User talk:GiantSnowman

Archives

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Starting 11

I read through the small discussion in the link provided and fail to see a substantial reason why the Starting 11 section violates Wikipedia policy. The arguments instead focus on the factual accuracy of such a section. Although teams may produce differing lineups match to match, the starters and starting formations are well documented across media sources. The Starting 11 section would simply be a synthesis of the above sources with a visual representation. Furthermore, to accommodate for lineup flexibility through a season, other frequent starters and/or formations are duly noted as well. The section provides insight on how a team plays during a specific season that may otherwise be confusing to convey in prose, particularly to casual readers. It's unquestionably a positive addition to a team's season page, and if it does not violate any policy, I don't see a reason to remove it aside from unnecessary bureaucracy. Bobby (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted it is a synthesis. That violates the policy on original research, therefore it cannot be included. End of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every case of synthesis is automatically a violation. WP:SYNTH exists to prevent non-neutral positions resulting from combining unrelated sources. Starting lineup synthesis is combining two factually accurate and related sources, often published in independent sources in conjunction, to better improve the understanding of the article. Bobby (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it exists to stop people putting sources together to form original research. This is exactly what you're proposing to do. And no, it isn't required or necessary to include this, and in modern footballing terms, it's not beneficial either, with squad rotation policies being in place in many teams. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Player X and Player Y each play 40 games in the season. Player X plays 20 games as LB and 20 as CB; Player Y plays 20 games as CB and 20 games as LB. Where is each player placed on the Starting XI graphic? Giant Snowman 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever position the player played more minutes at. But both would be listed and the unique situation would be noted. Practically, the section is very clear as to the number of starts for players at each position so the reader could easily deduce that there may be rotation, the frequency of rotation, and the players involved. Bobby (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source determines the number of minutes? Is that number of minutes as a starter, or overall game time? Also imagine this scenario - the team plays 40 games in a season. 10 games are at a 4-4-2 starting line-up, 10 games as 4-1-3-2, 10 games at 3-5-2, and 10 games at 4-2-2-3-1. What graphic do you use? Giant Snowman 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are really impractical cases. If such a situation arises then prose would be added to the section for clarification. As for minutes, Real Madrid's website logs overall game minutes per individual. Soccerway does so as well. Bobby (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind everyone that this discussion has already taken place at length on the WikiProject Football talk page and it is actually useless to re-hash the same old arguments only to reach the same conclusion (which we undoubtedly will) – that starting XIs are not useful to club season articles. – Pee Jay 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting XI should NOT be included. What says that a player plays on the same position the whole match? For example today a lot of the wingers change side 3 or 4 times every halftime. And also there is no way to source the formation, it can be seen in many ways depending on who is watching. A 3-5-2 could look like a 5-3-2 if the wingers are pressed down and 4-5-1 could be said to look like 4-3-3. It is just an opinion how they play. QED237 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuricon Question

Question, so even if the AFD was for a previous version of the article that was deleted, we cannot send the new version of the article up for PROD? Esw01407 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Spring

Yes, he has released more material recently, and is a RTE 2fm presenter ,so asked me to edit the origional text last week and I discovered the orig text was gone. But any input from mods is welcome to make sure content is appropriate when required.Am not a wiki expert. (talk

Thanks for deleting my Mr Spring entry,it was about to be revised & updated. Can I try again to redo this with your input. The artist was very suprised it was pulled and asked me to follow up asap. Thx1138x (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (talk[reply]