Talk:2015–16 Manchester City 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
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.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transfer Totals

I have removed the totals from each transfer box as I am not sure what they add. If anything there should be one total at the top, not one for each section. I am personally not in favour of this approach, especially as not all transfers are disclosed and as such its impossible to arrive at a correct figure. Thoughts. Paul Bradbury 10:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EU Listing

I don't really see the point of having whether or not a player is from the EU. Although in some countries there are limits on players outside of the EU, this is not the case in England. I think it'd be better to change it to whether or not a player is homegrown in England. Thoughts? Simpsonsdude13 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, at the moment UEFA and the Premiership define Homegrown as almost the same. Basically 36 months training before the age of 21 in the country if I understand it correctly. I think the only difference is UEFA only count the English FA and the premier league count the English and Welsh. (I think). Paul Bradbury 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May require editing the template however Paul Bradbury 18:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would make here ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2015–16_Manchester_City_F.C._season#First_team_squad ) two extra columns "PL status" and "CL status", because the regulations slightly differs (CL requires club pupils, PL not; PL allows welsh homegrowns, CL not; Man City can have more limits in CL, so in last season Jovetic weren't allowed to play in CL etc). Two extra columns (the EU column can be even deleted) is the best solution. BTW I think that at least two last seasons should have this table change. Hadar (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2015 (CEST)

Prose

There is only 1485 readable prose size in the article, And a lot of that is things like Last updated: 25 May 2015 Source: Competitions, which is an explanatory note not proper prose. The following sections have no prose at all Non-competitive, Competitions, Squad information and Transfers and loans. In fact the only one that really does is Kit and its one section. This is really poor and urgently needs improved.Blethering Scot 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to expand it. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would i be volunteering to expand it. The article is an entirely poor state and not of my doing. I am simply notifying those actully interested in this mess that this is not a fit state to be leaving an article.Blethering Scot 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixture schedule

I have been adding all of the upcoming Premier League fixtures. They are scheduled so I do not see any reason why they cannot be included since they are going to be there anyway. However, User:Qed237 has deleted them, saying it's not allowed. Why can already scheduled games that will be included anyway not already be listed? Why do it week to week? Isn't it better for them to be there so the result can just be added after each game? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British copyright rules say we are not allowed to have more than one upcoming ficture, also matchdates and times can be changed, but that is an other issue. Qed237 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to make no sense. I'm use to doing american college football and basketball pages so this soccer thing is new to me but it would seem that if it's scheduled then why can't it be included? If it can't be here then why can it be on other media sites? Anyway, I don't want to lose all the work so I just put them on my sandbox and will update it game to game.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsuorangecrush: I found an old answer I gave an other user on this matter that has been discussed many times, so I add it here as well. This is special situation for UK. Qed237 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The right to the fixtures is owned by Football DataCo and protected under British Copyright Laws. Everyone that wants to display fixtures must pay a license fee, and wikipedia as a free media can not afford any license fees (or court costs if we display the fixtures). More info can be read in this link from inbrief (a helppage for law issues) and they explain that one upcoming match, but not more, can be displayed. Qed237 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this only goes for British teams? So I can add the full fixture schedules for teams in other countries?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsuorangecrush: Yes, although there are other guidelines that say that it is unneccesary with those lists, but there is no legal issues. Just dont add them in UK. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that is technically correct. A court ruling ruled they could not be subject to copyright. It was discussed at WP:Footy at the time, however not sure if was ever raised again.Blethering Scot 20:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDS loan outs

Hi, the City official website did a loanwatch round-up on 18 August (the most recent one as far as I can see) which has no mention of the three players at Girona nor Thomas Agyepong at Twente. Now, the Girona players didn't join apparently until late August, but there's also no mention of them or Agyepong on the City EDS team page. Also Nwakali is listed as going to Girona, despite also heading to Malaga at the top of the loan list (which was confirmed on the City site). Basically, can these be cleared up? Are all these players full City players, or are some of them associated with them through other groups? HornetMike (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are all full City players, but none of them have any chance of ever making the first team. In the case of Sobrino and Lejeune, they were signed for the sole purpose of being loaned to Girona, because CFG intends to basically boost them into La Liga and then use them as a loan centre, similar to how Chelsea uses Vitesse Arnhem. In the case of Agyepong it's less certain, though my guess is we likely have an agreement to take a set amount of players from the Right to Dream Academy every season, and we take that amount even if not enough of them are good enough. Agyepong is just hanging around long enough to get EU citizenship, at which point we will sell him and recoup his costs through his transfer fee. The website does not mention any of these players as they will never play for City or any of the academy teams.

As for that link you posted, claiming Nwakali was sent to Malaga - he was. In January. That loan long since expired, and Girona is his new loan club. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third colour

What about their third colour this season? Nike just made their third colour public yesterday. It's kinda fluorescent green with black shades. Arka 92 13:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer fees

A lot of the citations used for transfer fees do not mention the "fee", when some were probably undisclosed. They all need checking and updating. JMHamo (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

May I request someone add the design templates for the goalkeeper kits in the kits section of the page.--88.105.205.19 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Sterling price?

It says in transfers in that Raheem Sterling was bought £44m. I thought he was bought for £49m, isn't that right, it also says in one of the references. Please change it, If im wrong, then reply. Kyle Nightingale (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Nightingale: He was bought for £44m + £5m in clauses. The press routinely add on all clauses to make the cost look as big as possible (notice that this is the opposite of what they do with teams like United and their purchase of Martial). The thing is, the clauses are only potential fees. They are for things like Raheem winning 20 caps for England, or City winning the Champions League with him in the squad. Some of them will come in but not all of them. Probably not even half of them. Most of them wouldn't be paid for several years even if they are triggered. It would be unfair to use the higher price when the higher figure will almost certainly never be paid, so the lower figure, which is a definite amount, is the figure which is used. Falastur2 ^Talk 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week-end or day-end

Mainly reaching a consensus, asking everybody, "results by matchday", using week-end or day-end points is better? Voting begins. 333 -blue 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per reliable source, statto.com is usually used and is reliable. JMHamo (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is currently used, so should remain in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable source uses "day-end", for example statto.com used for these sections but also the "As it stood table" on the right of BBC matchreport has the same. Some info can be read at

and there are more places where this can be read. There is a reason for not showing "position by round" on english league articles, simply because there are no proper rounds. Qed237 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015–16 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2015–16 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) 00:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015–16 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) 11:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]