Talk:List of English football transfers winter 2007–08

Free transfer

Free agent except internatinoal transfer were alway allowed to sign a contract, not required to within transfer period. Matthew_hk tc 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. – PeeJay 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of English football transfers 2007-08

It appears my edit summary was cut short. However, what I am trying to say is that neither West Ham nor QPR has disclosed the fee for Hogan Ephraim, so how could the Telegraph know how much QPR paid? Surely at least one club has to release information on the fee for it not to be speculation. – PeeJay 08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The assumption here is that the BBC page gets its info from somewhere other than the Press Assoc. If we go down the road of failing to believe a reputable newspaper then surely the BBC's figures must go until the fees are verified by boths clubs? My change is valid and from a reputable source with all the necessary references.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a fee reported by the BBC that hasn't been confirmed by one of the two clubs involved. For example, until Preston revealed that Patrick Agyemang had cost QPR £350k, the BBC reported the fee as undisclosed. In fact, QPR still report the fee as undisclosed, despite Preston admitting the price, as is their want. – PeeJay 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just don't see the rationale behind 'BBC- good, everyone else- bad. In the spirit of Wiki the Telegraph is a reputable newpaper and has been used many times for references. I'm sorry my reply is here and that you don't like the source of my changes but they are valid, relevant and from a reputable source. --Egghead06 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See also http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=40957 - another good source (but still not the BBC).--Egghead06 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase is not a good source by any stretch of the imagination, in my opinion. Where possible, one should always search for alternative sources before resorting to using Soccerbase. Anyway, the Telegraph has no right to disclose a fee when neither club has done so. To be honest, I can't believe you're believing the Telegraph just because they said "the transfer was worth £x", instead of "the transfer is believed to be worth £x" or "the transfer is reported as being worth £x". Neither club disclosed a fee to the press, so anything reported is merely hearsay, regardless of the stature of the newspaper. – PeeJay 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we'll agree to disagree. I believe both sources and have no reason not to. Everyone gets their info from the Press Assoc and the BBC are merely tardy. Why would reputable newspapers make up a fee???--Egghead06 (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Telegraph made up the figure. I'm saying they are reporting an estimate as a fact. They may have it on good authority from someone within one of the two clubs, but it's still not right. As I have said many times, any fee, no matter how many sources report it, is speculative unless one of the two clubs announces it. – PeeJay 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You have now reverted my referenced change 8 times purely on a matter of your unreferenced opinion and have turned this discussion personal by telling me how sick you are of me - Wiki is not about opinion nor is it correct to make personal comments

and you might like http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/news/article3312801.ece http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/01/03/rangers-flashing-the-cash-89520-20273350/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/football/transfers/sfntra102.xml (the latter being a similar list to the BBC) --Egghead06 (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as you might like these:

• http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11685_299967,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/q/qpr/7167845.stm
• http://www.setanta.com/en/Sport/News/Football/2008/01/02/Championship-QPR-sign-Ephraim/
• http://www.4thegame.com/club/queens-park-rangers-fc/news/212608/hall_joins_ambitious_rangers.html
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article3120777.ece
• http://www.virginmedia.com/sport/football/championship/news/index.php?storyid=18955445
• http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/westham/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/01/02/SOCCER_QPR.html&TEAMHD=westham&DIV=prem&TEAM=WEST--HAM&RH=West--Ham&PREV_SEASON=
• http://www.whufc.com/page/News/0,,12562~1204161,00.html (no mention of a fee there)
• http://www.qpr.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~1202693,00.html

As you can see, there are many, many sources that state that the fee was undisclosed. – PeeJay 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the fee should be listed as “Undisclosed” due to the fact that both West Ham's and QPR's official websites state either no fee, or an undisclosed fee.  glennb28  t/c  18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki view - Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? The transfer, and its (undisclosed) fee, are already sourced from the BBC's list of transfers. If that, in tandem with the nine references I provided above, is not enough for you, then tough. – PeeJay 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

