Talk:2014–15 Brisbane Roar FC season

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

New Transfer Templete[edit]

Not a huge fan of it for a number of reasons, key one being the "Transfer Window" column. In football terms "Summer" and "Winter" transfer windows are usually associated with the Northern Hemisphere leagues and as such there is potential for confusion. What do we think of "Off-Season" or "Pre-season" and "Mid-Season" to define the two windows? Ck786 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for other A-League club season articles I have been using "Pre-season" and Mid-season", which is the terminology FIFA uses, see Transfer window#Current schedules and exceptions.--2nyte (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Team Sections[edit]

Since it's removal, I thought I'd start this section (which probably should have been started to begin with). For me, I do think it should be part of the article to include the full teams under the name "Brisbane Roar" (Women's team has it's own article). I can see how people think it should be there though. Thoughts Ciaran106, SuperJew, Ck786, 2nyte?? Protenpinner (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is the youth team section should be in this article. It is not notable enough to warrant its own season page, and also a few senior players can play in the youth team. --SuperJew (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the youth section is too long, and makes the article even more cluttered and messy than it already is... That is why I removed it. --Ciaran106 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could be true. Probably having just the list of matches and league table would suffice. --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I'm with SuperJew on this and as put, it can involve senior players, thus linking it to the first team article. I do however think that the NYL should be favoured more than the NPL if the youth section is to be put back in. Protenpinner (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFA Cup Tables[edit]

Isn't it a bit pointless having those tables for 2 rounds? One of them being a no-goals for Roar loss? --SuperJew (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescheduled Round 4[edit]

Just thinking, is it worth having the round 4 in order of date? (it would be in place of round 9) or leaving it how it is? Thoughts Ciaran106, SuperJew, Ck786, 2nyte??. Protenpinner (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last season with rescheduled rounds we left them in order of rounds. --SuperJew (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, put them in round order. Ciaran106 (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information overload[edit]

I feel there is an information overload on this page. to much info, tables etc. for the reader to actually usefully get what they want. Opinions? --SuperJew (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there is and it's no different to any European team season pages in terms of tables etc. Protenpinner (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014–15 Brisbane Roar FC 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]