Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season

About article protection

The article doesn't need to be any protection. Because It needs to be updated regularly after the games.

(talk) 21:00, 03 July 2013 (UTC)

About statistics

Please don't remove Appearances and goals, Goalscorers, Assists, Clean sheets & Disciplinary record.

(talk) 05:15, 01 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.164 (talk)

If they are WP:OR and har no WP:RS they will be removed. QED237 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Excessive stats

This article is using WP:OR and is not sourced properly. Starting 11 should be removed per consensus already reached on WT:FOOTY and per WP:NOTSTATS many of the sections here were removed as well and should not be re-added without a WP:RS, which has not been provided yet. -- Discussion about excessive stats on Liverpool F.C. JMHamo (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, Premier League fixtures are copyright and can not be republished on Wikipedia -- archived discussion on this topic

Does this mean that the "Overall Summary" section should be removed? I think it was removed due to this before Mr tim111 (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would say so, completely unneccesary and unsourced section. QED237 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please remove it, as I don't want to be in 3RR and an IP address is undoing it. Mr tim111 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall stats removed as it is unneccesary (content already exist in table) and it is WP:NOTSTATS and no editor opposed so there is consensus. If you dont agree discuss and find consensus. QED237 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Stats at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season‎. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a ridiculous amount of unnecessary info in this article. The first section is preposterous for a start; in what way is it relevant to note the former clubs of each player? Or when they were signed? How do we even know when their contracts are due to expire? The "Overall summary" section is equally pointless. Not to flog a dead horse, but Wikipedia is not a stats almanac and we should not include excessive lists of statistics just because we can. Tables and lists are fine as supplementary material for prose content, but they should not make up the sum total of an article's entire content. – PeeJay 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the Score Overview before on a small number of articles although that's not what it was called and didn't have a double column. I'm not completely opposed to it's inclusion, but given the lack of text the article just becomes a big block of statistics so it may be best to remove it. A bigger problem for me is the First Team section which PeeJay mentioned I agree that the team they signed from is irrelevant and the end of their contract is completely unsourced. I know this type of table was used on other Liverpool season pages, but it may be best to trim some of the columns. Additionally, there is an issue with the references as they don't have the parameters - publisher, date (when it was written) and author. I'll fix the reference issue later today if someone hasn't got there already. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've sorted the references as promised. Done ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Those stats were so great! If you are a Liverpool fan, it is very relevant to check how long the contracts for the players are. Having them at one page is so cool, as it saves a lot of time. Where the players came from was also fine. You may not find them interesting personally, but for me and some of my friends, that are also Liverpool fans they were cool. If you don't want them on this page, please make them available on a separate page. Wikipedia is about making it easy for people to get information, not about getting clicks. If you wanted an overview of the team, it was the best place. Now it has nothing special to offer. Fightdane (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

JMHamo

What is this guy's problem? In the last two weeks he seems to be on a mission to delete as much of the article as he can to the point where the sections on it are only the ones he wants. Granted that the page was becoming overloaded with sections but the best way would be to remove some of them not all. I suggest that he concentrates on other pages because since he has become determined to remove as much of the page as he can it has turned into an edit warring zone. 86.176.53.66 (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not about a single editor, this has been a problem discussed with this page and he is entitled to remove all the parts he has removed. Just follow the given links where experienced editors discuss the problem. Other editors remove the same parts on other pages. He uses good arguments for his removals all of which is supported from Wikipedia guidelines. So I suggest you stop inserting these parts and also stop accusing editors trying to make wikipedia better accordingto it's guidelines. QED237 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And also It is not good to discuss editors themselves, If you think the removed parts belong on the article then argue for that here on the talkpage and com up with valid arguments instead of attacking single editors. QED237 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reserve squad inclusion

Is the Reserve squad needed on here? This is a season article about the Liverpool first team and I don't see why Reserve team players should be included, especially as they may not even feature in the First team squad this season. So I propose removing it too. The Reserve team has its own article Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy for this. JMHamo (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lemonade51 has already supported removing the Reserve squad from this discussion on WT:FOOTY discussion JMHamo (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool are on top of the league

