Talk:2013–14 Southampton F.C. season

Football: England / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Position by round[edit]

Hi.

There has been a discussion/reverting about the position by round-table. Should it be the position the team had when their match ended or their position when the round ended? I think it is quite obvius it should be the round place therefore "position by round". Currently Fulham is 7th and round 1 is not finished so why should they have position 5 in table? What does everyone say? QED237 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept is slightly flawed because, in English league football, there are no such things as "rounds". The section ought to be headed something like "Position after match #". As it stands, Southampton were 5th after the match was finished (and still are jointly, ignoring alphabetical order) but may not be after today's match. As the season goes on, there will always be unplayed matches in each "round" as matches get postponed for various reasons. To suggest that the table gets re-visited after every other match in the League is crazy. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a really good point there. Maybe the best is to change it to "position after match". QED237 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that requires a change to the template, which needs to be discussed here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very flawed, because very quickly in the season it will be the case that at least one team has played one less game than the team(s) who has/have played the most games. I just reverted the edit and changed it back to 5th as that is the way we've done it in the past. Andre666 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something to discuss at WP:FOOTY? As it is now I have seen 5 different users doiung these edits (the same I do) and some gets reverted and some dont. It is different everywhere. I feel like it would be good to reach a agreement how it should be. QED237 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it needs to be sourced, and statto provides as good a source as any for league table positions. Andre666 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

League table[edit]

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) 12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME. Freakin' all over this. Thanks for sharing! Andre666 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just shared information about a discussion started by another user. QED237 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I'm just thanking you for it. Andre666 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top goalscorers[edit]

Time to cut the players who have only scored one? 8 top goalscorers seems fine to me. PhilSmith91 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice to put the top 10, then extend when there are more than one with 1 goal each. I'm sure more will get 2, so wouldn't worry about it. Andre666 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would probably agree that, for both goalscorers and assistants, if we get to the end of the season and there are still a bunch of players with 1 in the table, they should be removed. We can wait until the end of the season and address it then, for now it is appropriate to keep them there for the records. Andre666 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013–14 Southampton 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:

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) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]