Jump to content

Talk:2008–09 Manchester City F.C. season

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

Marcello Trotta

[edit]

Just saw this link:

http://sport.setanta.com/en/Sport/News/Football/2008/06/28/Prem-City-sign-Trotta/

saying that we've signed a 15-year old for our academy. From my (admittedly small but somewhat knowledgable) experience, I doubt this is going to get many more press sources reporting on it, and I really can't see either City or Napoli confirming it through any way I can easily check, especially since City don't release the names of their academy players. Can anyone confirm this story, or give any ways of checking it? Falastur2 (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few more things mentioning him now; though by no means enough to settle the issue it's enough to make me believe it's probably true, so I'm going to add him. If anyone disagrees, feel free to remove the info again, preferably with a reason here so I know why :) Falastur2 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penalties

[edit]

Just wondering if penalties count as offial goals when scored in a shootout at the end of a game? I assume they do so I will update the UEFA goals accordingly, let me know if I am wrong Paul  Bradbury 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a shootout, no. Penalties scored in normal time of course do count, but not from a shootout. Falastur2 Talk 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Position in League

[edit]

The bar under the results shows the league position of the club. I am not sure this is valid (or even really acurate information). The issue I have is when is it calculated? Based on 23 games for all clubs (you would then have to figure this out). When the game ends (what if they play early?) At the end of the weekend? Its just seems to be pointless information since it is so open to interpretation. Paul  Bradbury 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Especially since we're in a position where not all clubs are playing the same numbered match (i.e. 24th game of the season) at the same time, it's confusing and perhaps a little misleading. But it's not totally unjustified or incorrect, so I'm happy to leave it if others feel so inclined. Falastur2 Talk 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this for the reasons stated above since no-one seems to have a contratry viewpoint Paul  Bradbury 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format for match reports

[edit]

To the (admittedly few) people watching this page, could I just ask a quick straw poll? In light of Arthur7171's edits changing the more concise system used in other pages, could I ask: do people prefer that style (match reports only take up one row, able to show result (Win/Lose/Draw by colour background, only City's scorers are listed, certain other bits of info removed), or the previously-used format (several rows used, more information included - location, referee etc)? Personally I'm not a fan of the new layout and prefer the old - no dig intended, Arthur - but there seems to be a growing trend to using this system so I'm wondering what the consensus is. Please note I don't intend this as a vote to decide which system we keep. Personally I'm respectful of both systems enough that I will let time (and other wikipedians) run its course on what ultimately stays, and I'm not trying to rustle up support for either format. Just wondering what style people prefer to see. Falastur2 Talk 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new format much and also object to wholesale changes without discussing them first on the talk page (it would have been nice). The new format has less information in it (such as ground and referee, which is intersting and encyclopedic). Paul  Bradbury 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pbradbury. I prefer the previous system, it has more information. When I look at the info for a match I'm not just interested in one side of it, but both. srushe (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one has presented a reason why the newer version was better and at least two (including myself) think the older is better I have reverted the edits Paul  Bradbury 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008–09 Manchester City 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: 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) 08:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008–09_Manchester_City_F.C._season&oldid=1263396932"