Template talk:Manchester City F.C. managers

Brian Kidd

Should caretaker managers, in this case Brian Kidd be included in this template? Please see my Talk page JMHamo for some background. JMHamo (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God no. Can you imagine how much bigger these templates would be if we added every caretaker manager? There's almost one per sacking these days... Number 5 7 12:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, there are not that many Caretaker managers. Have a look at Template:Chelsea F.C. managers Could including a superscript ^c be the answer? JMHamo (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why they should not be included, after all they did manage the team, even if only for a short time. Should Rafa Benitez be excluded from the Chelsea template because he was only an "interim" manager? That would be ludicrous..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at length on the WikiProject Football discussion, but I will respond to your points here.

JMHamo - City have had TWELVE caretakers in their history. That's almost as many as some clubs have had permanent managers. For better or worse, City have since the 1960s been a sacking club, and have used an awful lot of caretakers. As Oldelpaso just demonstrated with the change that he then reverted, adding caretakers adds a whole extra line and more of information. That's pretty excessive. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with having caretakers listed as long as they were picking the team for one or more competitive game. Ultimately they've been in charge and made decisions affecting the club - may will have bought and sold players during their time in charge. Some permanent managerial appointments can last less time than some caretaker ones (eg Michael Appleton at Blackpool and Brian Clough at Leeds United. Would you exclude those just because they only lasted a handful of games? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, we should put Txiki Beguiristain on there because he bought two players before Pellegrini signed. I'm pretty sure they weren't Kidd's recommendations. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - he wasn't acting as a caretaker manager. My point is to just dismiss all caretaker managers as 'just someone who happened to be there' when some could have had more impact on a club than other permanent managers. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any of them did have... Falastur2 ^Talk 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude - Benitez is different. Kidd was a current employee who was asked to sit in the manager's place and do tactics for four games (two of them friendlies). He had no further benefits, he probably didn't even get the manager's office. Benitez was an uncontracted individual brought in with full benefits to serve a deliberately short term while the club sought a more permanent replacement. He was in effect an official manager, but just one that Chelsea admitted from the start that they meant to replace at the end of the season. The difference could adequately be explained by calling Kidd a caretaker-manager, while Benitez was an interim manager. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here is what the template might look like with caretakers. Personally I don't think its appropriate, it seems silly to have Tony Book listed five times, giving the times he picked the team for one game the same weight as the time he was in charge for 269. In this case the only long-term caretaker is the half-season in 1925–26 where a committee led by Albert Alexander picked the team. With that many entries, it becomes less of a navigational aid and more of a context-less version of List of Manchester City F.C. managers. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benitez was appointed as a caretaker manager from the start no matter how many games it was for. If they managed a competitive game then i see no reason why not to include them. In fact its a dangerous precedent in my opinion not to as there are some pretty noteworthy caretakers out there Benitez is one example of many who should not be excluded on that basis alone.Blethering Scot 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the size of the template should be a concern either, as it's usually collapsed anyway and if a reader wants to expand it, they expect all the people who managed, caretakers and all JMHamo (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus by the very nature of the template, football and city in general it is always going to get bigger. Worrying about it is pointless. Narom (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully completely disagree. Benitez was an interim full-time manager, not a jumped-up coach acting as caretaker as Kidd was. Regardless of that, there may have been some noteworthy caretakers at other clubs, but City has never had one single noteworthy caretaker, and we are talking about City's manager template here, so at the very least until a City caretaker actually does something worthy of recognition I'd say that argument is not valid here. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's still less managers than are in Template:Real Madrid C.F. managers (without caretakers). It really isn't a valid argument. The question is surely whether someone has managed a game or not - if they have, they're notable, and should be included whether it's in a list article or a template. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if the only argument against is that a bigger template will look ugly, I will revert to include Brian Kidd (and other caretaker managers) after a few more comments as the general consensus seems to be in favour of including all managers JMHamo (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? I make if four editors against their inclusion, and six for. I'm not sure how 60% is a "consensus". Number 5 7 19:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did say after a few more comments! JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed more than just "the template is too long" - whether caretakers are worthy of note - and we are still debating this issue. If I didn't respond in several hours to the previous points, it's not because I conceded the points, it's because I have a social life away from Wikipedia and had to go out for most of the second half of today. Seeking to bring this to an end after you've had a couple of people support you on the "template too long" issue (which I'm willing to concede, for the record) feels a little disrespectful to how much time I've put into defending my stance in the time I have been around. I dedicated much of my afternoon to chasing this up, and now you're trying to conclude with a vote because I logged off? Not cool, man. Incidentally, I wrote a long and fairly detailed response to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football which you have not made so much as a single reply to - and considering you said you'd raise it there as you didn't think you'd get much of a response here, it also feels a little hypocritical trying to end this debate before even receiving a single other reply there. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of two minds on this. They're managers and their presence should be recorded somehow. If the template is added in a collapsed state its overall size is not at all important.

However, if they're not particularly important they shouldn't be listed.

