Jump to content

Talk:Player of the match

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

Merge

[edit]

I would like to merge Most Valuable Player to Man of the match since this is an international encyclopedia and they are the same basic concepts: honoring the best player of a match or a series of contests. There is no need for a seperate fork. Even Man of the match references several American awards such as the National Football League's Super Bowl MVP. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar example is the current article News presenter. This page merges the country-specific terms of "newsreader", "newscaster", and "news anchor". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Most Valuable Player currently reads, "A similar award in some sports, such as soccer, is man of the match". But since "the term Most Valuable Player is most often used in the United States", there should not be this country-specific fork article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If you can think of a general term to merge both Most Valuable Player and Man of the match, I would be fine with this. However, I highly doubt the majority of Americans would type in Man of the Match. Since this IS an international encyclopedia, I do not think a term that is not used in the United States should reign over the title that usually is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WiiAlbanyGirl (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - the Man of the Match refers to single game recognition, whereas the Most Valuable Player awards (at least in the US) are often series or season based awards. Although for the Superbowl it is a single game, there is also an MVP of the NFL's regular season. The amount of data and importance of their differences indicate they should be kept separate. In the US we sometimes have "Player of the Game" awards, and this is more synonymous with Man of the Match. Entirelybs 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Good point, Entirelybs; when I saw this listed on proposed mergers, I was going to go with it, until I read what you said. Nyttend 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded by whom?

[edit]

This article mentions a lot about whom the award is given to, but no mention is made as to whom the award is given by (i.e. who chooses the winner?). Is it the umpire / referee? Someone else? Can someone include this info? 58.111.225.97 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I tagged this article because it only has one source. Also, it's a striking NPOV fail because it fails to take account of women's sport – implying that the best player is always a man. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree totally. In Australia there is now a trend to "player of the match". LibStar (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Player of the Match awards (cricket)

[edit]

Text of both articles is pretty much identical, and the lists fail WP:NOTSTATS, as indiscriminate lists of not very notable information. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all about discussing about my page. But, as you all saying, I do not think that it should merge. Because, this article solely defines about the man of the match awards of cricket. Not about the awards of other sports. So, it should be acting as a cricket article, not as a whole sports section. The awards of all formats are clearly defined and I do not see any problem in that. The article should not be deleted and anyone can suggest a new name. Because, everyone is saying that the page should merge to other sporting man other matches. But this is about cricket players. Just think. This is all about cricket and no need of deleting it. Also, there is only small description about cricket man of the match awards in Man of the match article. There should be a good description about them separately. So, I provided that.

Thank you.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Player of the Match

[edit]

