Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Beattie

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Solatha (talk | contribs) at 15:39, 2 November 2020 (→Cigarette Smoking Query: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleKevin Beattie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 10, 2018Good article nomineeListed
February 13, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 4, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the footballer Kevin Beattie (pictured) was described by former England manager Bobby Robson as the best England player he had ever seen?
Current status: Featured article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Beattie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add

  • The Carlisle station incident - use this gem
  • The toilet incident - use Groves
  • A note that he also was nicknamed The Beat - use Groves

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ([1]) - ☒N A shame, because I think it was a good page, but it's broken and wayback machine has nothing --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ([2]) - Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ([3]) -  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ([4])  Done nothing valuable there --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (how he was scouted) ☒N Nothing worth adding IMHO --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (bacon and eggs)  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (Scouting role with NCFC) - needs another source --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club career

I know he barely featured for anyone besides Ipswich, but the career section looks somewhat lopsided, is there any additional info we can find from his later club "career"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

Dweller, I think this is easily good enough to go to GAN. What do you reckon? Or anyone else for that matter? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, sure why not. We're aware of some shortcomings that prevent a run at FA in the near future and maybe GAN will pick up more, smoothing the path. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kevin Beattie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 08:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this one, will post a review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Infobox

  • What's the source for his height? Ref 14 appears to support it but, as it's not mentioned in the main text, a inline citation here is probably required.
Ref added to infobox. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Beattie died in 2018", do we need this? His date of death is already listed at the start of the lead and there's no real context to this.
Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link England to the national team in the last paragraph.
Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Could probably link goalkeeper in relation to his father here. All other positions are linked through the article.
Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "erroneously told that he was not a Catholic", can we briefly explain why that was important? A reader unfamiliar with Scottish football would probably be completely unaware why that was relevant.
Attempted to add an explanatory note. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club

  • I would perhaps mention what division Beattie was playing at with Ipswich earlier in this section. The level he was playing at isn't mentioned until halfway through the fifth paragraph.
Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link FA Cup and UEFA Cup in the fifth paragraph, first time they are mentioned outside the lead.
Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice for some extra info on the last few clubs of his career but, I'm guessing that this is down to the actual availability of information. Not a sticking point for GA but could be something to think about if you look to take this up to FA.
I have looked, quite extensively, and can only find the passing mentions in reliable sources of the latter clubs... I fear this may be it, in toto. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International

  • Perry Groves is linked in the playing style section below but not here. Link the first mention here rather than the later one.
Linked (and relationship to Beattie moved) first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and controversies

  • "missed a portion of the 1977 season", seasons are typically spread over two years, the link itself is 1976–77.
Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • Could this section be merged with the post-football section perhaps? Seems unnecessary to have a separate sub-section for a single sentence.
Merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • No issues with references as far as I can see, all formatted well.
Bravo, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

  • Norwich City F.C. non-playing staff and Kongsberg IF managers are included here but there's no mention of either in the text?
So far, only non-RS source for the NCFC connection, thoughts? I'm taking the Kongsberg manager category out for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't go against it if you included that source. An argument could certainly be made in favour of it being reliable given the site's longevity, relatively widespread use on other articles and it is included on WP:FOOTBALL's useful links. It would also appear that Steve Whitlam's work is used and even promoted by the club itself, see HERE. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started making notes on this one earlier in the week but Mattythewhite took care of most of the issues I originally found so there's little else I can really find. A few minor issues and suggestions above but this is a well written piece. Placed on hold for now to look at the comments above. Kosack (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks, will try to get to these later today. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack addressed all your comments, thanks. Sorry it took a few days longer than I'd hoped. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: No worries, I'm happy with all of your above comments. I've left a note on the Norwich City non-playing staff category, let me know if you intend to add the information or not just so I can finish up with passing this. Kosack (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack I think I'm done? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to promote this, I'm certain that it comfortably meets the relevant GA criteria. Kosack (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raffety

I think we need a footnote that some source spell it Rafferty. I presume the book has it without the r? That'd be the most likely to be authoritative, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book uses Rafferty. But interestingly Beattie said that "that was what he called him", rather than it being his actual name... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So two reasons now for footnote! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need it, he refers to him as Rafferty (with an r), and we could make it simple enough with "a Mr Rafferty". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... ---Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool/Ipswich

