Talk:2016–17 A-League

Ordering top goalscorers

As we have done in previous seasons I think we should be ordering primarily by club name and secondly by last name. Macosal doesn't agree and even though the ordering by club is the current consensus (it is what we did last season) they asked me to open it on the talk page and I can't be bothered to get dragged by them into an edit-war, so here we are. Club obviously makes the most sense because that is the first identity of the player in the league, and when talking about top goalscorers media will always mention which club the scorer is from as it is of merit. What do you think? Pinging users: @J man708: @Shtalic: @Rjbsmith: @Jono52795: @Matilda Maniac: --SuperJew (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on multiple counts:

1. It's not done anywhere else on Wikipedia (much more edited articles). 2016–17 Premier League, 2016–17 Bundesliga, 2016–17 Ligue 1, etc. all use alphabetical order by surname (and are much more edited/viewed articles). I can't see any ordering by scorer's club? Let's try to make this article more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia here. Why shouldn't it be?
2. While of course "when talking about top goalscorers media will always mention which club the scorer is from", we too will still of course list the scorer's clubs. It's just that we won't use that as the determining factor in ordering the top scorers (i.e. individual players). This is a list of players not clubs for which the top scorers play and the sorting should reflect that.
3. In fact, reliable sources often list tied scorers alphabetically (e.g. here). Can't say I've seen any which sort scorers by team, then alphabetically.

Macosal (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You say that last name should take precedence over club name, but for example if we have Corey Brown and Wayne Brown scoring, surely it's more important that one plays for Brisbane and the other plays for Newcastle than the fact that they are both named Brown? --SuperJew (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question, but it's surely more important that one is named Corey and the other Wayne than the clubs they play for. But obviously players' actual names will be a better identifier of who scored goals than the players' clubs (99.9% of the time, when the players do have different last names), if that's what you're saying? Macosal (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Either or for me, provided all the A-League scorer tables match one another. - J man708 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay so to get the broad picture, the current status is: 2015–16 is ordered primarily by club, 2014–15 is ordered by family name, and 2013–14 and earlier are ordered chronologically by when the goal was scored (there is a detailed goal(s)-per-round). SuperJew (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely should be ordered by family name as in 2014–15. The detailed goal(s)-per-round format seems too over-the-top.

I disagree with comments such as the ordering by club is the current consensus (it is what we did last season) . . . . It appears the change to 2015–16 - to be ordered primarily by club - was instigated after Round 1 by SuperJew and maintained that way throughout the season (as a frequent editor of that article). That is not consensus, especially when SuperJew then reverts or reorders the table when others update it differently.The format change last year by SuperJew suits the SuperJew Wikipedia format, which appears to be the only correct one whenever there is variance in formatting. This seems to happen on multiple articles. Also, I am confused about the comments about Corey Brown and Wayne Brown. Are we looking at deleting first names from the table? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but it's kind of hard for the pages not to be affected only by my input when I'm almost the only one bothering to edit. I'm not complaining about that (ok maybe a little ;) ), but when people rarely/don't edit, it seems weird to me they come afterwards with complaints of how things look. --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you're "the only one bothering to edit", though I'd note you are extremely quick to edit / update everything which can make it hard for others to get involved. Of course Wikipedia being updated promptly is a good thing, but you should never feel obliged to make any edits, nor complain / accuse others of not being bothered to, especially if you find it a burden. I hope you're not referring to me here when you speak of others who "rarely/don't edit then come to you with complaints of how things look" (it feels a little measure-y/competitive (or even condescending) which Wikipedia is not). But when people have those suggestions, you should always be open to them - everyone here is just trying to improve the encyclopedia (see also WP:OWNERSHIP). Macosal (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anyone specifically. The league page also is def much more edited by people, but say the season pages I can be away for a few weeks and come back to find maybe a match result was updated. I'm just saying that people complain about things instead of helping. I hope you can understand why that may be a bit frustrating at times. --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It feels more like us generally bringing up ideas and having you shoot it down! I've noticed when you like how something is, the article has to stay that way until a consensus is reached. When you don't, you seemingly edit it and we have to vote on it for it to return to the status quo? Come on, dude... As for people not overly working toward an article and then complaining, I think the four of us are probably four of the highest contributors toward the general topic of Australian football anyway. I get where you're coming from that you can be outvoted by people who don't edit much (and it does suck), but we're surely not those people? - J man708 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm now specifically avoiding contributing to articles where SuperJew is an active editor, as I am so over being 'actively Reverted'. Meaning A-League and W-League articles. When I return from a month-long Wiki-break, I will find some other areas to contribute to Wikipedia articles on women's soccer. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

