Talk:2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season

Non Playing Staff

Are extensive details of the Non playing structure of the club necessary on a page just devoted for the season 2013-14? These same details are already stated in detail on the Manchester City F.C page and are just repeated here. Once a new coach/manager and his team have been appointed this section will grow larger and is not really adding anything new to the coverage of the club on Wikipedia. A couple of attempts to delete or shorten this section by regular contributors to the MCFC season pages (myself and Falastur2) have been undone with no further discussion. So rather than start an edit duel, I'd first appreciate comments from the users of the page and whether they think this section is a necessary addition.

Needless to say that your thoughts mirror my own. I saw that my edit had been reverted, but decided I couldn't be bothered to edit war it, however my view remains unchanged that it is not useful or sensible information to add. The coaching staff bit as an absolute maximum IMO. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

New Format

Is there a reason the format of this page has changed from previous seasons? I think the new layout and content organisation is worse. It seems more cluttered and less structured, for example, there is now one transfer table for incoming, instead of the four there used to be, basically putting all the first team, reserve, buys and loans into one big table. Is this just one editors choice or is this an agreed change and does that mean we will now be changing the other seasons to conform to this new style? Paul  Bradbury 21:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the current format was put in place by a couple of anonymous editors who then defended attempts to undo their changes by some of the more regular contributors. I haven't been too bothered about starting an edit war as I'd anticipated these users may not be so interested later in the season. I agree that some of the features of previous seasons would be better i.e. keeping the same order of sections so that matches and competitions are at the top, statistics in the middle and transfers at the bottom; and removing the unnecessary details about the club's non playing staff (see above). I understand your comments regarding the transfer table, but I think the old format wasn't very clean with the use of 2 columns for 1st team and reserves giving us inconsistent column widths etc. I don't think 1 table for in and one for out is a problem as long as we have columns for loan/transfer or 1st team / reserves which can be sorted. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to leave it as is for now, but incase we decide to change here is the alternative format --Ratchet8865 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That would about be the long and the short of it, yes. When I get up the energy to fight a pointless edit war, I'll make some changes, but at present I'm still a little jaded from the other edit wars I've fought with anonymous users who feel no reason to stick to the "three reverts a day" rule and never read the edit summaries or talk pages in order to try to resolve the situation diplomatically. Hopefully it won't come down to a semi-protect... Falastur2 ^Talk 23:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If this guy Lejlabrahimi keeps undoing our edits and won't talk to us, how do we go about a semi protect (only been editing for 6 months and still learning) --Ratchet8865 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You ask an admin, usually on their talk page. Semi-protected status only protects against edits from anonymous users, unconfirmed (haven't confirmed their email address) and users up to 4 days old though. Lejlabrahimi will be unable to edit until the 31st but after that he'll be free to edit at will again. If he continues to do so, we'd have to ask an admin to take him to task on his talk page, which is a more radical step. We also could ask for full protection, but then only admins can edit the page, which isn't exactly going to be that helpful.

Since he has signed up, you could try sending him an actual message on his talk page, as he may actually respond. It's really only the anonymous users who never respond. In the meantime, if I see him make too many reverts I can always use my rollbacker privileges...if you don't get there first. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried posting to his talk page already but didn't get any reply --Ratchet8865 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Transfers and Loans

Transfers In

First Team

Position	No.	Player	Transferred from	Fee	Date	Source

Reserves and Academy

Position	No.	Player	Transferred from	Fee	Date	Source

Transfers Out

First Team

Position	No.	Player	Transferred to	Fee	Date	Source
DF	28	Kolo Touré	Liverpool	Free	1 July 2013

Reserves and Academy

Position	No.	Player	Transferred to	Fee	Date	Source

Loans In

First Team

Position	No.	Player	Loaned from	Date Started	End Date	Source

Reserves and Academy

Position	No.	Player	Loaned from	Date Started	End Date	Source

Loans Out

First Team

Position	No.	Player	Loaned from	Date Started	End Date	Source

Reserves and Academy

Position	No.	Player	Loaned from	Date Started	End Date	Source

Nice templates, but they seem very prone to text wrap, which isn't so cool. If I get round to it I'll make them a bit wider but my monitor is by default very wide so it's hard for me to tell when I'm making things too wide. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've played a little bit with it and think I've sorted the wrapping problem --Ratchet8865 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Time for a season summary/review section?

I'm sure I've established to many of you that I like the style that we've made for our articles and am not a big fan of standardising nor of adding sections for the sake of it. There's one thing that has been playing on my mind for a while though. Is it time for a month-by-month "history" as a couple of other season articles already do, such as Chelsea's one here? I'm not really a fan of adding clunky, unnecessary adornments such as the list of managerial and executive staff we had to keep deleting a few weeks back nor the little graphic that still remains here of the most used XI, but the season review idea I am more open to, largely as it's all citable prose and serves the dual purpose of A) making this article more comprehensive and B) making it look less like an almanac, which is something Wikipedia is not really supposed to allow but I suspect many of our articles technically count as. I think we should restrain it - we don't need to include each day's news, such as the announcement of minor sponsorships, the release of tour details or a paragraph on such, and I don't really like the table above the prose on that Chelsea article (although I begrudgingly admit I kind of can appreciate the way that the Man United articles have a monthly table snippet showing their club's movement in the league) but if written well I reckon it could be an asset to these articles.