Was he really 15 when he went for the trial he didn't attend? What does he say in his autobiog about why he didn't travel across town? Money? Fear? And was he 18 when he signed for Ipswich? What happened in the 2-3 years in between the two? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trial he went to when he was 15, he did go to and was met at Lime Street, stayed at Phil Thompson's house, and was asked back to sign full-time. The second time round he wasn't met, had nothing but his return ticket and his boots, nothing else, so he went back to Carlisle. He got a letter a few days later with the conclusion "Failed to turn up". It was LFC's mistake though. He signed as an apprentice for Ipswich a matter of weeks later. Youth team, then reserve team, then first team in 1972/73 (having been moved from striker to centre half by Mr Robson).. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much much better now. Does he say in his book what went through his head as he stood there like a lemon at Lime St? Did he think they'd changed their mind? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He just said he didn't know what to do. A 15-year-old with no means, no mobile, no clue, and even an LFC fan said they weren't sure what he should do either, especially as the fan had noted that previous hopefuls had all been met at the station by LFC representatives. I guess he felt 100% stood up and let down, and that seemed to coincide with an escape plan (the Carlisle train) pulling in... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich career

There's 9 years to go into that and it's the key encyclopedic part of his life, apart from the 9 caps. TRM, want to go the onerous course of expanding it, while I concentrate on copyediting elsewhere? Can go into more than one subsection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's my plan. May get an hour tonight and an hour tomorrow... we'll see. All the repetition etc will need fixing after I'm done though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shaping up well, monsieur. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did he have a regular partner in crime in the Town side, presumably another centre half, but maybe a midfielder he was known to play well with? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Hunter. Robson referred to them as "Bacon and Eggs"... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh good. We need that in the text (playing style? main copy?). Any chance of a photo of Hunter? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a runner

The visit to Carlisle when he should have been en route to Scotland for another U-23 match, is it better in the International section or where it currently is? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think it was such a big deal (not that I recall, but I've seen a LOT of media coverage from it) that it might even be worth its own (sub)section, as a third option. --08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anything missing?

What does anyone think is needed here before we start to copyedit etc before FAC please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info about his book? We barely mention it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the book I have by Finch, it's his narrated autobiography. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have much about his wife and kids. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fixable, he talks about his wife quite a bit. He was her carer in later years as she suffers from MS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wife

Dweller, for you weave into something decent:

Margaret (Maggie), met her at a youth club in the late 1960s/early 1970s, "love at first sight" (Finch, p. 33). Married her in 1974 (Finch, p. 54). Featured in the 15 August 1974 Radio Times in article about "footballers' wives", they were still living in a "modest club owned house" (Finch p. 55). The "going AWOL" en route to Pittodrie was recently after the birth of their first child Emma (Finch, p. 61). At the time of the bonfire incident, Maggie was eight month pregnant, Beattie didn't want her to see him, rumours afoot that she had thrown a chip pan full of hot oil over him (Finch, p. 82). Got homesick during their time in Norway, eventually returning to run a pub in Suffolk (Finch, p. 139). Maggie was a florist by trade (Finch, p. 142). Soon after Beattie's pancreatitis hospitalisation, Maggie herself became ill and developed diabetes (Finch, p. 147). He and Maggie started working as "general help" at a Portman Road hotel, which turned out to be more of a brothel; he wouldn't tolerate her working there so they quit (Finch, p. 149). During mid-1980s, Maggie was diagnosed with MS and eventually confined to a wheelchair (Finch, p. 151). Three daughters are Emma, Sarah & Louise (Finch, p. 151). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller I added some stuff here, including some tributes too and a call for a memorial at Portaloo, along with the existing Robson and Ramsey statues. See what your copyedit makes of it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral/memorial

Details on his funeral. There is some momentum behind him getting some kind of a memorial at Portman Road too, so that's worth keeping an eye on too. Nothing should stop it being progressed to FAC, as it's all just simple facts and work in hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote suggestion

Mick Mills also playing every goal in the season should be a footnote. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "every game". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the Mills and Brian Talbot bit. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter should stay (indicative of the quality of Ipswich as a whole), the former should probably be deleted, not relevant at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on both. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Informing the reader that one other person did it helps them understand it's not the norm. If they don't follow football, they may not realise just how unusual it is, especially for outfield players. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what, you still want the first as a footnote? COME ON MAN, WORK WITH ME HERE. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work with you! Don't be silly. Don't you know that you're impossible to reason with, uncollegiate, rude and erm, I've forgotten. Heck, I don't mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken legs