Liverpool recently won against Man United by 1-0. Liverpool now got 3 points and are now on top of the Premier League. 86.45.10.71 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done All the necessary changes has been made Mr tim111 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting XI (and other stats)

Starting XI should not be included since there is clear consensus here (among many other places) that Starting XI's violate WP:OR and are not encyclopedic. The same goes for discipline and assist stats that violates WP:NOTSTATS and there is no reliable agreement between sources to accurately record them. The definition of assist varies from site to site as well! QED237 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we come to a conclusion about this? various users are putting it in and various users are putting it out, meaning the article will be fully protected. Mr tim111 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this page needs to be actively updated during and after matches so could do without protection. My personal opinion is that instead of Starting XI it would be better to have a 'matchday squads' table showing the team line ups from each game of the season. 86.146.22.217 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is not to include them or anything similar. JMHamo (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet User:MillsyOnWiki keeps adding this and it gets the page protected. What can we do about this more then what has already been discussed?. If this user wants it then he/she has to join the conversation. This time i dont understand why the page got protected instead of blocking the user adding XI. QED237 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been consensus reached on WT:FOOTY mulitple time like here,here, here, here and know here (I can find much more examples). The starting XI is not to be included. QED237 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 16 September

Please remove starting XI. There has been discussions on the article talkpage and consensus reached on WT:FOOTY here,here, here, here and know here (I can find much more examples). These starting formations should not be included. QED237 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: To be clear, are we talking about the table, the plan of the fiield, or the whole section? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole section should be removed. QED237 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Swansea City v Liverpool

16 September 2013 4	Swansea City	2 – 2	Liverpool	Swansea
20:00 BST	Shelvey 2'  56' Williams  50' Michu 64'	Report	Sturridge 4' Moses 36' Lucas  56' Henderson  61' Wisdom  66'	Stadium: Liberty Stadium Attendance: 20,752 Referee: Michael Oliver

Any chance of an admin updating the article with the template above in the Premier League matches section? Thanks. 109.148.200.30 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Protection

It makes no sense why this article is protected. There are no immediate concerns for vandalism and as everyone can see the page is constantly out of date due to this unnecessary lock. I strongly advise those with the power to allow this page to be edited by anyone asap. TurboGUY (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is protected due to editors adding unnecessary content against consensus.. see #Starting XI (and other stats) JMHamo (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE!!!

This article needs some serious updatingWWE fan 4.0 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Updated

Please update this page, It lacks recent information

The article has not been updated. The Swansea-Liverpool match has not been updated in fixtures and also their appearances and goals have not been added The protection should be removed from this article because it makes no sense to have an article that is not updated.

Still not updated as of win over Sunderland on 29th September. Why the hell does this have full protection? It needs constantly updating and as it's not getting that the article might as well not even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwilliams1992 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I will need a specific request before a change can be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Security Lock

How can anyone seriously suggest that having a minor inconvenience (the starting XI) on the page is worse than it being 4 games out-of-date? Unlock this page so that it can be sorted out! MillsyOnWiki (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of the admin who protected this page coming on to explain why the page is still protected? 31.53.223.250 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you approach Mufka who protected the article, there might be a possibility to shorten or remove it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No discussion has taken place here about the reason why the page was edit protected in the first place, all I see are requests for it to be unprotected without commitment not to add Starting XI or Assists again. JMHamo (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A new page??