All this is getting off topic. I see both sides of the coin on this one, and as long as the other articles can be edited to match whatever we vote for, I'm happy. In saying that, I think we should ditch the old, huge tables showing round by round and just show a top 10 akin to last season's. - J man708 (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont see that a vote is necessary. One single dissenter promoting a format not commonly used elsewhere. WP:NORULES can be invoked if there's a defendable reason to choose otherwise, but the comments about Corey and Wayne Brown do not do it for me at this point. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the Corey and Wayne Brown issue is easily dealt with by utilising first letter initials. Hell, NASCAR has Ku. Busch and Ky. Busch. If the Yanks can disambiguate the two of them, surely we can! - J man708 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was that their club is more important part of an identity for this list than their last name. For example if a media report would talk about the top 10 goalscorers they would say "2 players from Brisbane Roar are in the top 10" and not "2 players named Brown are in the top 10". --SuperJew (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

and agree with J man708 that we should replace the round-by-round goalscorers with a top 10 list. --SuperJew (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A hypothetical media report on the top scorers would surely, surely mention the actual names of the players though? It wouldn't talk about "how frequently each name appears in the top ten" (that'd be dumb) but of course it would say "Besart Berisha leads the scoring" not "A Melbourne Victory player leads the scoring". But we're getting into irrelevant / silly discussions here - I don't see why that hypothetical article is relevant in any way. Much more relevant are how Wikipedia elsewhere and reliable sources format similar lists, which are consistently and clearly alphabetical order in this case rather than by club.

I agree with pretty much all of MM's comments here. I consider this issue fairly settled. If anyone wants to go against equivalent Wikipedia articles and reliable sources with an innovative solution based on a rationale which is tenuous at best, I think WP:FOOTY is the place to go (although this discussion is pretty open/shut in all honesty).

As an aside, looking back at past seasons, the other thing which needs doing is removal of listing every player to score per WP:NOTSTATS. A top-ten (plus draws) list is fine. Macosal (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That is what J man708 and I have been saying :) --SuperJew (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Right you are, I misread that it was just the format (week by week vs overall) which was being discussed. Macosal (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been pinged but I won't contribute to this discussion -- i'm only new and generally stick to small edits, mostly on Melbourne City. Cheers Shtalic (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Noticed an interesting point about this on ultimatealeague now: goalscorers seem to be ordered by family name, but clean sheets seem ordered by club name. --SuperJew (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Round 8 CC Mariners home attendance

I put in for the attendance 5,296 as it said in CC Mariners report, Perth Glory report, CC Mariners' official Twitter, Ultimate A-League and ALeague Stats. Later J man708 changed it to 5,076 without explanation. I changed it back to 5,296 and cited the source. Jman then changed it back to 5,076 saying "A-League website says 5076. Take it to the talk page if you want it changed." The CC Mariners & Perth Glory reports I cited are offshoots of the A-League site and quote each other often, and I'm pretty sure they're the same writers. Furthermore, looking at the report on the A-League site they don't quote a figure for the attendance, so I'm not sure where Jman got his number from, and as he didn't cite a source I'm not sure how I'm expected to.

Sorry to bother you about this seemingly trivial issue, but as recent interactions have proven, Jman seems to be doing all in his power to get me banned, so I'm playing this super cautiously. I'll also add that Jman's reversion wasn't done as a reversion and marked as a minor edit, which seems very poor form to me. Pinging users: @Macosal: @Matilda Maniac: @Rjbsmith: --SuperJew (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The key word in your text is playing. You appear to be playing this too for your own reasons. Leave it alone for a few days - @J man708: both of you - even if the current figure is wrong, and then use the 'official' report off the A-League website which might not be finalised on their website until after the weekend. I think the 'report' section is generally considered the official figure, whereas the copy that comes out immediately post match may be more prone to error. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, sometimes it is a lot easier to make some text changes than revert automatically when there have been multiple edits over a short period of time. Please embrace the fact that other editors are allowed to edit what I think you are perceiving here as "your article" on the A-League season. Your efforts are appreciated, but anyone can edit any article and I thank J man708 for all of his good faith edits on this article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

J man's number is sourced from here. Obviously a fairly reliable/official source but as SJ says, there is considerable alternative evidence too. MM seems right to me - no reason not to wait a few days to see if the difference can be reconciled before making a call. 200 either way not a big deal, so waiting not a problem. Macosal (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the page is about the A-League. Should the A-League's site mention the number, we should go with that, as at the end of the day, it's a page devoted to the A-League and not specifically CCM. Also, "trying to get you banned"? How about trying to get you to see that Wikipedia isn't yours and yours alone (something you still haven't bothered to address).