I am proposing a rename of this article to the gender neutral Player of the Match as this award is not just assigned to men. AIRcorn (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this mentioned above so with two other supports (admittedly from 2013) I am going to be bold. If anyone disagrees then they can revert and I will continue the discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I've reverted it, because MOTM is clearly the most common name, and POTM is rarely used. I kind of agree with your intention, but I think it's misleading for us to use POTM when it just isn't used in a lot of the contexts described in the article. I'm not sure what the best way to tackle this is, so I'm open to more discussion on it. --hippo43 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution will be to change context of the article (which I should have done when I moved it, but it kinda slipped my mind). I came to this page a year ago because I was creating a article on a women's sports game and noticed that player of the match redirected here. I think that situation is more confusing than keeping the more inclusive title. I don't think I am climbing on any soapbox here by suggesting the article should be about the player of any match and not just limited to male sport. It should be noted that this title change was mentioned previously and had support, so I would argue that we have consensus for "Player of the match". AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that an easy solution is what we need here though. I agree the article shouldn't just be about male sport, and it already isn't. MVP/MOP/Best & fairest/Hero of the game etc don't just apply to male sport. However, POTM just isn't used much. MOTM is by far the more common term. It would be a bit of a soapbox to change to a somewhat articial title that is rarely used.
I don't think clicking on a link to POTM and arriving at MOTM is really confusing, particularly as both are now used in the lead.
I also think it's a stretch to say there was consensus for moving to POTM. The discussion you started got no replies at the time (and you did say "if anyone disagrees then they can revert"...) and the article only had 4 edits since you changed the name. It's hardly an article with a lot of active editors.
As I said above, I sort of agree, but there is a real problem with sourcing this. Is there any evidence that POTM is widely used, even in women's sport? A quick unscientific web search shows MOTM is used by a lot of women's clubs, for example. Is there evidence that women's sports use this award as widely as male sports? Is MOTM such an entrenched term that it is going to survive and be used for both genders? I don't know the answers to these, but unless we get much better sources I think changing the article title to the term you think should be used is a mistake. --hippo43 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Player of the match is not an artificial title and I wish you would stop refering to this as a soapbox. If the article is about all sport (including female, trans or any other gender identity) then "player of the match" is the better title as "man of the match" is simply incorrect. I am not even sure you are right about common name. Cricinfo uses player of the match in its scorecards [1][2][3] and has done so for a considerable length if time.[4] Can you link to the search that found man of the match is commonly used by womens club? Most matches I found use "women of the match"[5][6] or "player of the match"[7] AIRcorn (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really not sure what is the common name? I think you might be looking for an argument to suit your preference. MOTM is clearly far more widely used than POTM. FWIW, Cricinfo also uses MOTM, for example here. Like I said, I agree with your intention, but I do think it is a bit of a soapbox to try to change an article title to what you think should be used, rather than what is commonly used.
I don't have the exact detail, but I searched for something like women's football man of the match.
If the article is about all sport, then the most common name should be used. If other names are widely used, of course they should be included - if Woman of the Match is commonly used in women's sports, it should also be used here. If that is the case, then Player of the Match is even less appropriate as a title.
Please don't rename it, claiming consensus, unless there actually is consensus. --hippo43 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that "player of the match" is not an uncommon term and I have yet to see evidence that "man of the match" is commonly used for women's sports. I would agree that man of the match is more widely used, but that is because sports, particularly reporting on sports, is dominated by male teams. If this article is only about men's team sports then I would not argue and would instead create a "women of the match" article. However we both agree that it covers both male and female sports.
There is more to article titles than common name, namely Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. "Man of the match" clearly fails the precision criteria as women aren't men.
FWIW Cricinfo uses player of the match more than man of the match AIRcorn (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 5 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Separately, there was a separate question as to whether the rationales for moving the page and/or supporting the move were in line with guidelines and policy, and I believe the relisting comments were appropriate. The general discussion below appears to reflect a belief that the current title is a WP:POVNAME. We do not necessarily avoid such names if they are in common use. However, we do have editorial guidelines that favor using gender-neutral language when it is workable, such as MOS:GNL: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Most of the arguments produced below did not argue that Player of the match is the most common title, but the new title can be treated as a descriptive title (WP:NDESC). In this context, the new title reflects community consensus: "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words." Thus I have moved the page. The redirect remains, and in the section above, it was argued that "I don't think clicking on a link to POTM and arriving at MOTM is really confusing;" the converse should also be the case. Dekimasuよ! 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Man of the match → Player of the match – The acknowledgment of the best player from a team is not confined to male sports and is also awarded to women. If this article is to cover all sports, not just male, then the title should reflect this. Using "Man of the match" is simply incorrect for women's sport. If it is decided that this article should just be about male sport then I am happy to keep this title.

Player of the match is used prominently by cricinfo[8] and is used for male teams in association football[9][10], Gaelic football[11] and Rugby.[12][13][14] The female versions of these and other sports use "player of the match" or "women of the match".[15][16][17]

Other sports use differing terminology to describe the best player in a game. From this article: AFL uses the gender neutral "best on ground". NHL uses a three stars system, which our article compares to "player of the match". College basketball and football use "player of the game". The NBA and NFL use Most Valuable Player awards for the season and Most Valuable Player of the match for individual games[18][19] (Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award). They all have more in common with player of the match than man of the match.

As for consistency, when it comes to non-gender neutral terms that have a gender neutral alternative we redirect to that alternative. For example Policeman and Policewoman both redirect to Police officer. Fireman and Firewomen redirect to Firefighter. Councilman and Councilwoman redirect to Councillor.