Or we consider making a new page so that we can update match, stats... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjohnchan (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about "a new page"? This page is locked down due to edit warring, so when discussion about this takes place, the page protection can be reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The user who kept adding the Starting XI said on another talk page that he will stop adding it so I don't see the purpose of the protection still being on? 86.139.206.238 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Did they? Where? JMHamo (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can lock the page, but you should update the page more frequently. We readers are very disappointed with this. If you cannot afford this, give us back the rights to update the page. It's not appropriate for u guys to overuse your power to block us from updating the page. Thanks! Iamjohnchan (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not just contact the user directly or restrict him? Why should everybody else suffer, because you won't let others update, JMHamo. Why not try and see, if he got the point? As a Liverpool-fan, I now know how to annoy fans from other clubs. I just have to create new user-profiles, and start adding stuff to the sites of Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City. Then their sites will be shut down.Fightdane (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fightdane: The page has been unprotected by an Admin already. Also regarding your comment about creating multiple accounts, I suggest you read WP:SOCK before you get yourself blocked. JMHamo (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to be rush. I'm only asking the need of updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjohnchan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's been months ago since it's updated. How come u guys can tolerate that? It's a pity that we guys which really wants to contribute to the page are being blocked by those who do not seek for updated stuff. Sigh...

Don't get frustrated over this. I'm just trying to tell the truth and fact. Hope those who block the article can think carefully and thoroughly before continuing to block we guys. We really want to contribute and will promise not to add stuff that violate the rules. Thanks!

Iamjohnchan (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Results by round

Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from a reliable source, so going against the Statto source on the Results by round section is in my opinion disruptive editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But then why you call it "results by round"? The sources states that it is "position after match played" (which isn't correct either, as Liverpool was 1st after their first match) - if are using that source, shouldn't the section heading reflect that it isn't results by round? Mentoz86 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Valid point as there are no such thing as Rounds in the Premier League. I propose calling the section heading League performance JMHamo (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

After the loss to Southampton, Liverpool was placed 5th in the table, not 2nd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.160.109 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, exactly why we need to work from a reliable source. JMHamo (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

After watching the edit-war in the recent days, I realized that we need to establish a consensus instead of banging our heads together. There are three different ways of doing this, and regardless of how we do this we should, we should have a note that explain what exactly the "position by round" is. The first option is to list position after Liverpool's match is played. The second option is to list position after every match that is played the same day as Liverpool's match is played, like the Statto source currently in the article does. The third opinion is to list position after every match in every round (or matchday as Premier League calls it) is finished. Some editors have expressed a concern that only the second option is allowed, as we don't have a source for the other two and that it WP:OR, but I believe that looking at a table 38 times during a season could be allowed per WP:CALC. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the table 38 times? Are you serious? The Statto.com site already provides the position after every match that is played the same day as Liverpool's match is played, so what's wrong with it? JMHamo (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If nothing was wrong with that, we wouldn't had an edit war. Other editors with good faith corrects the errors in this sections, because they believe that this section is about position after the round (or matchday as they call it in England) is finished. What is the point of listing Liverpool's position on a saturday evening, when a lot of matches are going to be played on sunday? Mentoz86 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a source given for a reason and as well there is no such thing as a "round" in the Premier League as discussed here Round by Round results table. JMHamo (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But the question remains - why use the Statto source? We don't have to go with the second option (of my three options above). It is also irrelevant if Premier League calls it for round or matchdays, but this is the official table after one match played and this is the official table after two matches played (notice how many matches Chelsea and Aston Villa has played). I don't see why we can't use those numbers after the round/matchday is finished. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentoz86 Just read all the discussions on WT:FOOTY and consensus reached there. I brought this up in the beginning of the season and the consensus was to use the statto source. This since there are matchdays and not rounds in PL (matchday is not the same as round). Just look in the WT:FOOTY archives. Also how do you do on the 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season page when insterting the result for matches 2 and 3? A win without placement on the second and then draw and firts place on third? Or should both win and draw be on match/round 2? This third "idea" will not work when matces gets moved and postponed which is the reason we should use the position at the end of a matchday.QED237 (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