My compromise would be, if they must be added, to add them in 1 point font, in their own group. I tend to believe that they shouldn't be added though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should not be included. Can be difficult to source for historical figures, they are usually of very limited significance, and I am not sure that any reliable sources out there list caretaker managers in a similar way. It is like putting John Prescott onto the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom template because he used to work as acting PM whenever Tony Blair spent a week at Cliff Richard's house.--Echetus Xe 23:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister is still Prime Minister when he (or she) is on holiday. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree that caretaker mangers would be inherently difficult to source, for clubs where little historical English language info exists then maybe but for well documented clubs (eg the English and Scottish leagues) then they are generally very easy to source. Also, having the in a sub section on the template would be somewhat confusing, as it may be difficult to identify where they come in the chronology. And to repeat a point I made earlier - it's a very sweeping generalisation to say that they achieve little and are not notable - for my own club Steve Thompson was caretaker manager for four months, signed a number of players and took us to the FA Cup semi-final and the Championship play offs, achieving considerably more than Gary Speed who was a 'permanent' manager for a similar length of time but only signed one player in that period and did little else of note, or Bryan Robson who was in charge for six months and brought us nothing but crap football and potential relegation.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK then, fine. Include it on your template, but don't include it on ours until one of them actually achieves something. Falastur2 ^Talk 08:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's getting a little too close to WP:OWN for my liking. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. My argument was only that I don't like the idea that just because one, or even a majority, of navboxes are laid out one way that therefore all others must disregard their personal styles to, Borg-like, have their uniqueness assimilated into the collective (that's not just a response to this debate, but to many other articles I've seen over the years get overwritten by zealous "clone articles for all!" editors), but I guess I must admit that I can see the WP:OWN sentiment in my line of reasoning. Besides this, I've now dedicated maybe 3 hours or so of my time to either writing or considering this argument in the last day or so and I'm honestly exhausted by this discussion now, so I'm just going to give up arguing it. This doesn't mean I withdraw my vote on not including caretakers, but I'm going to let other people fight the case (or not) now. Please let me know when you've reached a decision, because if I keep coming back to check this out I am bound to drag myself back into the argument. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analogous situations do happen in football, and to me this is where the "anyone who picked the team" rationale falls down. For this club, Willie Donachie took charge for a couple of games when Joe Royle had a hip replacement op, and Arthur Cox did similar once when Kevin Keegan was ill. Higher profile, longer term examples are this season at Barcelona, with Tito Vilanova's surgery, and at Liverpool when Gérard Houllier had a heart attack. In a List of X F.C. managers article, unusual situations like that can be explained in prose or footnotes or whatever. But this is not an article, it is a navbox. Its primary purpose is navigation, not explanation of historical footnotes. As such, it should be kept as simple as possible. Any non-standard notation should be avoided, as we do not have the ability to provide a key. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think there's no way to provide a key? Simply add it after the closing DIV comment in the template.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the corresponding template for the club I follow only includes one caretaker, who was there for a full year during the Second World War, I can't actually think of a decent argument for excluding them.

If the main article for the subject of the navbox (as per WP:NAVBOX guidelines bullet point 4) is List of Manchester City F.C. managers, and that article includes caretakers, then it strikes me as inconsistent and possibly misleading for the navbox not to do the same.
WP:NAVBOX warns that templates with a large number of links "can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use", but I'm not sure that's the case here. Oldelpaso's example does look busy and hard to read, but that's down to the italic font, which we're not supposed to use on accessibility grounds (screen readers don't "see" the difference); the Blackburn Rovers version, complete with lots of Tony Parkeses and superscript c as a distinguishing mark, looks quite clean and tidy (personal aesthetic opinion).
Size doesn't matter: the things are collapsed by default.
But a navbox is a functional item, and it ought to come down to what readers use the things for. If I'm reading about Steve Coppell, and I want a quick look at what happened at City and who took over after he cracked up, given the relevant section of his article doesn't tell me, scrolling down to the managers template and seeing just Frank Clark's name would be significantly less useful than seeing Neal^c and then Clark. Especially as Clark's article doesn't mention City at all, outside the lead section, but I didn't know that when choosing the example :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Oldelpaso. Our manager was taken ill before a league game a few years ago, so our assistant manager and a first team coach were in charge. That is just one time it happened and it was fresh in my memory; there are bound to be many others. My club has had at least ten people select the team over the years who just happened to already be at the club and had no chance of filling the role permanently. The thought of including caretakers who were in charge for a few games, let alone two people for one game, alongside full-time managers who served for 20+ years is silly. Some were players, some were youth coaches, and some didn't even have a contract. Some sources, like Soccerbase, include some and leave out others. Walls of Jericho (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a different situation, Holloway was still the manager. They filled in no differently to covering a manager on a touchline ban. Narom (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was providing another example of where the "anyone who picked the team" rationale fails. The manager was indisposed so someone else at the club filled in, which is no different to when a manager leaves; someone else fills in. By all means include them in articles but this is a navigational box. Given the rate of managerial turnover these days, imagine how massive it will be in 10 years. Some of them are large already and that's just including full-time managers. Walls of Jericho (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]