus/hyphen-minus change too? Cheers. gonads³ 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester derby

My considering work on the derby article as a derby approaches is nothing new, I've been meaning to do a proper job of it for years now. However, having now obtained the two long out-of-print books that have been written about the derby, this time I might actually do it. That and its compensation for the fact that I'm unable to attend the next one due to inescapable work commitments, first home one I'll have missed since 1989 :( . Anyway, to get to the point, I'm asking editors of both red and blue hues what they think should go in the article. Naturally, a History section which goes chronologically through the major events of the fixture will be the bulk of it, but what else? A short "non-competitive derbies" section is one thing I'm thinking of putting in. A section on the nature of rivalry between fans and their attitudes to the fixture may have mileage, but I fear it would become a magnet for dubious POV edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Fb team A.F.C. Wimbledon

A tag has been placed on Template:Fb team A.F.C. Wimbledon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. —Half Price 15:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)