And also I am angry at you Mentoz86. To edit something according to a source is not edit warring! However editing against any source is disruptive and those editors should be warned and blocked. You cant give warnings for making edit according to source. I consider reporting it to someone. QED237 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No original research strongly comes in here. The source must be followed unless another reliable source can be found and that source clearly lists the position for each round in that season i.e. doesn't update after each game losing the position for that round moving onto next as thats not verifiable looking back. Statto is good for that specific reason it keeps a constant tracked update for every round for the whole season. Personally I think you all need to stop edit warring and if that means discussing every edit then so be it as clearly this is not calming down. Personally i tend to agree more on the side of Qed position but ultimately the edit warring here cant continue all the time.Blethering Scot 21:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read the discussion at WT:FOOTY, and I can't see a consensus for anything except that there aren't a consensus to remove all of those sections - atleast there are no consensus that "we have to use the statto source". I'm also curious why it is own research to look at the Premier League table and tell that Liverpool are currently second. However, my main objective with this discussion, was to show that this was a content dispute and that the edit warring had to stop and I've been successful with that part, so unless one of the other editors which agree with me joins the discussion, I'll be happy with the consensus, as long as an explanatory note "this is where Liverpool was positioned after the day of the match was finished" is added. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with your suggestion of an explanatory note, will you please make the change? JMHamo (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentoz86 can you clarify can you see where they were after each match via that one source or is that pieceing together different sources. The latter is original research the former isn't.Blethering Scot 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@JMHamo - I've added an explanatory note, though I'm a little uncertain about the wording, but feel free to reword it. @Blethering Scot - In that table, when you press "matches played" you can press 1 to 7 and see how the table looked like at the end of each "round" (I still call it round even though they shouldn't be called rounds). Yes, you'd have to load 38 different URL's to verify the section at the end of the season, but that should be allowed per WP:CALC. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Im not so sure i agree with the calculations thing however if that source allows you to click to see the varying versions then that is perfectly acceptable as one source you aren't having to piece together at all so really it comes down to which source is more independent and reliable. The Premier League source isn't independent but is reliable even if a primary source.Blethering Scot 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I haven't read everything above because I am pushed for time, but this source states league positions taking into account the position in the table after EVERYONE has played, in a nice, easy-to-use graph. Why not use this source? It is accurate, because current sources does not take into account the times the clubs have played, and is therefore wrong to place a team higher in the table solely because of television selection, rather than the team performance itself. This is the source for Arsenal sepcifically: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/arsenal-fc/spielplan/verein_11.html . Thanks! 2.221.89.182 (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

transfermarkt.co.uk is not considered a reliable source JMHamo (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How about Premier Leagues own site? http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html?season=2013-2014&month=SEPTEMBER&timelineView=date&toDate=1379890799999&tableView=CURRENT_STANDINGS

Is that a reliable source? You can choose a date or a number of matches.

Remember what information people seek. Is it what position Liverpool was in 2:45 PM on a saturday when they played the early match? Is it which position they were, when after the matches saturday? Or is it after the matches played monday evening? My guess is, that people want the same info as me: after all matches connected to the weekend.

Also: If you look at the position after the fifth match, Liverpool was number two. But if you go to Tottenhams season side, they were also positioned number two: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._season

In principle you can easily have three in the same position on different team season sites. That makes no sense, and it is not the information peple want.

Liverpool was number five after the Southampton match. Statto says number two, because they take the position after the matches on that saturday. Statto does NOT use round/matchday, but date!

Premier Leagues own site is the official source, and THE most reliable source. Statto is not a reliable source in this case. So I'll change it, if there ar no protests. Fightdane (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Many editors has agreed and there is consensus so changing will get you in trouble. Statto is a very reliable source for position by matchday which we use since there are no rounds in PL. Please read what has already been written. QED237 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Statto write the postion on a certain date. Is that what "Matchday mean? How can anyone who reads the article see, that is by the date of the match? Do you agree, that people who read the article will understand it as the position after five matchdays - that is all clubs have played five matches?

If you want to take into rescheduled matches into consideration, there is an excellent german site: http://fussballdaten.de/england/2014/3/

They have taken into consideration, that Chelsea-Aston Villa rescheduled to 21. august.