Why did the Stoke crowd get angry with Beattie when Hunter was the villain on that occasion? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was because the first broken leg pretty much scuppered Stoke's season. This was the icing on the cake. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess from your answer that there's no pithy and easily reffed explanation we can add to the article. In which case, let's leave it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the book later. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't really say much beyond the whole team pretty much scarpered at the final whistle to avoid a right kicking. Which carried on outside the stadium. The online source was where I got Robson's quote about him having to take on 28,000 spectators... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pre-FAC sanity check

Dweller it looks okay to me, the only sticking point for me is "Beattie found himself unemployed. " starting that post-football section. It grates. Maybe this needs a little expanding based on a couple of the notes I made on Maggie above (e.g. running the hotel), but it needs splicing appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look. I'd like to go through the sources I pasted above and check we've got everything before thinking about FAC. A third party c-e undoing all my fine work would probably also be a good idea, but not yet. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich training

"The offer was soon withdrawn following Ipswich's reluctance to release Beattie to their local rivals" - if he'd retired, how could Ipswich prevent him? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was still on their books. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Footballers Wives"

1) No apostrophe? 2) "soon after" is vague - is that what the source says?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add an apostrophe, Beattie's book is full of errors of that nature. Secondly, I have definitive date for his wedding, just the year, and while I do have a definitive date for the footballers' wives thing, it clearly had to happen after she became a wife, and so it was soon after, it being definitely in the same year. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral today

Dweller, it's the Beat's funeral today, and with what happened at Portman Road yesterday, a dark day for everyone involved with the club. After this, is there anything you can think that is preventing us from FAC? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite finished the c-e and I've not yet reviewed the sources I posted above. But really close. I guess some info about the funeral would be good. I feel like I ought to console you for your loss. Not sure about the managerial thing. Might be a good thing, might be bad. I've heard Lambert is coming - he was outstanding with us, but the word among the fans is that like Walker/Deehan, when the Lambert/Culverhouse partnership broke up, neither of them were quite the same. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No mention in the article of the book, it's just in the bibliog. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both books named now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of material lifted from Kevin's autobigraphy. Just wondering what permission you have to use this?

Not at all, in fact his autobiography is only mentioned, by title, in passing. Thanks for your concern though! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some points...

Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These look really helpful. I'll get stuck into them when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed a bunch of them. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth Cheers, I think between Robby.is.on (thanks) and me, we've covered them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, do you think we're ready for WP:FAC? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 01:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to judge whether its comprehensive or if true to the sources. And I'm certainly not a good judge of prose polishing.. its likely close but don't make bets on me being correct either. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I suggest Dweller we just do it, per you dab link on my page...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not polished prose. I have no idea what that means!?!?? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boro/Colchester stats

Hi, I noticed you removed the stats for his spells with Boro and Colchester citing conflicting sources. I was just wondering what the sources were as all of the ones I would typically use, and are believed reliable, would have supported the four league matches for each. Kosack (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox stats are league games only. Beattie played 4 league matches for Middlesbrough and Beattie played 5 matches for Middlesbrough are both correct, because he played in the FA Cup as well for them. I'm not so sure about 6 games for Colchester. In Rothmans Football Yearbook 1983-84 there are seven: 4 League, 1 League Cup (6 October vs. Southampton) and 2 1982-83 Football League Trophy 17 August Watford, 21 August Orient. Cattivi (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know they're league only, the sources I would normally use all support the four matches that were removed citing conflicting sources. So I was just offering to help source them. Kosack (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time at Harwich

Came across this article from the Harwich chairman, perhaps it could be of some use? APM (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figures in infobox

The infobox says that he made 228 appearances and scored 24 goals at Ipswich, and 234 appearances and 24 goals in his entire career. That's just nine appearances for eight different clubs after Ipswich! In the article it says he made six appearances for Colchester, five for Middlesbrough, and five for Nybergsund IL-Trysil, and scored over 60 goals for Kongsberg IF (presumably not in a single game). The total figure in the infobox needs to be either updated or removed. 2001:BB6:4708:9258:1195:1A39:A412:1368 (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you removed the figures, so nothing more to discuss I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes and redirects

