Talk:2011–12 Southern Football League

Stadium capacities

I'm really not happy with the capacities we have listed for the south-west clubs. I've deleted the column twice, but it has been reinstated. The two justifications were that the numbers are from Soccerway, and that they're the same as the numbers on the individual club pages. However, none of the individual club pages are sourced, apart from a few with Soccerway as the source.

My main problem is that the numbers are unrealistic and appear to have been plucked from thin air. For example, the capacity for Yate is listed as 6,745. This was added by an IP user in 2007. The only archived version of Yate's page on Soccerway is from 2010, and it doesn't say 6,745. The present day page does. From that, I can only deduce that Soccerway has copied Wikipedia's number.

I would have no problem with this, if the numbers were realistic. However, I have visited 7 of these grounds in the past few months, and I don't agree with a lot of the figures given. Yate is a fairly normal ground for this level. I can't think of any reason why its capacity would be 3x the amount of most of the others.

I would like to see the capacity of grounds listed - it's a useful and interesting piece of information. However, the current information is useless. I would suggest starting again, trying to find sources for each club, and leaving a space where we can't find a number. We would need to look for articles like this. I also think we should have a column for the number of spectators that can be seated - this information would be a lot easier to find. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The club websites themselves are sometimes a good source, like Bridgwater Town here [1]. It might be a bit of a pain to source each club individually, but if Soccerway are proved to be inaccurate, then maybe we should. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I sourced the capacities to Soccerway in good faith, but having looked further some of them don't add up, especially Yate's. If they did just copy them from Wikipedia then that is very disappointing and it's hard to argue that they didn't. Pyramid Passion is a fantastic website and gives 2,000 as the capacity with 236 seated which, looking at the pictures, seems right. If over 6,500 could be crammed in there then it'd be a miracle. I'd like to see them all sourced individually and if none can be found then leave it blank, as you say.

Sadly, most season articles are completely unsourced because most people can't be bothered and are happy to let inaccurate information be peddled from article to article. As an example, Home Park hasn't been 19,500 for years, but no accurate figure in reliable sources has been published since the temporary seating was removed to leave a once large terrace as a tired bit of concrete. I'd like to see the tables stay so we'll have to source them individually and make the adjustments to club articles. Might be the first time it has happened – unsourced capacities in season articles is a widespread problem. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I went through the south-west clubs (I might do the other leagues soon) and added a source wherever I could find it. I checked the club websites and Pyramid Passion. I agree, it's a great website. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things - does the table need to be sortable? And do the references need their own column? The reason I ask is that now the table doesn't fit alongside the map, creating acres of whitespace. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{citation needed}}s and shortened the column name. Does that look better to you? My screen displays them side by side either way. As for the table being sortable, I don't mind. The others are all sortable, and I guess it allows the reader to see the largest grounds, and locate a team alphabetically. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It does look better, thanks. I have a reasonably large screen but we have to consider those poor souls using tiny laptops too. The maps look a little big, but if they're smaller we have problems squeezing all the team names in. It's a bit of a compromise, but it certainly looks ok at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Map

Bideford is off the map. Its all abit cluttered too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.93.74 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears fine on my screen and all names on the maps are readable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)