As it is now, very few gets the info they search.

As it now, everybody will get a wrong impression, unless you write, that it is after the date the club played the match. Please answer the questions :-)

Fightdane (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okey I will try and answer your questions one by one and if I am not clear or you have new questions feel free to ask again.

Firstly you say Statto is full of factual errors. I haven't seen any so I am not sure what you mean. I made a google search for "matchday dictionary" and the answer was "(sport, British) the day on which a sports match, esp a football match, takes place" seen here. Statto uses this and posts the position of the team on the end of that matchday (results by matchday). Perhaps you get that wrong and thinks about rounds (that some other leagues and sports has but not PL), which is different.

Again Statto.com are reliable because they follow WP:RS and they are widely accepted over wikipedia for providing accurate information. They provide results by matchday which is exactly what this section is currently about.

You say that people want to know positions after an entire weekend and I can totally understand that. The thing is that it is hard to make such table with postponed matches and the consensus on WT:FOOTY that there are no such things as rounds. This is the best we can do if we should have it at all (it has been discussed to remove).

The german source I have never heard about and first of all it is not in english making it hard to be a good source for readers on english wikipedia. And I can not (with my bad german) determine if it is a reliable source since many of these kind of sources are user-edited, which makes them unreliable.

To answer your last section, the definition of matchday is clear and results by matchday is a very explanatory title so I dont think there is need for any confusion (people should know what a matchday is. QED237 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Matchday may or may not be something, that native english speakers understand. But for people like me, who is not a native english speaker, it makes no sense. Previous years it was "round by round". Don't expect people to understand it.

I just don't see what people can use this information for?

AND more important: Take a look at the spanish league. There it is not!!! match day. It is by round. Look at this table: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_La_Liga#Positions_by_round

You have the exact same in the italian serie A: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Serie_A#Positions_by_round Bundesliga: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Bundesliga#Positions_by_round France: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Ligue_1#Positions_by_round

If you go to the individual clubs, it is not by match day, but by "round". Why is Premier league the only league, where it is not possible? Wikipedia should do it the same way in all leagues.

Fightdane (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I am not native english speaker either but this is english wikipedia and a article about a british league so we write in correct british english and it is up to the reader to read the words and if they dont know what they mean look them up in dictionary.

And as I have said there are no rounds in PL after discussions on WT:FOOTY the other leagues have rounds in their rules and regulations but PL never uses that word or way to describe schedule. Not all leagues are the same. For example some uses goal difference to separate teams and some uses matches amongst teams in question.

I can understand your view on this matter but the fact is PL dont have rounds while others do. QED237 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also note the note at "position" in the table that says "Liverpool's position at the end of the day in which their match was played" QED237 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"League performance"

Hello, I'd like to open up a discussion, formally and respectfully challenging the use of league performance for the table formerly known as "results by round." Is not the league table also an indication of "league performance"? Or the results summary? Or even the matches themselves? By what logic does it seem fitting to call what is unequivocally the results by round section "league performance"? That doesn't even make sense. Italia2006 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

See discussion above... JMHamo (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see that. I'm challenging it, mostly because it's an incorrect usage of the term. And I'm glad no one has responded. Italia2006 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The matter is quite simple. There are no such things as rounds in Premier league and using "results by round" makes conflicting edits, since some say it should be result by saturday and some say result by saturday. Using the word "round" confuses editors, simply since it does not exist. Thats why we changed to "League performance" and no one opposed. We cant have "Result by round". QED237 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course there are rounds in the Premier League. 38 of them. Just because there are sometimes anomalies where one team has played 10 games and another 8 doesn't mean there aren't rounds. And why "league performance"? Is there a more vague expression than that? And you know what, results by round has been used for years without issue or "editor confusion". Italia2006 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read this previous discussion? There is a consensus that the Premier League does not have Rounds. JMHamo (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you refuse to acknowledge any questions I've posed? If there aren't rounds what are there? And at this point the consensus sounds rather absurd. Italia2006 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