I am genuinely perplexed. There are two sensible guidelines, WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN, which explain why redirects are preferable to pipes. I have made an effort to explain how all of that applies to this article. I am asked not to "deliberately introduce redirects" but there is no explanation as to why. What am I missing here? Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to removing the F.C. links from club names, this is standard practice across hundreds of thousands of association football articles and is the generally accepted practice. Heeding the advice of WP:NOTBROKEN may be relevant to yourself, "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental". If editing simply to avoid redirects is discouraged as time-wasting, then actually editing to introduce redirects is even more unnecessary. Kosack (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The standard practice is to include "F.C." in the titles of articles. If it is appropriate for this article to say "Ipswich Town" instead of "Ipswich Town F.C.", then it is surely appropriate for the article to link to Ipswich Town too. The pipe [[Ipswich Town F.C.|Ipswich Town]] does nothing but make the wikitext more difficult to read and prevents us from using all the redirect features listed at WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The piping is used in this way because not all team names are suitable for such linking, for example Beattie also played for Middlesbrough F.C.. The current format is used to provide consistency throughout thousands of articles, I'd suggest reading the WP:Football manual of style on football articles which uses this exact format. Kosack (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piping exists for cases such as [[Middlesbrough F.C.|Middlesbrough]] but it is extraneous and unhelpful in cases such as [[Ipswich Town F.C.|Ipswich Town]] for reasons already explained. WP:Football manual of style does not address this. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you could class the links as unhelpful? Even the actual wikitext of one of the piped links is hardly difficult to understand. The WP:Football MoS clearly includes the use of the piping methods in their current format. If you have an issue with the current usage then I would advise you look to open an RfC at WP:Football and suggest a projectwide overhaul, rather than changing one article of thousands. I have no real issue if that becomes the norm but, right now, putting an article out of sync with every other related article within the topic is pointless and can easily lead to confusion. Kosack (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the pipes were not added after the event, so NOTBROKEN is not useful here. You claim it makes editing the article more difficult, but all I've seen from your edits is the introduction of dozens of redirects, and nothing more. The main editors who worked it to featured status have had no trouble with this, so it appears to me that deliberately editing the article to introduce redirects is disruptive and unhelpful to those who maintain the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBROKEN is useful here because it lists all the reasons why redirects are helpful and why pipes are not. Pipes are unhelpful because extraneous invisible text is unhelpful. There is nothing wrong with the introduction of dozens of redirects because redirects serve several purposes; among other things, they indicate possible future articles (e.g. centre-half, football commentator and off-season are possible future article) and help editors use the "what links here" tool. You still have not addressed any of this, which makes me wonder if I have ever stepped on your foot somehow. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, no-one but you personally has complained about how easy/difficult it is to edit the article (we had numerous editors work on it for FAC). And the pipes weren't introduced in specific edits, they were included at the time the original prose was constructed. Your sole contribution to the article has been to deliberately introduce numerous redirects and I wonder how useful that actually is to our readers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not no-one but me. WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE are guidelines based on community consensus, designed to help editors in making large-scale changes to links, to provide information in move and deletion discussions, to indicate independent notability of subtopics, and to link to new articles. Yes, I deliberately introduced numerous redirects because they are useful - whereas extraneous piping is not. This makes no difference to the readers but it is a big service to editors of this article and, perhaps much more so, to editors of other articles. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed makes a difference to our readers who keep seeing "redirected from" at the top of the page. And where are all the editors complaining about the markup disrupting their ability to edit the article? Deliberately introducing redirects is disruptive. If redirects are created during the normal course of events, that's fine, but otherwise, it's just pointed editing which benefits precisely no-one, and there's no evidence to support any other position. You've been asked to stop the disruptive edit warring, you're the only person who considers it an issue at this article, there are millions of other articles which need to be improved (although deliberately inserting redirects doesn't appear to be of any profit to our readers whatsoever, quite the contrary). I have better things to do than argue over this now, so cheers, bye. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing "redirected from" is no inconvenience at all. Redirects are a major feature of Wikipedia and nobody has ever considered them nuisance. If you do, you may wish to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Introducing redirects is not disruptive because redirects serve many purposes, as I have explained over and over again. You have not made any attempt to counter any of my arguments here. You oppose my introduction of redirects because... I am doing that? And only because of that? That's entirely unreasonable. If this cannot go forward like this, I am more than happy to start an RfC because I truly am bewildered by this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with linking to redirects. In reverting Surtsicna's edits, the article was returned to a version where centre-half was piped to Defender (association football) in one place and Association football positions#Centre-back. There is no good reason to have the same term piped to two different articles. If the redirect is linked, the term will go to the same article. If an article is ever written for "centre-half", the links will point to the new article. If the section header <no wiki>#Centre-back</no wiki> is ever changed, it will be far easier to fix any links made through a redirect than links made by piping.

