Talk:A-League transfers for 2019–20 season

Issues with page

Myself and Macosal had a few disagreements about the page, so bringing it up for discussion.

• Issue 1: I changed the reference from Goal.com to a reference from Fox Sports as I know they are a more reliable source of information. I don't have specific examples I saw on hand now, but I know from my social media feed that they're not reliable, especially Covert Agent for example. Here are a few more users with experience in their unreliability, and a few examples there too.

• Issue 2: Macosal says FTBL is not FourFourTwo. They became a different entity last year when FFT Aus closed. I'm not sure about that. As far as I understood, FTBL is the same people as FFT Aus, and all the articles which were on FFT Aus moved to the FTBL domain (as can be seen in this category on their site). --SuperJew (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Issue 3: I sorted "Jong Ajax" under "Ajax", while Macosal sorted it under "Jong Ajax" saying the sorting shouldn’t reflect anything other than the name of the club which appears in the column. If it begins with J, it should sort to J. I'm saying the sorting should be based on the club, and since "Jong" merely means "young", the club is actually Ajax. For example if someone came from Tottenham Reserves, under that logic he could be sorted under Reserves. The "problem" Macosal seems to be having here is that in the Dutch format of their youth teams the "Jong" comes first, but the club is still Ajax. To compare to a different topic example, we'd sort movie titles which begin with "The" by the second word.

Happy to have discussion on this. --SuperJew (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging users active in the project recently: @J man708, Simione001, Matilda Maniac, Clifton9, Hack, Rjbsmith, and FastCube: --SuperJew (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Invited users to discussion at WP:FIA and WT:FOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with issue 1. Unsure about issue 2. Issue 3 - I think Jong Ajax is correct here. I think comparing them to the Tottenham Reserves is not a good comparison because Jong Ajax play is a senior professional league. Simione001 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 1 - The shit thing is, even The World Game has gone from proper journalism to speculative trash, so we kinda have to wade through what’s clearly wrong from plausible and correct. FoxSports is the way to go, but obviously we shouldn’t completely disregard Goal.com as a source.

Issue 2 - As with Simione, I’ll stay out of this one. I have no real knowledge on this.

Issue 3 - Hmmm... This one is tough, as I see the logic in both arguments. Not too sure where I stand. - J man708 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per Issue 1, the Fox Sports cite should be preferable. Issue 2, I haven't bought a FFT in a long time. Per their twitter, FFT Aus moved to FTBL online. They appear to be separate entities but I would treat their reliability similarly. Per Issue 3, Jong Ajax is the name of the club and it should be sorted under J. Tottenham Reserves is not an analogous example. If someone came from Tottenham Reserves, they should be sorted under T, and if they came from Reserves of Tottenham, they should be sorted under R, and if they came from The Arsenal Reserves, they should be sorted under A (as The is an article, switched clubs up here because Tottenham starts with a T). SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You illustrated my point exactly SportingFlyer. The order of where to put the "youth" qualifier shouldn't influence the sorting. If the EPL decided to call their Reserves teams "Reserves of X" instead of "X Reserves", I'd still expect it to be sorted under the name of the club. --SuperJew (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering this is a formal team name in a different language, I disagree with you, as does Tweede Divisie#2018-19 Teams. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1. You’re not wrong that the Covert Agent is unreliable. But the article here is a report of an official club announcement. Goal does not make up false quotes or announcements as are seen in that article (or at least I’ve never seen anything remotely approaching that). Consider the source rather than just the website here.

2. FTBL is a rebranding following the end of FFT in Australia. Same people, different name, not FFT. There’s an explanation here

3. The sort function is not meant to do anything more than identify the first letter of the team name. If the team’s official name is Jong Ajax, it starts with J. It would be perplexing for the sort list to be in something other than alphabetical order. Macosal (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1. I didn't say it's unusable, just that given the unreliability we know they have it is preferable to use other references if available.

2. As you say it's just a different name, it sounds to me like it's the still the same entity basically.

3. It's perplexing to me to see all the youth teams of Netherlands sorted together. In that case, we might as well go back to basic sort and having them sorted by the country flag. The whole point of the sort is it lets us be smarter with the sorting. --SuperJew (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1. If we agree this source in this case is accurate and usable, on what basis are we changing it?

2. Yes. But they aren’t FFT now. They aren’t connected to that brand any more and shouldn’t be called that. I think the whole point is that a change of entity has occurred here.