All your questions are answered in the previous discussion if you bother to read it. JMHamo (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the argument? That achieved a consensus? What a weak argument. Let me once again ask this question. Why "league performance"? What is the definition of "league performance" and why should the section formerly known as "results by round" be called league performance ahead of the league table, results summary and matches sections? All these are also indicators of how a club performed in the league. This argument against results by round is baseless. Italia2006 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose a new label yourself then, there is nothing wrong with league performance, as it's the historical league performance of the team throughout the full season. JMHamo (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "results by round".. it gets the message across and is right to the point. There was no need to change it, and the arguments for changing it don't stand up to scrutiny. Italia2006 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read what we have written already, there has been editwarring and fullyprotected pages, when some people take result after sunday and some after saturday. There are no such things as rounds!. QED237 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no such things as rounds, how are we able to number the matches 1-38? Huh? If there were no rounds, chronological order would be sufficient. BUT THERE ARE ROUNDS. It's like denying gravity. Italia2006 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No there are not any rounds. Please read Round by Round results table. This is the reason we change "Round" to "Matchday" in the table/template. QED237 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Now describe the difference between matchdays and rounds. Is there a difference? Italia2006 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all Premier League games are played on a Saturday, which is a round. Some teams play, Sunday, Monday or Wednesday depending on European or domestic cup competition. So, to call it a round is misleading. JMHamo (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

One day is not a round. A round is a round. I have no idea how else I can get this across. If anything calling it a matchday is misleading. Games being played on different days means nothing, because there are leagues which play Friday-Monday, but all those games are still part of a round. Italia2006 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

One day is a matchday, which is the best we can use since there are no rounds in PL. And also the sources are for result after each matchday. QED237 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus among editors from the previous discussions about this subject is that there are no "Rounds" in the English Premier League, so I suggest that you drop the stick now. JMHamo (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm challenging that consensus. I thought I made that clear. That was the point of the matter being discussed a second time. And that consensus is extremely weak. It's wrong, incredibly wrong actually. Maybe it wasn't the best title, calling it "results by round", but league performance is far worse. Italia2006 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. JMHamo (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the point of this discussion. To come to a new consensus. Italia2006 (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