“…a reliable, published source” – Egghead06, 19:01, 6 January 2008. I believe that the most reliable sources which have been published are by the official clubs themselves, i.e., as an undisclosed fee.  glennb28  t/c  19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that a reference from a club site is used on hardly any of these tranfers detailed in this list. The BBC site is used and there is nothing anywhere, either within Wiki or elsewhere, to say that this site has the most accurate info! It's just another site with no more merit--Egghead06 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, the BBC is more independent than any newspaper or other media source, and more likely to report the unbiased facts than any other. I still don't understand why you're fighting this one to the death. – PeeJay 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Egghead06, your tenacity is admirable, but misguided in my opinion. If the clubs have not disclose the information, then the newspapers must be speculating, even if it is educated speculation. It is still speculation until the club confirm it. As such it cannot be included in the encyclopedia because it is not verifiable by the only sources that are completely reliable in this case; the clubs. Woody (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think anyone thought the BBC was that more independent that anyone else these days. Wikipedia's view of Reliable Sources extends further than the one broadcasting corporation. - fchd (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was, perhaps, my own opinion creeping in there. – PeeJay 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) When describing a transfer in a player's article, I would typically write something like "the transfer fee was not disclosed by either club, though media reports estimated it to be between (lowest reported fee, referenced) and (highest reported fee, referenced)". Doesn't work so well in a table, but a footnote can always be used. And please bear in mind that 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I intend merely to cut to the crux - any club stating that the fee is undisclosed has a reason for saying that. The reason is nothing to do with the BBC, the Telegraph, Wikipedia, et al, and as my colleague has mentioned above, any fee quoted by any independent source (reliable or not), given that the club still maintains "Undisclosed" through its own media channels, is pure guesswork, and, no, Wikipedia has no business repeating speculation as to any other figure - until such time as the club decides to disclose the true figure (if ever). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I love a good consensus. Let's see if I have this right before I make some more changes.

1/ No figure should be quoted unless a reference from the clubs involved is provided and the BBC or any other source are not independant nor to be relied upon.

2/ Footnotes can be used if a figure is available but not quoted by the clubs.

3/ Soccerbase.com is inaccurate (even though it is quoted as a reference on the Wiki articles for nearly all top-flight footballers)

--Egghead06 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the BBC corroborates the fee given (or not given, as the case may be) by the two clubs, then I don't see why it shouldn't be used. – PeeJay 12:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that the BBC is not just guessing a fee, just like all the other sources are deemed to be guessing? We have already agreed they are not better or worse than any other source AND they are not the clubs involved--Egghead06 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said? The BBC has reported the fee exactly the same as the two clubs did, therefore it is a credible source in this case. – PeeJay 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1 - No figure should be "quoted" (i.e. takenas irrefutable fact) unless the clubs involved provide details, and most sources are not independant nor are they are unbiased. Yet some are better then others.

2 - Footnotes could be used, yes.

3 - Soccerbase is inaccurate in many cases, yes. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well. Woody (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Concensus has it that the only way to prove that a club has provided a fee is to quote a reference from that club and NOT from any other source. It is a very big assumption that the BBC is correct. If the BBC is correct (and it isn't correct just because some say it is) then quote the club. The major flaw with these lists is that someone made a major design error (probably without discussion) and decided the list from the BBC would do. This was probably done because they couldn't be bothered to find a reference from the club and it was expedient to simply quote a list from one source.

The damage was done long ago to suit personal choice - not very Wikipedia.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If we were to use individual reference templates for every transfer, the table would break as the transcluded data limit would be exceeded. It was decided for the List of English football transfers Summer 2007 that the best way to avoid this would be to use the BBC's lists of transfers as a reference, and then individually reference each one not listed by the BBC. By the way, I would thank you to get your facts right before criticising our methods. – PeeJay 10:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From List of English football transfers Summer 2007 I propose that we use the BBC's lists of transfers for each month as our main references, and only add references to the transfers in the article that aren't listed on those pages. I know this sounds drastic, and time-consuming, but it is a solution. What does everyone else think? - PeeJay 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

The answer to which was.....none.

