Jump to content

Talk:2011–12 FC Barcelona season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location parameter

[edit]

Seeing as this is the first thing you should have done by the objecting editor (especially after so many reverts), I guess I'll do it. "Why must it be change from how it was originally? It's following the same format from past seasons. Why change it now?" Just because that parameter was not used in previous seasons does not mean it can't be used in this and future article. The location parameter is in full use in plenty of other articles. I don't see any good reason why it can't be used here. It is a very useful parameter that only improves the article. Digirami (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Catalunya

[edit]

Isn't the Copa Catalunya a recurring pre-season friendly tournament and not an official competition? No source claims Barcelona are aiming for a septuple this season, but the current infobox and Competition section suggests that. If the Copa Catalunya is indeed an unofficial cup, I think it should be removed from the infobox and merged into the Pre-season section instead of having its own section under Competitions, so to avoid confusion with an actual competition such as the Supercopa de España. Vanadus (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a pre-season tournament per say but it's not an official cup either. I think we should take it off the current infobox and competition section but not added to the pre-season schedule. Maybe after the pre-season section.La Fuzion (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current organization of the article suggests the Copa Catalunya is an official competition because the footballbox is grouped with the other competitions and because it has inclusion in the Overall table. In reality, the importance of the Copa Catalunya appears to be more similar to that of the Audi Cup or Joan Gamper Trophy than the Supercopa or Copa del Rey. And it does occur during the pre-season, so to me its makes sense to include it in that section rather than having its own awkward area between Pre-season and Overall. Vanadus (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree especially because Pep will treat the game as a pre season game and start many B team players. It is a real competition but has very little importance to the teams playing in it. User:c46943 (talk) 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing but I don't think it should tied up to the pre-season exclusively. La Fuzion (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes so tell me if that works.La Fuzion (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like your changes. I'm good with leaving it like this. User:c46943 (talk) 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Why does the Copa Catalunya have its own section heading and not, say, the Audi Cup or Joan Gamper? To me, this still stresses a greater importance of the Copa Catalunya than the other friendlies. Vanadus (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying so how do we solve the dilemma? Should we add it along with the Pre-season even thought it's not an official pre-season tournament? It is an official regional cup. La Fuzion (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Pre-season section only refers to official pre-season tournaments though. Plus what makes a pre-season tournament "official"? As far as I'm concerned all friendly matches before the season starts should be included in that section, with the Copa Catalunya being no exception. Vanadus (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable but the only reason I thought it should have its own section is because it is an official regional competition that the club and others participating I believe do value. But if it's more useful to have tie into the pre-season then we should add it. La Fuzion (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with the nature of this tournament or its level of importance. In my mind football competitions are binary – either official (organized by FIFA, UEFA, or national footballing body) or friendly, and to me this tournament falls under the friendly category along with all the other pre-season matches. If you choose to provide its own section I wont change it. However I feel by doing so, it stresses an unnecessary heightened importance to just another friendly tournament. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Barcelona B is playing in this tournament with no first team involvement whatsoever. Now I think this section should be removed completely or merged into 2011–12 FC Barcelona B season if that is ever created. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should still stay on this page but added to the pre-season schedule. Normally Barça plays with a mixture of 1st team and Barça B players. First season I've seen it was solely Barça B and their manager who played. What do you think of just adding it to the pre-season? La Fuzion (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely remove. Purely Barca B involvement so it would be misleading keeping it on this page. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem from me. La Fuzion (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but if there are A team players used tomorrow we need to keep it. User:c46943 (talk) 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's completely irrelevant. The Copa Catalunya this year was a competition that FC Barcelona B played in, not FC Barcelona. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is also completely irrelevant asshole. The copa catalunya is listed on the first team matches schedule on Barca's web site. If its a B team competition then why doesn't the offical website list it as such????????? User:c46943 (talk) 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Barca B is playing this tournament without any influence from the first team (including the coaching staff) is not even a matter of contention. The official website is not the gospel; you have to use common sense sometimes. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well unfortunitly the website is the gospel, thats why it is the "offical website of FC Barcelona" I think the word "OFFICAL" makes that so. Apparently your common sence differs from mine. My common sense tells me that if the OFFICAL web site of the club says that it is a first team competition, thats what it is. fcbarcelona.com the most legitamite source of all things Barca, including the copa catalunya. Sorry buddy but the OFFICAL web site trumps your "common sence" argument every day of the week.
Sigh and smh. Independent third party sources, like this and this, tend to be more reliable than the heavily biased OFFICAL (sic) website. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the childish insulting is not necessary. Anyways, I think it should just be added to the pre-season and call it a day. Agree or disagree? La Fuzion (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it up to a vote

[edit]

Do we continue to include this or do we remove this?