drop the stick... It's only you that has an issue with this. JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What an elitist website this is. I have a rock solid argument, both for why it shouldn't be "league performance" and why it should be "results by round" instead, and yet you won't even acknowledge any of these points, you just bombard me with Wikipedia rules. Are you afraid to acknowledge that you're wrong? As for this consensus, it was more about what sources to use for the results by round/league performance section, not what to call it. Why don't you drop the stick. Italia2006 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on now, do you need to "battle" everything. "rock solid argument" for using result by round e´when there is no such thing as a round in Premier League that is just laughable. QED237 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Battle"? I'm discussing ONE PART OF THE ARTICLE. Would you stop making me sound like Genghis Khan here? I completely dismantled the argument for calling that section "league performance" (whatever that means) and both of you ignored it. And once again, for the last time, THERE ARE ROUNDS IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE. Italia2006 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to WP:SHOUT. We now what you are saying but no one agrees with you and the discussion on WT:FOOTY outweights this discussion. There are no rounds, it is as simple as that. QED237 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was between three users. Don't make it sound like I've been shouted down. If it's not results by round, then it shouldn't be league performance either. How about "results by matchday", or even better, why don't we cut out the position by round completely and just show the wins, draws and losses by round instead, since as mentioned above it's hard to know for sure which position a club occupied at any given time. How's that for compromise? Italia2006 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the spirit of cooperation and discussion is alive and well on Wikipedia. Italia2006 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you are edit warring now and going against consensus, just because you want it a certain way. I shall seek dispute resolution. JMHamo (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what I left on your talk page? The "consensus" which you keep mentioning was not to call it league performance, the consensus was that there was no such thing as "rounds" in the Premier League. It's not because I want it a certain way, it's because "league performance" means nothing. I've been here a while, I have 14,000+ edits. How bout you stop making me sound like some sort of outsider? Also, I have a question. My revision was not even to "results by round" but to "results by matchday". You rejected that immediately. I've already made the case for why it shouldn't be called league performance, but you ignored that. In fact, the only thing you've discussed this whole time is the "consensus, consensus, consensus". I've read the consensus. It's not even about what we're discussing. Results by matchday is a more than apt title for that table. Personally, I consider you a hostile user. And finally, where are all these other users who were in on this "consensus"? Italia2006 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay now I am back, not sure what was the purpose of your last comment User:Italia2006 some of us have to sleep and work so sorry if i cant answer that fast everytime. And you should not edit so fast, lets wait for people to respond. QED237 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And we cant decide here to remove the positions since the discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY. QED237 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I work 40 hours a week and go to university, so why don't you stop making me sound like I hover over Wikipedia. I'm not an inexperienced user. Italia2006 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Have I ever called you an inexperienced user? And please dont talk about "I consider you a hostile user", the only thing you did last night was to WP:SHOUT and say that there are rounds. If any you are the aggressive one, which also can be spotted in the other dispute you are having at the moment. Please take a second and relax instead of trying to aggrevate other users. QED237 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, I am impressed by this constructive discussion. There are no consensus that this section should be called "League performance", that was only one editors suggestion in the discussion above, and Italia2006 concerns that the section heading is misleading are valid. You keep insisting that the round in the Premier League shouldn't be called "rounds", but what's wrong with this edit? If "Results by matchday" is not a good option, why don't call the section "Results by match" ? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, a nonexistent consensus. And they've made me out to be the aggressor here. Italia2006 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah it is a very constructive discussion (kidding). And to me no one oppossed "league performance" above so that was consensus and we inserted it. Then User:Italia2006 came with a bad attitude shouting and being very aggressive saying that there in fact are rounds and refused to read the other discussions. A lot of this arguing could have been avoided if he accepted the fact that rounds are not good and instead suggested "result by matchday" from the beginning. Actually i like that suggestion and have no problem at all with "result by matchday". My problem is with the aggressive and hostile tone from User:Italia2006. QED237 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had a hostile and aggressive tone, I've had a logical one. My very first post was as polite as possible, and got ignored. What do you think Mendoz? Do I sound hostile? Italia2006 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I was hoping that we could discuss the dispute and not the disputers ;) Is "results by matchday" a good compromise, User:JMHamo? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Results by matchday" is a fair compromise, I am happy with that. *** THE END *** JMHamo (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Italia2006 (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Live updates

Hi. Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores. This based on WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed many more times. This also applies to tables and list such as top gaolscorers that you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the score. QED237 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

League table

Hi.

We had/have a recent discussion at The Village Pump (feel free to join) where the editors modified the sandbox of {{2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox}} to have a truncated transclusion of the table for use on the pages for the current season of all the teams. This has also been informed at WT:FOOTY to get people to join the discussion at village pump. This template is then supposed to be used on all of the season articles. QED237 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

First team

Why are the appearances and goals removed from the first team table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.147.200 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Becuase a season article is not only for stats and this articles has way too much statsitics. There is no need to have the total amount of goals for players, because the article is about this season. This article is in need of a major update and a lot more text. QED237 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Squad, Statistics, Transfers, and Loans sections

I have posted a discussion covering the Squad, Statistics, Transfers, and Loans sections on club seasonal pages over at WT:FOOTY. I would appreciate if you could provide your comments on the subject, and also contact other editors who you feel would have useful input. Kanoch (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626163631/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reds-complete-luis-alberto-deal to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reds-complete-luis-alberto-deal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626163537/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/aspas-completes-liverpool-switch to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/aspas-completes-liverpool-switch

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)