|
I just started this to carry on the good work that Johan Elisson has done with other templates for this subsection; the tournament history templates are taken from Football World Cup and Cup Winners' Cup but can be improved any way you like. Qwghlm 17:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Good! I think, in the future, we need to split up this page in subpages, but this is fine for now! Hope everyone else follows and makes contributions to the styles, or gives suggestions on the corresponding talk pages. -- Elisson • Talk 20:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone think there's a need to unify the naming convention for the major international tournaments?
Currently, the World Cup articles are named Football World Cup YYYY yet the article would open with "The YYYY Football World Cup was...". The European Championship articles are named YYYY European Championship and the article would open with "The YYYY European Championship (Euro YY) was...". The ACN articles are, like European Championship, named YYYY African Cup of Nations but the article would open with "The YYYY African Cup of Nations was...". These are articles of essentially the same class, yet their naming is too inconsistent for wikipedia. --Pkchan 13:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is a great problem, but of course there should be some kind of convention. I just don't know which. ;) -- Elisson • Talk 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, Pkchan. I would use the notation you suggest ([Year] [Competition_Name]), so that we might talk about a 2006 Football World Cup article, instead of the currently used title ("Football World Cup 2006"). By the way, is better to use either "Football World Cup" or "FIFA World Cup"? --Angelo 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Angelo. It appears that there has been consensus to name these articles using its official name, ie "FIFA World Cup".
- So may I suggest here that the major international tournaments be named and opened as thus:
- name of article: year followed by official name of the tournament, ie YYYY FIFA World Cup, YYYY European Championship, YYYY African Cup of Nations, &c., &c..
- title sentence: "The [[YYYY]] [[Official Name of Tournament]] was...". --Pkchan 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect. I quite support your final suggestions. Now you'd better to ask for move these articles directly in the associated page talks, and of course making a reference to this discussion. Let's start from Football World Cup 2006?!? :)--Angelo 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In continuation to the thread #Naming convention for tournaments above, here is a proposal to mass rename the Football World Cup YYYY and related pages to YYYY FIFA World Cup &c. (YYYY standing for the year the World Cup is hosted).
Football World Cup YYYY &c. → YYYY FIFA World Cup &c. – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments. --Pkchan 10:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Er, write as much as you see fit, we should be encouraging discussion, not voting. ed g2s • talk 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. See also discussion above. --Pkchan 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I think FIFA world cup is more common than football world cup anyway Robdurbar 10:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom Oldelpaso 10:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although there is a lot of work to be done after the move (correcting category sort keys, fix templates, and much more). -- Elisson • Talk 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and discussion above --Angelo 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lets get a little but of consistency. KingStrato 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the original move as it is inconsistent with other world cups, such as the Rugby World Cup. ed g2s • talk 18:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support;I thought of doing this after the Football World Cup → FIFA World Cup move, but forgot. :P Anyways, for reasoning, please see the requested move page for all arguments regarding the move to FIFA World Cup. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this was bound to come up, and I don't intend to be a Canute. But I urge everyone to realise that referring to the FIFA World Cup for any tournament before the 2002 tournament is just pandering to Sepp Blatter's personal agenda and FIFA's aggressive attitude to the use of the words World Cup without a credit to FIFA. The words FIFA World Cup have only been in use since the new trophy was created (1971/1972 for the 1974 torunament) and it originally only referred to the trophy. FIFA World Cup was not used on ANY merchandising material until after '98 tournament (verify if you like), at that point, on the appointment of Sepp Blatter, FIFA began an aggressive worldwide campaign of trademarking all possible variations of "FIFA World Cup"; including the retrospective use of "19XX FIFA World Cup" for previous competitions, and pursuing legal action against anyone who uses the words World Cup for commercial gain without crediting FIFA - see http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0034.html. Only from roughly 1999/2000 do you start to see "FIFA World Cup" all over the place. Who knows by 2010 it could be the McDonald's World Cup. But what will never change is that the game they play is football. Jooler 09:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite, the World Cup has never been referred as the FIFA World Cup in the past, nor will it be in the future, apart from by FIFA themselves. If asked to disambiguate "World Cup", most people will say "the Football World Cup". ed g2s • talk 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. While it's a good idea to make it all consistent again, there is evidence that the name "FIFA World Cup" wasn't used during the early cups (we have a few poster images here at Wikipedia). Conscious 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alright. Now, can you do those moves which don't need an admin on your own first, and then hand me a list of moves you need admin intervention for? Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved all I can. This includes all Football World Cup YYYY, Football World Cup YYYY (match reports), Football World Cup YYYY (qualification) and Football World Cup YYYY (squads) pages. See this for a complete list. There is one notable exception: Football World Cup 1994, for 1994 FIFA World Cup already exists. This one will require an admin.
- There will inevitably be a large amount of double re-directs left on the trail. I think we'd better leave them over to the bots to handle.
- There is one specific group of articles that I have left untouched: those under Category:Football World Cup qualification, mainly for the sheer quantity of pages involved. Anyone has a good idea on how to handle them efficiently? With a bot or otherwise? --Pkchan 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to manually redirect all of the 2006 FIFA World Cup (gosh, that feels weird, calling it what it's supposed to be) qualification articles, for sheer sake of having the conventions uniform in the most recent cup. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sick of moving pages. Set up a bot, please? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please people... get it toghether and at least make it neat looking...
- its not an article, why does it have to be neat. If you are looking to use this place as an encyclopedia, you have inadevertantly stumbled upon wikipedias inner workings, where neatness is a low priority. Philc TECI 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any convention in Commonwealth English sportswriting, or Wikipedia football writing, to use singular and plural articles and verbs for football clubs or teams, regardless of singular and plural proper names? Or any contrary convention to follow the proper noun always?
England win 3-0, England wins 3-0; Blackburn Rovers win, Blackburne Rovers wins; Blackburn Rovers F.C. win, Blackburne Rovers F.C. wins; Wanderers were the greatest, Wanderers was the greatest . . .
By the way, is every English football club literally named Football Club? --P64 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why there is no Superleague 2007 article, like the other domestic leagues ? Why does it is written on 2007-08 in Greek football ?
It seems it's the same issue for the argentinian league, even if it would be better to make an article for every clausura/apertura tournement rather than a whole season, which is not that representative, is it ?
82.240.207.81 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the right place for this discussion, but... league tables. Points on the right is the standard accepted throughout the world; so why oh why are there so many with points to the left (mostly in articles about competitions with group stages; 2006 FIFA World Cup for instance)? Was an executive decision made by the project to put points on the left, or did somebody do it and nobody got round to doing anything about it? Either way, I'm curious, and would wholeheartedly promote a move to points on the right throughout all articles affected by the Project. Failing that, a discussion about the decision would be a good goal - it's been raised on a couple of the individual articles, but I feel it should be brought to the attention of the Project as a whole. Kinitawowi 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At what point in a club tournament's history -- I'm specifically asking in regards to the North American SuperLiga -- does it become acceptable to create an article that would consolidate into a set of wikitables all of the previous winners, goalscorers, etc. I created a section on the tournament's main page that was subsequently updated & edited by other users after the 2008 tournament, the 2nd NA SuperLiga, was completed earlier this year, but it has since been deleted. Here is the archived page with tables included. If it is superfluous to include this information after only two tournaments have been played then I have no problem with it, but with limited input from users it can be difficult to attain a consensus. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football