3. The point of the sort is to sort in alphabetical order - nothing more or less. Are you really now saying we should get rid of the sorting?... Macosal (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of #2, the publisher in the cite should be the actual publisher, not who the publisher was. We don't have to wikilink every publisher. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1. As I said, given their unreliability as a whole, it is preferable to use other references if available, also to not encourage people to use them as references.

2. I'm really not sure on the legalities & technicalities. It seemed to me that they're just a continuation with a different name (which is why I kept linking to them), but if you're saying it's a different entity, I understand that there's no point linking it.

3. The point of sort is that you can sort by whatever is appropriate. Like for example, in Category:2017–18 A-League season by team, the pages are sorted by the name of the club, because otherwise they'd all be under "0-9". Another example which I'm not involved in is Category:Spanish football clubs 2018–19 season, where also the pages are sorted by name of the club. I'll also add that in that page, clubs with prefixes (like SD Eibar or RCD Espanyol) are sorted by the club's name, not the prefix (sorted by Eibar and Espanyol). --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You can sort by whatever is appropriate, but in this case "Jong" is an appropriate sort term. It's not an abbreviated prefix like SD or RCD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorting should be determined by the reason for the sorting, which is to arrange things in a logical and easily navigatable order. Alphbetisation is a means, not an end in itself. If I had a long list of teams I would want them grouped by club, not by the vagueries of the names used for various teams run by the club. Jong Ajax is a rebranding of the Ajax reserve team and is part of the same football club, so I would sort on Ajax. In the case of this article it makes little difference as it involves a single player. More importantly, I think the club should be listed as Ajax as I assume the player is contracted to the club rather than the team.   Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how late I am to this party, but my two cents:

Issue #1 – as long as the reference is legit, which both sites are, it shouldn't matter. First in best-dressed. (Also, can we not have two links?)

Issue #2 – as far as I was aware FTBL, published by nextmedia and is apart of the broader "Inside Sport" magazines, were forced to change the name when they lost the licensing to operate under the FourFourTwo (Aus) banner. I don't think it is necessary in this case to link to FourFourTwo as they aren't running the FTBL content anymore. (Also, interesting to note, you can't access FTBL from https://www.fourfourtwo.com anymore further signifying the disconnect, whereas you can from https://www.insidesport.com.au/)

Issue #3 – I see both sides to this and would be happy to go either way with it. There is only one player from a club called "Jong xxx" so an alphabetical sort would suffice. However, his parent club is actually "Ajax". I'm not sure how their contracts actually work and whether players are signed to "Ajax" and "Jong Ajax" specifically (but you would assume this is case). Overall, I think it just looks strange if you sort it with A's (then a J), more A's, then B's etc. I wouldn't necessarily be against a sorting that looked like this: Ajax (though this might come across as misleading?) —Eccy89 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 "transfers" for Sydney

@Macosal: Hey mate,

Thought it makes more sense to continue the discussion here. I would say that the negotiations are over when the club issues an announcement that Caceres/De Silva/etc. won't be retained for next season (or on the contrary that they will be continuing). For example "Jacob Tratt and Cameron Devlin are also discussing a possible stay at Sydney but Jop van der Linden, Alex Cisak and Mitch Austin will not return next season." - Tratt and Devlin are still negotiating, while van der Linden, Cisak, and Austin are for sure not continuing. In this case I would suggest adding only the latter 3, as their situation is for sure, while the other's is a question mark, and thus I would think might go against WP:CRYSTALBALL. In anyways, whatever we decide, I think it should be consistent, so if Caceres & De Silva are listed, than so should Brillante, Tratt, and Devlin. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @SuperJew:,

I take your point but the distinction I would make in the above is that the club has actually said that Caceres and De Silva have left (albeit maybe only for now). So in fact it’s WP:CRYSTAL to say they may end up returning, the way I see it. The other players in negotiations have not been described as having left. This approach is just sticking to literally what is described in the source. To illustrate, practically speaking I would now expect that Sydney would release a statement if Tratt / Brillante etc left, but I would not expect to hear anything further from them if De Silva or Caceres did not end up returning. Macosal (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm so you're going based of the accurate wording. I'm not sure, but anyway we'll know what's happening in a few months for sure (except for DDS because can't work out what is going on with that kid since he left Perth. --SuperJew (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)