If you did get banned, what difference would it make to you, anyway? If you're talking about poor form, how about evading a ban by logging out and editing via your IP address? Maybe you shouldn't shoot yourself in the foot before discussing ethics...
- J man708 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the club's websites often quote the A-League site or vice-versa and I'm pretty sure they're written by the same people (anyone can confirm this?) I don't mind waiting a few days, but I'd be willing to place a few bucks that nothing will change, and these usual tactics of delaying will just leave it as it is now.

Mate, I obviously don't think Wikipedia is mine etc.. as I edit citing references, using edit summaries and don't mark every one of my edits as minor in the hope that people will miss them. --SuperJew (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So you've never edited a page to how you want it, without hitting undo? No? Also, I think avoiding a ban by logging out is far worse (and still hasn't been acknowledged by you once!)

What's wrong with citing the A-League website for the A-League Wiki page's crowd figure? What makes them inherently less correct than the clubs' figures? - J man708 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I always use edit summaries and don't mark my substantial edits as minor, as well as do my best to cite information reliably, especially when contested about it.

I didn't say it's wrong to cite the A-League website, I even said that usually the club reports get their figures (if not the whole report) verbatim from the A-League site report, but in the case above where I've brought 5 sites (or 4 if we group CCM and Glory club sites) that cite the figure I used, while you only brought the one site. I think the amount of sites (with part of them being off-shoots of the site you mentioned, and the other part being dedicated A-League sites too) shows which figure is more widely accepted. --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I'd take the A-League's figure on it, seeing as it's an A-League page. You could have 30 sources, at the end of the day, they're all generally mass copied from the one page, anyway (Ultimate A-League has used us as its source quite a lot, for example). - J man708 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's another A-League site article citing 5,296 --SuperJew (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This additional article has proven nothing other than they can use copy and paste. The report section is the nearest to official as there is, and defensible/defendable; I think the amount of sites - which you consider shows which figure is more widely accepted - is irrelevent as they are not independent, they are likely all derived from a single source. One or both of these figures is wrong (I shimmied up a tree at the eastern end and watched the game from there so probably wasn't included in the crowd tally), but my opinion for an encyclopedia is that the Report on the FFA website is their view on the match that they 'administer' and should take priority. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Funny how the match centre "report" and the article I just cited are from the same website, huh? --SuperJew (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the article you cited is a verbatim repost of an article which was originally published by the Mariners' official page. Macosal (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So who's quoting who? My thought (as said earlier) is it's the same writers for the A-League main site and the clubs' sites, and they quote articles verbatim from each other. This makes me think that having only one page with one figure (5,076) as opposed to the rest of the reports with the other figure (5,296) point to the first figure being a mistake. --SuperJew (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask @SuperJew: why he has just replaced the reference to the match reports (at the matchcentre) at 2016–17 W-League for round 4 with a reference to the media release article ? Why was this change necessary ? Is there some underlying reason you see the text that comes out from their 'staff writer' as being inherently superior to I think the FFA's 'report' section? I still maintain that the latter is generally considered the 'official' figure. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's what report means, no? The text stuff. The match centre is just a summary listing, no? Can I ask what is the relevance of W-League Round 4 reports to A-League round 8 home attendance question? --SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re who writes these pages, the clubs all have their own individual media people, as does the FFA. Given the tone and focus of this one definitely looks to be a Mariners specific piece posted on the general site. As I originally said, however: it's 200 people. I'm happy for it to be wrong (either way) for a little while to see if a better source becomes available/if the inconsistent source changes. Is this point worthy of an extended debate right now? Surely not. Macosal (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is about WP:OWN and the disrespect often shown by the major editor of this article and others (such as 2016–17 W-League). Its just more civilised this time than the usual repeated reverts. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well Matilda Maniac, you're really helping bridge differences here, claiming a civilised discussion is actually disrespectful. Can I still breath without it being an ownership claim? --SuperJew (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at that, I come back from my block/shabbat and the page hasn't been updated for the matches played.. what a shock.

