Talk:List of Belgian football transfers summer 2020

Duplication of info

There is no need to duplicate the info included in the table by doing a "By club" section below. The sortability of the table allows you to group transfers by club if necessary, so there is no point in adding the info twice over. You also shouldn't include retirements, the end of loans or contract terminations because those aren't transfers, even "for the sake of completeness". – PeeJay 11:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(Sry hadn't seen your message here.) Anyway, I don't agree, both the chronological list and the listing per team have their specific value and imho should be kept, if needed to pick I prefer the "By club" version over the other. Regarding the loans and contract terminations I believe the picture is incomplete and the list without those imho doesn't mean anything. Would it be a solution if we just rename this article (and many others) to "Belgian football transfer window summer 2020" to cover all bases? Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If you only keep one, it should absolutely be the chronological table as it includes more data. If you really need lists of transfers for each club, they should be in individual club season articles, and as I pointed out, the table is sortable so you can group the transfers by club if you desire it. Also, if you list every transfer by club, transfers involving two Belgian sides will be listed twice, which is pointless duplication of information. By the way, how does it totally devalue the article to remove loan returns and contract terminations? Every loan comes to an end, so there's no need to point out that a player returned to his parent club, and a player being released by his parent club isn't a transfer at all as he is not being registered with a new club. A player being signed from free agency should be listed, but not players being released. – PeeJay 11:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a discussion from WP:FOOTY a couple of years ago. It was very limited, but User:GiantSnowman at least agreed with me that the format used in the lists of English football transfers is better. – PeeJay 11:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(I'll have a look at the discussion, for now my reply on the rest) Actually the overview per team includes the position and shirt numbers as well so I don't agree the listing by date contains all the info. On the duplication of information, I get that, but the transfer is relevant for both clubs and the amount of transfers between teams in the top two divisions is rather limited if you were to count those. Furthermore, I understand that if you take it 'literally' as a 'list of transfers', you don't want retirements, contract terminations, loan returns etc... but imho this is more of a "transfer window overview" rather than a strict list of transfers and in that sense the loan deals are definitely an integral part. It's about the players moving in and out of each of the clubs (for various reasons), not the type of underlying deal. By the way on the loan deals, these differ very much: half a season, full season, multiple seasons (England they can be for a few weeks) and sometimes they are running from winter to winter (e.g. with scandinavian leagues) so spanning multiple seasons. Basically it's very difficult to keep track and definitely worth mentioning rather than assuming players have returned. Moreso I was even thinking of adding an additional category for players that are currently on loan already to another club, but for which the loan deal is still active. For example Luan Peres, this guy has been on loan since the summer of 2019 until the end of 2020. He definitely doesn't belong in this article if you consider strict "transfers" only, but if we were to rename it to "transfer window overview" (or something like that) it would definitely deserve a place mentioning this guy is still on the books. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The shirt number and player's position are nothing to do with the transfer itself though, shirt number especially so. You might be able to get away with listing the player's position, but I think you're focusing on the wrong things. A transfer is about the player, the two clubs involved and the fee (and the date in the case of a chronological list). I agree that loans are important to list, but not the ends of loans; a loan ending is not a transfer, it's just the end of a loan deal. Perhaps the solution would be to follow the model of the English lists, where the transfers and loans are listed in separate tables with their own specific headers, which would allow us to display the scheduled end date of a loan deal. – PeeJay 12:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Myeh ok I don't mind splitting the loans in a separate list but that's only a partial solution. I don't like the article as it is now, it's impossible to compare teams easily and I do think the position information is really important (don't care about the shirt number). Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've started the full overview here (Overview of the summer 2020 Belgian football transfer window) to still have the complete picture somewhere. Feel free to do with this one what you want, I won't be using it anymore. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start another discussion at WT:FOOTY since I don't think you're understanding me. Have you tried using the table sort function to compare teams? Also, you can't just start a new article with basically the same title because another editor made changes you didn't like. That smacks of WP:OWN. – PeeJay 13:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No I understand the sorting, but for me that's not a good overview as you can't easily compare teams and you can't see players of one specific team (IN + OUT) easily together. Furthermore, the loan returnees (and all the other special cases) imho are quite important and should definitely be part of it, but then it's not really a list but rather a full overview (note I could in that case add the players on running loan deals as well). Also the overview page could contain a written summary per team as well which would make the 'by club' section even more relevant. (For now indeed I just copied). I totally agree with WP:OWN, but I've been creating these transfer list articles for the past 10 years for Belgium and I don't want do change the methodology now because once somewhere in some discussion someone felt it should be a bit different, it's really frustrating but indeed not solely my decision so if in the end this is how it's going to be then so be it. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't the Belgian clubs have their own season articles, e.g. 2019–20 R.S.C. Anderlecht season? That would be the place to find transfers for each club, not an article like this, which should be a chronological summary of the transfer window, not a club-by-club breakdown. I apologise that you've been doing these lists like this for ten years only to have someone dispute the format now, but I hope you can see my argument. If not, I have started a discussion at WT:FOOTY (which I tagged you in), where hopefully we can decide on a consistent format for all nations, not just England and Belgium. – PeeJay 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The transfer overview (for each separate club) is indeed something which seems very relevant to put on the individual season pages. But still imho there is something missing, if the 'list of transfers' is limited to just that, a chronological list, then to me it is less valuable than with the info per club, I actually follow the argument of Joseph2302 in that case that it's basically a dump of data and like I said there, I'ld rather keep the split per club than the chronological list because I believe is more useful as it is what user will be looking for. I don't see why we can't change the article to a transfer window overview which elaborates more on the whole run of events: team A bought mister X from team B who as their star player and as a replacement team B loaned mister Y from team C and gave mister Z from team D a four-year contract etc... Also thanks for opening the discussion, hopefully some more people have an opinion as well. And no need to apologise. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