  • Continue - Its listed as a pre season game on barca's site User:c46943 (talk) 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Names

[edit]

In squad lists across club season articles, it is standard practice practice to display the full names of players or the nicknames of generally accepted exceptions (Brazilian players, for example). For this reason, the squad list has been changed to display a player's first and last name with the exceptions of the Brazilians and Xavi. Secondly, unless they are Brazilian, it is standard practice to display only the last name of player in score boxes, not what is on the back of the jersey. Hope you can understand. Digirami (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl is known by his first name and he's not Brazilian, there's also Pedro, Jeffrén & Guti as a few example. It is not standard practice to show both names. See Arsenal and past Barcelona seasons as examples. La Fuzion (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there maybe few exceptions. That's why Xavi was left untouched. But may I point to your attention 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season, 2011–12 Chelsea F.C. season, 2010–11 A.C. Milan season, 2011–12 F.C. Internazionale Milano season, and every article in this category (among so many others). With Arsenal, you may have found the one other club who doesn't list the full name. It's standard to list the full name, not what is on the back of the jersey. Digirami (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this category too. It's standard now, regardless of how the squadlist is displayed. Accept that fact. Digirami (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles have a different format than this one. Arsenal and Barcelona season pages have the same set up so the format is the same. Why is this an issue for you? La Fuzion (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the tables having different designs, the display of names are the same. The format used in this article is not an exception. Digirami (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So editing the Arsenal page bolsters your point? La Fuzion (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the other one that needed to be changed. My point is proved with the vast amount of article that support my change. Digirami (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an issue that perhaps needs to be brought up at WP:FOOTY. La Fuzion has a point in that the templates do indeed employ the jersey names, which is their method of standardization across articles. And since template:fb si player is a common one, implementing a contradictory parameter should be addressed first as it affects a large number of articles. Vanadus (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I told someone else on their talk page, displaying what's on the back of a jersey creates weird circumstances. I'm sure that guideline was in place when players only put their last name on the back of the jersey; it made things rather simple. However, some players do not have their last names on the back of their jersey. It's better to list Javier Hernández by his name instead of by Chicharito (the name on the back of the jersey), or Christian Benítez as Chucho (the name on the back of his shirt, especially when he was at Birmingham), to list a few examples. Even worse with a club that doesn't differentiate between two players with the same last name. Additionally, it isa very standard practice across club season articles to have the players listed by their first and last names (with few exceptions, mainly Brazilians). Digirami (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since your edits to Real Madrid, Arsenal, and Barcelona have all been either reverted or contended and a very large number of articles use jersey names, I do not think it is safe to assume silent consensus on this issue. Thus, I favor a discussion on WP:FOOTY or the template talk page. Vanadus (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Raúl González known as Raúl? Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma as Pedro? Jeffrén Suárez as Jeffrén, José María Gutiérrez Hernández as Guti? Bojan Krkić as Bojan? Oleguer Presas as Oleguer? Ángel López as Ángel? Miguel Alfonso Herrero as Michel? And I can keep going but you're obviously not going to let this go... La Fuzion (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A large number (the very vast majority) of club season articles use full names. It's time for this to get the with the program. Take a look around, such as club season articles that have been rated "good" for an example (example). It's common practice now. I'm sure the guy who designed the template never meant for something other than last names (or Brazilian styled nicknames) to be displayed. And no, some of those players are not known exclusively by their first name. For example, I think the people at A.S. Roma do not refer to Bojan as just Bojan. But like I said, there are few exceptions (most of them being Brazilians). But for the most part, first and last name. It makes the article easier to understand. Digirami (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also favor a change to full names or professional names, but my concern is the decision to directly violate the documentation due to a preference. The benefit of using jersey names is that it does provide standardization. I will open a discussion on this on WP:FOOTY. Vanadus (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation you refer to was unilaterally created by the user who created the templates, so I would not take it as gospel. After all, it can easily be changed. – PeeJay 11:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that a change would cause existing pages that use the template to no longer be in conjunction with the documentation. Perhaps just label it as "player name" to accommodate all editors' discretions? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the documentation says nothing; it's the tooltips that say something. But, as PeeJay stated, that can be changed... and it should. The problem with using whats on the jersey is that it is inconsistent from player to player, club to club. Some use their full name, last name with first initial, last name no initial (even if a player should have an initial to differentiate them from another player with the same last name), nickname, first name, etc. Full name (by that I should clarify as common name) is easier to use all-around and more consistent in application from article to article. Digirami (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common name can often be contentious as well, but this looks better aesthetically as well as provides more information. I'm glad we finally have consensus on this issue. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this was never an issue until you made it one. Messi is Messi regardless if we add Lionel. Maybe we should use his middle name also since you're trying to provide all their personal information. How about we add career stats on here along with other irrelevant information on an article that is set up to provide information ON BARCELONA'S CURRENT SEASON. If someone wants to know more about a certain player then they should click on the corresponding link. By adding all the parameters you are pushing just makes it bulky and redundant. La Fuzion (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the time all is said and done, this article will be bulky regardless of what I add. The only reason I made it an "issue" is because I noticed that this, the Real, and (thanks to you) the Arsenal article had the names displayed differently than is common in clubs in other countries (even within Spain to a certain degree) and across other sports. All we are talking about is how the name is displayed. It is far more sensible to have "Lionel Messi" instead of "Messi". And, you're the only one who objects. The Real article took the change in stride and so did the Arsenal article. Digirami (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea that might work to settle this. What if we use their Formal Names like Digirami wants for the squad information and use their common names like lafuzion wants for the squad stats and starting 11 information that will come later on in the season

