Talk:2007–08 Football League

"New" table

I'd like to propose this table to be used instead of the current one. Externally, there isn't much difference, but the code is completely different and made to be easy to edit. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, please no! Why convert a straight forward, simple table, into a mass of templates? The only things I'd do to the current tables are to 1) get rid of the strange extra column on the right hand side, and 2) (considerably) lighten the background colours to some of the cells. - fchd 06:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Templates aren't always the solution to everything. The current tables are fine, IMO. - PeeJay 08:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

fchd, "Ugh"! That's disrespectful! You shouldn't say that about any editor's work. It's not the first time you are been disrespectful towards me. Also, I wondering, since you haven't done any contribution in this page, how did you know about this talk? Are you trying disrupt my work? --ClaudioMB 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay, I agree with you about "Templates aren't always the solution to everything". But, in this case, templates will make edits much easy to be done. Currently, editors need to enter with all columns' data and be careful about the formatting and code. With the new table editors focus on only 5 columns, no concerns about code and formatting. It's a time-safe for editors. --ClaudioMB 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MacMad, I think that that the new table is nicer to edit and it is cleaner, but if the orginal table gets 'cleaned up' (removal of that horrible extra column) then there wont be much difference. Still, I prefer the new table. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for the "Ugh" comment, but I'm afraid that I still think the original table a lot better. I knew about this talk page the same way I find any others I'm interested in - I've got an awful lot of Football articles on muy watchlist. It wasn't until seeing your comment that I noticed I had also made a comment on another of your templatefest replacing tables on another page - I don't usually take much notice of user names etc. or have any particular interest in individual editors' work, good or bad. I also still think you need to discuss major changes to articles via talk BEFORE changing them, not AFTER. - fchd 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious - and please don't take this as disrespect etc. because that's all it is, curiosity - as to why you (Richard Rundle) believe that the current table is "...simple..." over the alternative being proposed, and why "...the original table a lot better...". Sure, there are templates in the proposed new version - is that a problem? Will Wikipedia crash from having too many templates running around? Unless there is a sizable threat of overloading the servers with too many templates (and right now, I can't see that happening any time soon) then I can't see what could possibly be wrong with them. And let's face it - the table proposed is much neater and easier to edit - I say this from experience, having made several edits to both styles of table. By contrast, the current table doesn't give you much indication of what column is where, meaning it is all too easy for even the most experienced editor to not realise he editted values in the wrong columns, and if you add centre-aligning code (which makes the table look a whole lot neater to me) then it just becomes an unbridled mess to edit. With the new table, it's virtually impossible to edit the wrong thing in, and it's automatically centre-aligned, which to me is a very good indication of a useful replacement table. If I could say anything against the proposed table, it's that because it calculates the score for you (no bad thing) then it's not the easiest thing to work out the new order of the teams in the table - but hey, that just encourages more use of the "Show preview" button, which I believe Wikipedia and Wikipedians have been campaigning for for a while, and it's really not a bother to use the preview to find the correct order.

Also, Richard, ClaudioMB is discussing major changes to articles before changing them. He hasn't made a single change to the Football League article - all he's done is reproduce the table on a sub-page of his user-space. No disrespect intended, but if you'd already noticed that then I truly can't understand what you want him to do to become acceptable to you as an editor. It does rather seem to me that after the dilemma over the coding in use on the Premier League article there is turning into something of a witch-hunt for Claudio, which in my opinion is completely unjustified. All he is doing is trying to use his talent at coding to enhance the state of Wikipedia articles, it isn't as if he has an agenda in trying to supplant what was originally there.

Personally, I'm very much for this change - it's a neat and agreeable alternative, easier to use and I can find no significant aspect in which the original table is better. Falastur2 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did change the Premier League 2007-08 tables before discuss it. But, since you (fchd) and PeeJay asked me to discuss it before make a major change, I didn't it. Here, the original table still up.--ClaudioMB 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Old table replaced by new table.--ClaudioMB 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the table. Qualified or Relegated. Uh? Surely it should be promoted or relegated? Peanut4 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem. On that table, there is promoted teams to above league, qualified teams to playoff and relegated teams. So, Promoted may be better then Qualified, but, perhaps, there is even a better title to embrace all 3 possibilities. Any suggestion? Or no title and write them inside the cell, as it is now for Relegated. --ClaudioMB 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Honours/Relegation"? Though I guess that would encourage adding other information to the table, which I think might make it too cluttered. Falastur2 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about play-offs but really don't know what's wrong with promotion/relegation. Peanut4 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I've already changed the template to accept Promoted instead of Qualified. But, then I realize that maybe there is even a better way to solve this problem. So, I couldn't come with any title better than "Promoted / Relegated", maybe someone (with better English than myself) could have an idea. My suggestion is to leave it blank and write the Promoted, Qualified and Relegated inside the cell.--ClaudioMB 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry Falastur2, I completely missed your answer. Now, I'm not sure about leave it blank, because like you said someone could add other information in the column. Maybe "Promotion / relegation" and also adding them inside the cell, like "Promoted to" and "Qualified to".--ClaudioMB 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "Promoted or relegated" and inside the cells added "Promoted to" and "Qualified to". If that is not good or could be improved, please, let me know. Regards. --ClaudioMB 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bradford

