Talk:Football Manager
Update
Just updating information regarding the games relationship to BGS' Championship Manager 5. The old page said that FM will compete with CM5, wheras they already do. I don't feel that it's appropriate, however, to point out CM5's many flaws in this page, instead I have merely said that it was severely delayed (the truth).--Dan 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed --DanGravell
Structure
I think this article needs to be split into sections, one for each version of the game, like in the article about Championship Manager. Or maybe have one page called Football Manager series linking to a seperate article for each version of the game (e.g. the Star Fox series page). Anyone with me?
- Well, as soon as the second comes out... Grue 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- The second one came out about 15 years ago if you include the original Football Manager series (which is included in this article). FM2005 is actually the 5th version of the game. So how about it? --Ukdan999 16:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm all for it if you wish to write it!--Dan 19:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- The second one came out about 15 years ago if you include the original Football Manager series (which is included in this article). FM2005 is actually the 5th version of the game. So how about it? --Ukdan999 16:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Advertising
Removal of linkage to external sites which are basically blogs which are not related to the game, save for an ocassional mention:
- Sudden Death - New opinionated football manager fansite. Being one of them.
For a start, saying a site is 'new' is just bad practice. What if someone comes along in a year and reads this. Is it 'new' then as well? Is it buggery.
- This still keeps happening with users adding 'community resource links' at random places in the page. Removed and the new link has been added to the external resources section. --Dan 13:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Patching
Here's a copy of my talk page: Regarding your edits the the Football Manager article. It seems that you added a community resource section to it when there was already one at the bottom. Not only that but it was placed in a seemingly random place when external resources are usually placed at the bottom. These have now been removed and the logo resource has been placed at the bottom of the external links section as SortItOutSI already had a link. And finally, where did you get your 'millions of files' from? If you refer to the title of Susie, then that means the number of times files have been downloaded; not the number of files available.
Reply: I am perfectly aware of the bottom section. Yet I think the patching thing should be pointed out separately. Merely giving some link doesn't give a reader full info that FM can be patched etc. I am sorry for maybe not doing it properly but I still think a separate Patching section should be added.
Please discuss.
- Links shouldn't be put seperately (but perhaps a section on the community itself) instead of adding two sites. My other problem was that you didn't look at the facts properly. Millions of different files???
- Also, placing the section there, upset the fluidity of the article. Feel free to write something unbiased (without links, only referring to the bottom) on the community by all means though!--Dan 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've now extended the external resources section, pulled it off the bottom of the page (on which the reference section now sits (needs expanding)) From there, it should be ok to add information on a few of the sites and their basic services.--Dan 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, solved.
Football Manager history and boxart for FM and FM2006
FYI: I have sent an email to Kevin Toms asking if we can use the pictures of the Football Manager screenshots on his website.
I think it'd be great if we can add some more history to the game instead of a brief paragraph. I think that the game that started it all deserves much more than that!
I've also sent an email to Marc Duffy at SI asking for permission to use the FM 2006 boxart as the picture for the infobox, as most detailed articles on videogames have this instead of a screenie.
Until I get approval, the image lies here waiting to be used. The licencing may need altering as it's set as DVD cover art (there wasn't anything for videogames (except screenshots)).--Dan (Talk) 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I took it upon myself to add the boxart for FM2006 (sorry, I didn't see this discussion). I'm pretty sure there was a licensing option for videogame covers, which I selected for this image.--Ukdan999 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. The correct licence is there and mine will be deleted in the next few days anyhow! Cheers.--Dan (Talk)|@ 22:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I have received an email confirming that he has no problems with the use of Football Manager screenshots on the site. He is, however, unsure of the copyright situation:
Sure, Dan, I have no problems with you using pictures. Not sure what the copyright situation is, if that is what you are asking. If you have questions, or things you want to find out from me for your article, please ask. Kind regards, Kevin
External links - Unofficial
What exactly is allowed in here? If we were to include all links to every single FM site it would not exactly make the article look nice, nor help with its encyclopedic content, and I think it should be limited to the more "well-known" ones (MC and perhaps Susie)? NSLE (T+C) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- The unofficial links are set up for community based websites. There isn't really a criteria as such but I think that the site should be established, popular to some degree on the scene.
