Talk:2015–16 Fulham F.C. season

Overall transfer activity section

I propose removing this section as most of the time it's speculation on what the transfer fee was; in many cases Fulham do not disclose the fee, leaving other media outlets make a guess, which is not reliable. Pinging @Spa-Franks: who is a major contributor to this article. JMHamo (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I would keep that section, I don't really see arguments for removing it. However, your argument is more appropriate for greater use of an "undisclosed" tag. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My point is transfer fees are guessed because Fulham don't disclose them. JMHamo (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, however, the selling club discloses them (Dejagah or Richardson, I can't quite remember, comes to mind). Spa-Franks (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is an official transfer fee disclosed by either club, then fair enough. My issue is having The Sun or Daily Mail stating the transfer fee.. how would they know. Bring in more opinion to this @Struway2 and GiantSnowman:... can I please have your thoughts? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say having a transfer fee edges towards WP:NOTSTATS - all we need is squad number, name, position, and nationality. Even DOB is not required. GiantSnowman 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree GiantSnowman and I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove this section. In fact, I think the template itself could be TfD'ed, but that is another discussion. JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a template... JMHamo (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If either club confirms the fee, I'd include it, if they don't I'd put undisclosed, with source: the fee is a significant element of the transfer. I wouldn't put a "believed to be" figure in a table, whether tagged as such or not: tabulating content makes it look accurate even if it isn't. If a fee is widely reported in the mainstream non-tabloid media, I'd have no problem with that being mentioned as "reported as ..." in the prose of the relevant section, if it's considered important enough. Not that I can see any prose at the moment, but assuming there will be some later. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input. Just to be clear, I was referring to this specifically:

Overall transfer activity

Spending

Summer: £3,500,000

Winter: £0

Total: £3,500,000

Income

Summer: £13,500,000

Winter: £0

Total: £13,500,000

Total

Summer: £10,000,000

Winter: £0

Grand Total: £10,000,000

As to that section, which had already been removed when I looked at the article, I'd agree with its removal. You can't add up multiple items of speculation from random sources and expect to get a meaningful total. And why in heaven's name did it wikilink the £ sign every time of use? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It gets even trickier when the transfer fees are reported in Euro; I've seen people do Euro to Sterling foreign exchange conversions, based on what? It gets ridiculous. JMHamo (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Players who have left during the season

I propose that in order to keep in line with other season articles like 2015–16 Birmingham City F.C. season and 2015–16 York City F.C. season we start to use the strike-through and dagger system for players who are on loan or have left the club, like the was it's used here, so "Players with names struck through and marked † left the club during the playing season and Players with names in italics and marked * were on loan from another club for the whole of their season with Fulham." The way the table is presented at the moment, makes it too clunky and could be cleaned up using this solution. Inviting @Struway2 and Mattythewhite:, @Spa-Franks: for their view. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as different table styles are used for those two articles I don't think they can be compared without changing the entire table. From an aesthetic point of view, I prefer the current template being used on the Fulham article rather than a standard wikitable. I personally don't see what's wrong with the current formatting. I disagree that it makes the table look "clunky". Spa-Franks (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)