loans

The loans need to be separated from the transfers to a separate table. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Summer transfers 2021

Too bad this discussion of lay-out leads to no list this year. I totally understand Pelotas and support him into this. He's doing a fantastic job for many years and many people are using this as a guideline to start the season and also to look back a few years later. Keep up the good work Pelotas and hopefully you can find a way to make a 2021 page :)

Yes, it would be nice if User:Pelotas would come back and continue their good work. Hopefully when they do return it will be with a more collaborative mindset. – PeeJay 06:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

For the fans: User:Pelotas/summer_2021, in the only format they care about, by team. No refs since not needed for userpage, but I'm checking everything. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pelotas: How you spend your time is your business, I suppose, but it's a shame that you would keep that in your userspace and ignore the consensus that the format you're using is less helpful than the one we tried to implement. Kind of petty, to be honest. – PeeJay 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Yes sorry it is petty I admit. But a simple chronological list is not what I expect to see when I look up a transfer overview. At least I haven't taken this external, I'm providing the info onto Wikipedia.

Just fyi (from WP:CON), you seem to be at "new concensus", I'm between "Seek a compromise" and "make an edit" after going through the loop already once or twice, but I don't see a way out, so stuck at that point.

Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 10:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In reference to your diagram, I'm pretty sure the consensus was agreed by members of WP:FOOTY. Also, as I've pointed out, the table is far more useful than the format you're clinging to as not only does it allow the full list of transfers to be displayed in chronological order, but it can also be sorted by fee and by club so fans can see a full list of the transfers involving their club. A further advantage is that transfers within the Belgian league aren't duplicated, which happens in your format when you list a club's ins and outs together. – PeeJay 10:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Myeh we had this discussion. Again, sorry I don't agree with the consensus at WP:FOOTY, main flaws are firstly that in the pure list view (imho) it is not possible to easily see the transfers per club, as changing the filters only allows to see all incoming OR all outgoing transfers per club, but not both together. Try looking up all transfers for a club starting with a letter in the middle of the alphabet, e.g. Kortrijk; together with the refusal to allow loan deals to be represented as these are a key part of the transfer window, make this view quite useless to me, despite the valid points of chronology, being able to sort by fee (although 95% are "undisclosed") and the duplication. Visually, the end result of the list view is also quite ugly, especially since all the Belgian flags were removed, which of course is personal preference, but then again all flags are sorted under "flag" so that's another argument against the easy sorting per club and some sorting fix needs to be added. Anyway, we're repeating ourselves, let's just leave it here. Feel free to use my userpage input to convert it to List of Belgian football transfers summer 2021 in the "consensus" format, I'm not doing it but I'll keep gathering the actual transfers. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 11:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)