As a side note, this article was stable at player of the match for a year (see timestamps on the above discussion). Hopefully we reach a consensus as to the correct title, but if it is no consensus this may be something for the closer to take into account. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 09:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn's summary above is disingenuous. The title was not stable at POTM for a year, but for 6 months, according to the move log. (27 Aug 17 to 3 Mar 18).
POTM is used somewhat more by Cricinfo (66k vs 43k) but more generally in cricket, MOTM is more prevalent (678k vs 540k Ghits).
MOTM is by far the most common term in football (soccer) and both rugby codes. Use of POTM in men's rugby and football is trivial - the examples above are obvious, misleading cherry picking.
Looking at the WP:CRITERIA:
Recognizability - MOTM is obviously more recognizable than POTM - "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"
Naturalness - MOTM "conveys what the subject is actually called in English"
Conciseness - tie
Precision - using a term that is not the common term would not "unambiguously identify" the subject.
Consistency - Police officer, Firefighter and Councillor are not true comparisons - they are the actual job titles, the commonly used terms. 'Policewoman' and 'firewoman' are just straw men. No one calls them that, and hasn't for years. MOTM is perfectly consistent with similar articles covering awards which have gendered titles - Best Actress and Best Actor, for example, or Knight and Dame
Man of the Match may be wrong for women's sport, but you have shown that Woman of the Match is probably correct for women's sport. Player of the Match is not correct for either.
@Netoholic: You have to take google searches with a grain of salt. For example some of these could be for "Joe was a talented player of the game of croquet" or similar. To narrow it down better a search of awarded player of the game" vs awarded player of the match gives 59 results to 253 in google books respectively (not sure how you only got one result for "player of the match"). AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though the phrase Man of the match is commonly used in cricket, nowadays women's cricket is developing well similar to men's cricket and I reckon to move this to Player of the Match. The player of the match awards are given to both men and women cricketers, so this is a good idea to move the page. Abishe (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As highlighted above, Man of the match is most common for men's cricket, but seems like player of the match/game is far more common in other sports. And with women's sports becoming more prominent, makes sense to use the gender-neutral term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"seems like player of the match/game is far more common in other sports"? This is nonsense. Man of the match is by far the most common in football and both types of rugby. Which other sports are you talking about? --hippo43 (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a kind of a problem here and I was about to close this as moved but honestly the arguments presented are simply not acceptable. It's not the role of Wikipedia to determine what is factually correct when setting the article of the title, we have guidelines in place for exactly that reason and this move request and the supporters are going against the ethos of this encyclopedia. I understand we're trying to be progressive and forward-thinking but frankly, that still is no reason to move this page. At any given time, MOTM is more of a COMMONNAME than POTM and all that is suggested here are a few exclusive links to further the wrong prevalance of information. The nominator's arguments holds nothing with that precedent from unrelated topics and is diluting the point of this RM. I'm relisting this for a more thorough discussion. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 09:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)@QEDK:Having a factually correct title is easily the most important consideration for any article title. The whole time I have said that if this article is for male sports, then Man of the Match is fine, but if we are covering all sports then it is simply incorrect. I have asked previously if there are any womens sports that refer to their best player in a game as man of the match and no one has been able to provide any. Can you please reconsider this relist. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Aircorn: I didn't relist this with any primary bias, and I don't think just because I think it's disagreeable that you're wrong, I made a few RM notifications at the WikiProjects which are related to this topic and just that a wider group should debate on this topic, that's all. Factual accuracy doesn't hold still because Verifiability not truth is the policy governing subjects here, but I understand your point as well - saying you are completely wrong wasn't my intention. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should probably let this go as the requested move is clearly going in one direction, but felt I should point out that Verifiability not truth has very little to do with article titles and is not even policy. It is an essay on content. Even if we apply it to titles (which I guess is content) all we need to do is show that it is used by reliable sources (which I have done with links) for it to be a contender for an article title. Then we decide which one of the options fits the scope of the article better. The argument I presented is that if the scope of this article covers women, then the title must cover them too. We don't call the rodent article rat even though they are a much more commonname,[20] because they don't fit in the scope of that article. I obviously did a poor job at explaining it (maybe should have just gone with the first one or two paragraphs), but feel it is an acceptable argument something further justified by the level of support it is receiving. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support COMMONNAME is a default, not a WP:CRITERIA. Player of the match is recognizable and used extensively. Sort of a more WP:NPOVNAME and non-judgemental descriptive title - since this covers both male and female, it is better to use player of the match. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can someone who did not play full time win man of the match

[edit]

Can someone who did not play full time win man of the match 102.89.22.19 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Player_of_the_match&oldid=1212951383"