As I said, I wouldn't mind taking a backseat (especially now with uni load turning up), but if I do, then almost nothing will get updated (and this is also from experience when I was travelling). It's so ridiculous these claims that I "own" the articles, but they are only so influenced by me because I'm the only one who edits them. When people actually bring up serious issues as a discussion and not and edit-war as you do, I do converse and reach a conclusion, as has happened this season with the goalscorers order. When more than one editor is actively editing a page, you can say there are ownership issues, but when it's only one editor, obviously it will be influenced by him. --SuperJew (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that your reverts and your attitudes, and your extended never-say-die and often belligerent approach on talk pages (such as this one in both sections above) over an extended period of time have probably scared other potential editors away from articles that you regularly edit. I can get stressed from editing articles that you are the major editor on, as they are relatively quite likely to get changed if they don't meet your approval. I took two wikibreaks to get away from this, but i must show more discipline to remember to only edit other pages. this is why your comment that "almost nothing will get updated" is correct, not because no one else cares. And bringing your religion and potentially associated themes of persecution into discussions you appear not to be winning appears childish at best. I will ACTIVELY avoid articles you edit from now on (unless there are errors), because you are not worth the oxygen anymore. So ,ha ha, you have won anyway, and i do hope you are pleased\. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

3/4 : now its April, and Melbourne Victory still has not yet come second.

Either Brisbane Roar or Melbourne City can both come 2nd in the A-League at this point in time. Please Mr. 124.189.34.50 stop reverting my edits to pretend that Melbourne Victory has already qualified. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice this happens every year with Victory? --SuperJew (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I do not consider this to be vandalism, however discussions @ this talk page indicate that Mr. 124.189.34.50 considers the chances of the other permutations as low, but this fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will laugh so hard now if Melb City or Roar actually overtake Melb V --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I welcome the contributions and continued contributions from Mr. 124.189.34.50, but there needs to be some alignment with the posts in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

However, maybe we need a short-term protect on this article ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Mr. 124.189.34.50 stop reverting the edits to pretend that Melbourne Victory has already qualified. They havent yet.

Your rationale which you posted on your Talk Page - and subsequently deleted - was that :

• 1. Melbourne City has a very tough finish (away at Sydney FC in round 25 & away at Perth Glory in round 27) and its got too much to do catching 2nd place Melbourne Victory given it has also a -12 worse GD than Melbourne Victory which is worth also another point.
• 2. Brisbane Roar has also got too much to do it given it has also a -17 worse GD than Melbourne Victory which is worth also another point also have tough road trip at Perth Glory in round 26.
• 3. Melbourne Victory have all but qualified for the ACL for 2018 due to 3 game gap with 3 matches to play and having far superior goal difference and do have a soft run-in to end of the season.

Maybe they will qualify this weekend, maybe not. Irrespective of the outcome on the field, your continual edits to this page are becoming disruptive. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw an article [1]. You can see it.101.90.124.90 (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh look, now 124.189.34.50 has gone to disrupt 2018 AFC Champions League. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. 124.189.34.50! Why do you always think Melbourne Victory is 2nd in Round 27? You know anything is possible in football. 218.79.205.52 (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is the assumption that 124.189.34.50 is a "Mr."? --SuperJew (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Because Matilda Maniac called him Mr. 124.189.34.50. 218.79.205.52 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't meant specifically at you, it was in general :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew:@Matilda Maniac:Now, is Melbourne Victory 2nd in Round 27? I think it may fall to 3rd. 218.79.205.52 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Melb V still not guaranteed 2nd, Brisbane Roar could overtake them. I reverted once more. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at that Melb V defeated, and Brisbane Roar crushed their opponent... def not far-fetched that Roar can finish 2nd. --SuperJew (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah! If Melb V is 0–3, and BRI is 3–0 in both round 26 and 27, BRI will be 2nd at the end of the regular season. 114.88.75.162 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne City can't qualify for ACL under the specific heading in the League Table, which is Qualification to AFC Champions League second preliminary round, and therefore this should be reflecxted in how the table is presented. Of course, ALL teams that make the Finals (unless you are the 'Nix) have another chance at Qualification to AFC Champions League, but this is not to the second preliminary round. Therefore the suffix (X) is currently appropriate for Melbourne Victory and Brisbane roar only. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

1/4: Round 26 Position

@Matilda Maniac: At round 26, ADE and NEW will be 22 to 25, WEL will be 26 to 32. 218.79.205.52 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

and CCM will be 20 to 26. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018–19 A-League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)