I won't barge ahead with this without approval of others, though. Thoughts? Falastur2 ^Talk 23:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of some of these e.g. the summary posted in the 2012-13 Premier League page. I think the key is to summarise each month under separate paragraphs and to keep it as short as possible ie. key transfers, quick overviews of matches and major announcements by the club management. I'd be happy to give it a go for this season, agree some groundrules upfront and see how it's looking after a couple of months. I personally quite like the Starting XI summary as I've not found anything similar anywhere else. I think a game by game summary of league position is sufficient to track progress, but my attempts to add one as a template to this new season has so far been deleted the 3 times I've tried. I figured I'd wait now until the fixtures are announced so that the table isn't completely empty on first inclusion.--Ratchet8865 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm not a fan of the block-text of the PL article you linked, I'd say it'd definitely have to be month-by-month.

My reason for objecting to the Starting XI thing, for the record, is because it's not representative of what actually happened. It's entirely possible for the "most common" Starting XI to never have actually played a game where all 11 players actually started together, it's possible though far less likely that a player could technically appear on the graphic two or three times if they started every game but roamed between "unpopular" positions, and if a manager tends to chop-and-change tactics it becomes even less practical as how exactly do you dictate where a classic winger in a 4-3-3 should count for in a slim 4-1-3-2 formation, for example? Back in the days where every team played 4-4-2 every game you could maybe argue it but tactics are getting so fluid and so interchangeable that I'm not sure it really counts above what the list of appearances table does.

The league-position-by-round table I'm skeptical of because when one team is three games behind another team but with only one point less, and then wins their next game, where do you place them? Shouldn't they technically be a place higher?

Both of these I'm willing to accept or leave now. I used to be virulently against them but I'm becoming more pragmatic in my willingness to include these things. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Matches

Appreciate that Wikipedia doesn't have a license to print PL fixtures, but would it still be OK to have the fixtures on the page but hide all future fixtures except the next one. This approach seemed to work OK last season. --Ratchet8865 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would. I probably shouldn't have just blanket deleted everything before but I was getting a little tired of the constant add-everything-delete-everything Edit Tennis that has been going on between different people on the article recently, so I kind of stamped my foot down a little. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

CL group stage, standings table

Hi

There has been a bit of changing of the standings table. The first table is the same as in the original article [[]] and the second is a basic table (someone likes without any good argument). I think this table should be the same as the article it comes from.

Without any good argument? I already laid out my argument for use of the second table as such: it's been used every season reliably for year after year, it isn't unnecessarily large like the first table (what is with all the space after the team name) and contrary to your weak argument for the first table, the first table IS NOT at template, which might somewhat justify its use. Why change something that isn't broken? In addition, your argument that the same table as the one present in the Champions League article proper is also weak. In each Premier League team's season article a league table template is used which is different from that used on the 2013–14 Premier League page. Furthermore, the second table looks much neater with the use of a heading which at least lets the reader know which group is being displayed. Italia2006 (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

First table:

{{Fb cl2 header navbar}}
{{Fb cl2 team |nat=GER |t=[[FC Bayern Munich|Bayern Munich]]      |w=1 |d=0 |l=0 |gf=3 |ga=0 |bc= |border=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |nat=ENG |t=[[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]] |w=1 |d=0 |l=0 |gf=3 |ga=0 |bc= |border=green}}
{{Fb cl2 team |nat=RUS |t=[[PFC CSKA Moscow|CSKA Moscow]]         |w=0 |d=0 |l=1 |gf=0 |ga=3 |bc= |border=blue}}
{{Fb cl2 team |nat=CZE |t=[[FC Viktoria Plzeň|Viktoria Plzeň]]    |w=0 |d=0 |l=1 |gf=0 |ga=3 |bc= |border=}}
{{end}}

Second table:

Group D

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Bayern Munich	1	1	0	0	3	0	+3	3
Manchester City	1	1	0	0	3	0	+3	3
CSKA Moscow	1	0	0	1	0	3	–3	0
Viktoria Plzeň	1	0	0	1	0	3	–3	0

Please, feel free to add your opinion. QED237 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2013 (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)

I suggest we keep this discussion at one place on Liverpool Talk page were it started. QED237 (talk) 15:16, 6 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) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (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 3 external links on 2013–14 Manchester City 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/20140110213702/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/jan/suarez-and-pellegrini-win-barclays-december-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/jan/suarez-and-pellegrini-win-barclays-december-awards.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214230714/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/feb/manuel-pellegrini-and-adam-johnson-win-barclays-january-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/feb/manuel-pellegrini-and-adam-johnson-win-barclays-january-awards.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109065008/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/nov/aguero-and-pochettino-win-barclays-october-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/nov/aguero-and-pochettino-win-barclays-october-awards.html

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) 16:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)