Sorry to be so pedantic but Bradford play in the Northern Premier League. And I haven't got a clue how to change this template. Can someone correct it please to Bradford City? Peanut4 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Have to say, is there any reason for the inconsistency in the team names, e.g. Preston, Hartlepool, Chester as well as Bradford? Peanut4 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't see anything that links to the wrong Bradford (may it got fixed, but I can't see any evidence of that). However, I have to concur that teams should have their full names used in the templates, not abbreviations (Bradford City to "Bradford" for example). I'll correct a few if I can. Falastur2 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, there's nothing wrong with the link, but the football team called Bradford is Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. and not Bradford City A.F.C. It should read Bradford City. It is just a small inaccuracy but an inaccuracy all the same. Peanut4 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Swindon is also wrong. Peanut4 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To fix any team's template, go to Category:Fb team templates. Edit the template and change parameter "t" for name to be shown , "tan" for the team's article name and "tc" for the team's country. --ClaudioMB 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Welsh club's flag

I'd like to suggest to add flags for those clubs that are not English. That is useful for readers like myself that doesn't are expert on those competition and doesn't have a clue that was even possible to have a non English team competing in an English competition. The flags, beside the club's name, will not cause any problem to the table and for those who knows well about it, but they will be good for those readers that don't know about it. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't this is even remotely necessary. Flagcruft of the highest order. - fchd (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how this doesn't follow WP:FLAG. I don't see this going against any of those 8 items from Wikipedia:Flagcruft#Summary and follow very much the first item Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. Because there is only 1 Welsh team (and 20+ English ones) in each competition, they are pretty much an exception and a flag will be very useful to the readers to easily identify them. If anyone is against flags, there are losts of them in another section of this article The_Football_League_2007-08#Top_scorers.--ClaudioMB (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agre with Richard Rundle. And would suggest the section Do not emphasize nationality without good reason at WP:Flagcruft#Summary. It's an English league not an English and Welsh league. Peanut4 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is a good reason to mark those clubs as Welsh. All three are primarily associated with the Football Association of Wales, making them Welsh clubs playing in an English league. I'm sorry to say this but, for once, I agree with Claudio. – PeeJay 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But secondly do we really need to add a flag to each year's entry? I don't even agree we need to at The Football League, but I think every season, would be overly excessive. Peanut4 (talk)

First, display the exception is a good reason to emphasize nationality. Second, every year editors add flags for players like in The_Football_League_2007-08#Top_scorers, what is a very hard job. So, what's the problem to add few flags for those few Welsh clubs that participate in this competitions?--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The clubs are consistently in each year (well apart from Wrexham's obvious relegation), but the players change. Peanut4 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember this argument coming up, both on and off of Wikipedia, due to the possibility of Cardiff winning the FA Cup. My thoughts (and from what I remember, the consensus, though I'm quite possibly wrong on this so don't let it end the argument) is that the point is that, because Cardiff (and Welsh clubs in general) chooses to enter the English league system, they are officially recognised as an English club operating in Wales. Many people disagree with this, of course, but that's my take on it. By my reckoning, the flags are unnecessary. Falastur2 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, this is like Derry City in Ireland. As far as we've been doing when they qualify for the Champions League and UEFA Cup, if Cardiff make the UEFA Cup this way, they will have an English flag in those articles because they qualified via English competition, just as Derry has an ROI flag even though they are located in N. Ireland, since they are for all intents and purposes a club from the Republic. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The situations with Derry City in Europe and Welsh clubs in the English leagues are not comparable. When Derry City compete in Europe, they are obviously competing as a Republic of Ireland team as they were submitted by the Football Association of Ireland to compete for them, as well as having full membership of said association. Derry City are therefore a Republic of Ireland club operating in Northern Ireland. Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham, Merthyr Tydfil, Colwyn Bay and Newport County, however, are all full members of the Football Association of Wales, and only associate members of the Football Association. This effectively makes them Welsh clubs playing in the English leagues, and is why the FA had to grant special dispensation for Cardiff to be allowed to compete in the UEFA Cup next season if they win the FA Cup. Obviously, in European competitions, the aforementioned Welsh clubs would play under the English flag if they qualified via an English competition, but when playing in English competitions, they are Welsh clubs and should be marked as such. – PeeJay 07:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Re-idented) - the clubs you mention - Cardiff City, etc. do not even have associate membership of the FA, they are solely members of the FAW. I still don't think it is worth marking with flags every single time they are listed in competitions. - fchd (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, but if they didn't have any form of membership with the FA, I doubt they would be allowed to compete in the English leagues. This BBC source mentions their associate membership: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/cardiff_city/7292287.stm – PeeJay 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no doubt that those 3 teams are Welsh, a Welsh flag could be used for them. The only discussion left is if displaying those flags will be useful to the reader as stated in the first rule of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). As I said before, I think so, because it will help the reader to easily identify English (without flag) and Welsh teams. Also, since football articles in Wikipedia always use flags when a competition has teams from more than one country, the lack of them could mislead readers to believe that all teams are from the same country.--ClaudioMB (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As a little aside (partly following reading the previous comment), the article doesn't mention anywhere that it's an English league. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because The Football League already states "The Football League is a league competition featuring professional football clubs from England and Wales."--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the reason why, then the Welsh flags should be at The Football League and not here. Peanut4 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the reader will learn that this competition has clubs from England and Wales. The goal of displaying Welsh flags is just to help readers to easily identify who is English and who is Welsh. But, adding that statement in this article could also be useful for readers, considering that there is no guaranty that Welsh clubs will always participate in this competition.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes section