I think what Digirami is going for is a standardized format across all articles. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For squad information, full/common name is best; it introduces the players in the squad in said season (same applies to transfers). For starting formation, last name is fine because of space constraints. But in football box scores, last name is the norm, not necessarily what's on the back of the jersey (so it's Villa, not David Villa). Digirami (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you first visit the FC Barcelona, you are provided with the player's full name under squad. There's no reason to be redundant within the FC Barcelona SEASON article. Keyword being SEASON. If we're going to standardized it than why not have it standardized how it was originally? Once again, if I want to know what's Lionel Messi's first name, middle name, city of birth or his height, then I will click on his link. It's that simple. La Fuzion (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have to click on a player's link to know their name. By your logic, the same thing should be done on the club's main page. It's just doesn't work that way. Think accessibility. It's just easier to provide the full/common name of the player at the beginning. It's being done in club article of every other major club season article. Digirami (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. it's being done since you went on a crusade to change it. The main page for each club is where everything should be fully display. This is a sub-article on the CLUB'S CURRENT SEASON. It's an overview of the CLUB'S CURRENT SEASON and not an individual look at each player's life story. La Fuzion (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's my "crusade" on three articles. The transition in the Real and Arsenal articles has been done smoothly. But, this practice of displaying their full/common names has already been done in the remaining of the English club articles, the American club articles, top Italian club articles, and the Mexican club articles (in some way, shape or form). It's crazy that you think that displaying the player's name is telling the player's life story, especially since you display their full career stats with the club including when they were transferred to the club, when their contract expires, and what their second nationality is. But God forbid I try to display their full/common name. That's just "too much". Digirami (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI if you didn't read it before, By full name I mean common name (basically, first and last names or whatever nickname exceptions like Brazilian players use). Digirami (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're in the mood of changing then so am I. I think names on the birth certificate would be better. La Fuzion (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one would ever agree to that. No has. You have no basis for it. Which makes it seem like you're doing this. Digirami (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsors

[edit]

Where the hell are the sponsors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.81.179 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions

[edit]

Isn't the consensus that promotions from youth system to first team are NOT a transfer in? Please advise. La Fuzion (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would count. Almost all other club season pages include them, so that appears to be consensus. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Player Stats times

[edit]

Is it me or are the Times in the Player Stats table way off? I mean if you play 4 matches à 90 minutes you'd have 360 minutes of play and not 371 minutes like Messi, Mascherano and Valdes for example. The other times seem to be quite off too. - Svefnpurka (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most games have several minutes of stoppage time (time added on to the end of each half to account for stoppages in play caused by substitutions, cardings, and injuries). 2 minutes a half (4 a game) is about average, so those numbers make perfect sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sven. Why did you remove minutes played in injury time? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking referees to esWiki

[edit]

Why, exactly, are we linking referees to esWiki when there are no enWiki articles? I've never seen anything like this outside of Barcelona pages? Are we going off of the assumption that everyone reading this article speaks Spanish? Is there any policy on this? In case it isn't obvious, I disagree with the practice, but I want to know where whoever is doing this is coming from. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm or MoS violation in the practice. If there exists no English article, linking them to the Spanish article is better than nothing. After all, the option to link across Wikipedia languages exists for a reason. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 19:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplinary record

[edit]

Is it me or is the card count quite off in some instances? Messi for example should have 6 and not 5. Is there any external page with an up to date overview (the two link below the table aren't helping one bit), or should a recount by hand be in order? - Svefnpurka (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semifinals

[edit]

I didn't want to edit and dash, but "shock exit" seemed overly NPOV to me, at least without a source. Medusalith Boltagon (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good edit. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

Squad, appearances and goals Table contains minutes on pitch which is not source able and is original research, as does Squad information which again contains original research regarding EU. Table should be converted to one that is approved by WP:footy to remove this original research.Blethering Scot 21:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tables

[edit]

Per consensus at WP:Footy Here and Here and Here and many more in the archives I have removed the overall, Overview and result summary tables and assists all of which are either covered by other tables or elsewhere in the article and in addition not sourced. Assists are rarely sourceable and there is no definitive definition of an assist internationally.Blethering Scot 21:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2011–12 FC Barcelona 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:

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) 14:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011–12_FC_Barcelona_season&oldid=1227108932"