If this is an official guideline (that the BBC only is to be used) why isn't this stated anywhere in Wikipedia and why isn't it at the top of the list of Transfers to help future editors? - Just a thought but I doubt there is an answer!!!! The BBC is the only source allowed and we can all live with it - right or wrong!--Egghead06 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what he was saying, you are making unneccessary drama by constantly repeating this whole argument. Peejay asked a question on the talkpage, no-one disagreed, so he went ahead. It is almost an unwritten rule/convention to use the BBC on many of theses large lists as it provides uniformity and for the most part, unbiased commentary. If you disagree, good for you, but this argument is achieving nothing. Instead of being pointy and creeping into personal attack territory, what do you want to see happen to the article? Consensus is against including a transfer fee that is undisclosed in this case. Woody (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to see anything happen to the article. I know there are other perfectly good sources for transfer data and I know where to find them. My only point is that unwritten rules, unknown conventions, unstated guidelines and unilateral decisions as to which source of data is the best do not help future editors, do not help in providing the full picture and live only in the heads of the cognoscenti. If it had said at the top, something like, 'Do not add anything here unless you source it from the clubs involved or the BBC' we would have had no need for this to start. But knowledge is power, I suppose!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting page

Would it not be easier to edit and read, if the page was split into two sections. If every small move is being documented here, by the end of January, it will be very long. Splitting it into some sort of "Official window" section would be better, simply for ease of use. Any objections due to style could be overcome with forced column sizes. Woody (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the need for it, myself. The Summer 2007 list was much longer than this one is likely to become, and it was decided against splitting that one on the grounds of sortability. – PeeJay 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about sorting problems, though, given that they are under different sections, sorting isn't really neccessary. (To make it clear, I didn't add the sections, merely formatted them). I just think it better to actually have a discussion over it, rather than summary reverts. I won't push the point, just think it is easier to edit. Woody (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Transfers Missing

I've noticed there are a lot of transfers missing from the page. I've just added David Murphy, who signed for Birmingham on Wednesday. Eric Edman hasn't been confirmed but has already been added to Wigan's page, but surely that means that this page hasn't necessarily got all the transfers. Adam 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik Edman hasn't officially signed for Wigan yet. He may say he has, but it's not been confirmed by Wigan or Rennes yet. – PeeJay 15:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But its the same for the new Portsmouth defender, Aubrey, and Subotic. Players like that surely need to be on the list Adam 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mills2005 (talk • contribs)

Subotic is already on the list, and I've never heard of anyone by the name "Aubrey". Anyway, if you find a transfer that hasn't been listed here and you can properly reference it, instead of coming here and bitching about it, just put it in! – PeeJay 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Woody (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to Players

Some of the links are pointing to disambiguation pages (i picked 'Ian Miller' at random). Someone with the time/inclination may want to go through the list and tidy this up. 83.100.143.2 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I did try to do this myself but couldn't work out how to use a piped link and retain the sort functionality - if anyone knows how to do this I'd be grateful if they'd let me know! cheers Swindon LS12 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of them now. If you spot any more, please have a go at fixing them. If you make a hash of it, don't worry, as I have this page on my watchlist. – PeeJay 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possebon

Man Utd signed this player sometime in January, although te exact date is not given. Where should he be added to the transfers? Eddie6705 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page shows that Possebon was an Internacional player on 29 January 2008, and became a Manchester United player on 30 January. However, we have no proof that this comes from a reliable source, but assuming that it is, Possebon's transfer should be listed under 30 Jan. – PeeJay 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel Villa

Why wasn't the Villa transfer from Tecos UAG not reported a long time ago? – Michael 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of English football transfers winter 2007–08. 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/20080325030543/http://www.crewealex.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10414~1221091%2C00.html to http://www.crewealex.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10414~1221091%2C00.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)