New(ish) user here so feel free to blast me if you like, I'l take it on the chin. Was just wondering if the notes section was reserved for official notes or if it would be appropriate to add something trivial, for example a note that, for the first time this decade, the top placed team won each league's play-off?

I thought it was worth a note, maybe it's just me.--93.96.23.116 (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, everyone starts off new at some point. Nice spot (noticing the fact), by the way. "Notes" is generally used for official stuff, though. If you wanted to add something like that, it would be more fitting of a "Trivia" section, but trivia sections of one item are generally looked down upon, and some users argue that trivia sections whatever their size are somewhat unencyclopædic and shouldn't be added. Of course, some users appreciate trivia sections, so don't be totally discouraged - it largely depends on the context. I would suggest that these articles are generally a list of scores, and accompanying info, and so a trivia section probably wouldn't fit in here unless there were an unexpectedly large amount of notable events warranting it. However, I would advise you as a new Wikipedian that we have no definitive rules, only guidelines, and what is and isn't done is largely down to consensus. If you ever have an idea such as that, then don't worry that everyone else is going to mercilessly rip into you for going against the grain, as long as you don't keep reverting other peoples' edits to make sure you get your way. If you feel confident, then make the edit and see if people agree with you - a lot of stuff gets kept this way that might not be considered by the regular users. If you don't feel confident in your idea, keep asking. In good time you'll start to get a feel for what is and isn't usually done :) Falastur2 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to play-offs and next season

I can't figure out how to change it, thanks to the many templates used here, but the winner should be promoted to next years competition, currently it is linked to this years competitions. Migdejong (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is wrong. The four teams go to this year's play-offs as the link points to. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www
  • In Diva: The Singles Collection on 2011-03-17 12:05:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In EarthStation 5 on 2011-03-17 19:57:53, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases on 2011-03-17 21:33:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Eden (Sarah Brightman album) on 2011-03-17 22:56:30, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In El Hierro (DO) on 2011-03-18 01:39:17, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Eric C. Anderson on 2011-03-18 07:33:13, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In European Cyclists' Federation on 2011-03-18 10:35:42, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Fully Informed Jury Association on 2011-03-19 15:41:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Gary Knight on 2011-03-19 18:54:13, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In General Council of the Pyrénées-Orientales on 2011-03-19 20:07:06, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Girls Catholic Central High School on 2011-03-22 06:34:08, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Godzilla Entertainment on 2011-03-22 08:45:27, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Grace Bedell on 2011-03-22 10:56:05, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Greater Accra Region on 2011-03-22 12:43:17, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In HD 192263 on 2011-03-22 17:33:39, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Harem (album) on 2011-03-22 21:28:48, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Hispanic and Latino Communities in Atlanta on 2011-03-29 08:38:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In History of Hamilton, Ontario on 2011-03-29 14:29:52, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In INDECT on 2011-04-23 18:58:57, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In INDECT on 2011-04-24 05:07:00, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Ian Munro (pianist) on 2011-04-24 07:05:20, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American winter storm on 2011-05-03 05:38:16, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Jayasudha on 2011-05-04 03:51:13, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Jerusalem during the Crusader period on 2011-05-08 03:49:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In Joe Delaney on 2011-05-13 04:11:46, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007–08 Football League on 2011-05-27 02:14:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007–08 Football League on 2011-05-27 15:38:17, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007–08 Football League on 2011-06-15 23:19:36, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)