- The last three links in that list don't really cover it:
- Sudden Death
- First Eleven
- The Gazette and Twaddle Talk
- I've looked at these and they're basically blog sites from people who love FM. I'm against that sort of site personally as I can just stick my own webpage up there, tell people I love FM and mention it once in a blue moon.
- As for Mind Compression being up there, I'd be happy to take it down. I think it's a crap site anyway (I should know, I did it!) and really needs a good clean up.
- If someone would like to set out some criteria for inclusion on the list (such as affiliate status) then we could reach some kind of consensus on what should/shouldn't be there.--Dan (Talk)|@ 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah-hah! So my suspicions were right! *presses for Dan to push for a quicker release of the next MCFM version* ;) SI Affiliate status would be a good marker, yes. NSLE (T+C) 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Affiliate status might be the only criterion that could be used. Either that or just have no unofficial links at all! What's the point anyway? All of the good unofficial sites are linked to through the official SI Games site.--Ukdan999 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- They're just so well hidden. To the common user, nobody knows what an affiliate is. I've argued this with Sports Interactive on a number of ocassions to highlight the affiliates scheme (of which, as part of Mind Compression, I'm a member) and it's a little slow to get off the ground in terms of publicising the scheme. In total, there are about 30 FM affiliates, of which at least 10 will no doubt be under consideration for affilation status (either having shut down or not qualifying anymore). I really think that the affiliates scheme mentioned should be expanded further here however as it is one of the games strongest qualities.--Dan (Talk)|@ 10:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think *any* unoffical sites should be listed. I don't care whether random unoffical sites are hard to find in SI's website - that's SI's responsibility. We are not running their web ring for them, and we're certainly not an advertising service. DanGravell
- That defeats the point of external links and kinda wipes out the point of SI's biggest asset (its fans). WP is not an advertising space, you're right, but I believe that sites should be allowed to be there (but under a strict criteria). At least, if they're affiliates, they're not fair-weather sites and the blogs which are on there right now. So I'd like to put it to a vote.
- Affiliation is not a strict criteria (at the point of affiliation status being granted). The point of the FM article is to inform about FM. External links are meant for readers to continue their research. I know of no so-called 'affiliate site' which is worthy enough to inform people about FM and its history. The only site that does that is the official site. Furthermore, affiliate status is still too arbitrary. It means nothing to most users of FM or, more importantly, non users of FM who are trying to learn what it is. There are so many afffiliate sites (sixty-eight at the moment!!!) the external links list will soon get too long, and that's while people continue to post non-affiliates because they don't understand what affiliation means. You have to look at this from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about FM or SI. See my vote for another idea... DanGravell
- Feel free to vote for choice 1 or 2. I think that by the end of the month (31st January, 2006) the votes should be counted and a decision made then.--Dan (Talk)|@ 14:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- The main two arguments are:
- The total removal of the external links section to other sites (including affiliates)
- The removal of any site which is not an affiliate (and subsequent removal of any site which is added afterwards which is not an affiliate).
- The main two arguments are:
- Option 2 for me. It's the only easy way to weed out (some of) the crappy sites. At least if a site is affiliated, you know it's not just going to be some random blog, that just mentioned the game once.
- Option one for me, but allow a deep link into SI's FM product page. Another idea to support the promotion of affiliates is to (in the same way as other software product pages) provide a deep link to the affiliate list for FM on SI's pages. DanGravell
I think the links to fan sites are useful, because SI official site is quite crappy. So, I'm for option 2, even though I have no idea what an "affiliate" site is. Grue 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)