There are other redirects in this article; England national under-23 football team was what Beattie played for, and articles could be written for teams prior to 1977. In the MOS for players, the redirect Striker (association football) is linked.

Avoiding redirects by piping is HARMFUL when the redirect is a subtopic that could be an article. It is not helpful to make Wikipedia links less precise. "Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental"; the reverse is not true. Ipswich Town/Ipswich Town F. C. is a different matter, but blanket reversion of precise links to subtopics via redirects is not an improvement to Wikipedia.Plantdrew (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way detrimental to our readers. I would suggest this deliberate disruption should now stop. There are, after all, millions of articles which need improvement, this is a featured article, the linking and piping was reviewed at FAC and a consensus is in favour of its current version. Take the "HARMFUL" hysteria elsewhere. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is detrimental to editors. It is of no consequence to the readers. What is disruptive here is the reversion of well-explained edits that benefit editors of this and other articles for no apparent reason whatsoever. Consensus is based on arguments, and yours so far revolve solely around the notion that there are other articles to edit. You have even reverted a correction of punctuation. That is plain bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any chance that the arguments presented by Plantdrew and me will be addressed? Specifically, why cannot edits that help other editors in all the ways already described be left to stand? Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the deliberate introduction of redirects is not helpful to our readers. And not one single editor who has actively worked on getting this to the highest standard possible for Wikipedia has ever raised a single complaint it ever, anywhere. So no, there's absolutely no need to introduce the deliberate redirects. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deliberate introduction of redirects is of no consequence to the readers. If introducing redirects were unhelpful to readers, then there would be no guideline stating that redirects are preferable to pipes. On the other hand, using redirects instead of pipes is tremendously helpful to other editors, perhaps most to editors of other articles, for all the reasons already stated. I congratulate you on getting this article to FA status, but no article is ever finished or "perfect". I have made a big effort to explain how this small change benefits Wikipedia, and have not read a single explanation as to how it supposedly impaired the article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the deliberate introduction is (a) a spiritual violation of NOTBROKEN, you're fixing something that isn't broken (b) not helpful to our readers, who don't need the "redirected from" message at the top of the screen and (c) of no consequence to any single editor updating this article. You have provided precisely zero evidence to support the fact that the current piping is of confusion or obfuscating to our editors. Indeed, a mixture of non-piped and piped links will actually lead to further confusion, so I suggest that there's no consensus in favour of deliberately introducing redirects. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broken because, as WP:Redirect says, a) "invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form", b) "non-piped links make better use of the 'what links here' tool", c) "shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed" (and you did just that when reverting to [[Association football positions#Centre-back|centre-half]] and [[Season (sports)#Off-season|off-season]]), d) using pipes instead of redirects "may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the 'best' article title". If the "redirected from" message were any inconvenience to readers, Wikipedia would not even have the redirect feature, let alone encourage its use over pipes. WP:Redirect is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", so I would suggest that there is a community-wide consensus to use these redirects instead of the pipes. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, no consensus here for that, and WP:IAR is policy, so I think we'll stick to serving our readers rather than these imaginary users who can't wade through all this markup. Even Dweller managed to edit the article successfully multiple times for heaven's sake!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR refers to rules that prevent editors from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The changes Plantdrew and I made did not impair the article or prevent anyone from improving or maintaining it; on the contrary. I have seen no effort to refute any of my points nor to explain why this article should be an exception to WP:Redirect. That's rather disappointing. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given plenty of information in the various responses. It's rather disappointing that you're continuing to insist on applying some arbitrary edits which clearly don't improve things for those who need it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone looking for the link to WP:LAME? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: I think this debate has unearthed a huge conflict between pages WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:AINTBROKE. Something must be done, lives are at stake!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed lame that an editor is not allowed to make minor changes that help other editors, according to numerous guidelines (WP:Redirect, WP:Piped_link, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking), for no apparent reason other than a major contributor feeling that the article is perfect. It is lame that even basic orthography corrections get reverted without any explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, lame is deliberately introducing redirects in certain circumstances. Most unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What circumstances are you talking about? Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those have already been described by Kosack. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a total outsider, I find Kosack's first comemnt in this section extremely persuasive. Can we all get on now please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the article has centre-half piped to two different places (and the link to Defender_(association_football) would be better as Defender_(association_football)#Centre-back). Two edits by Surtsicna that had nothing to do with pipes were reverted. Please review all edits before reverting. It is not appropriate to revert edits just because they were made by editor you are having a disagreement with when some of their edits have nothing to do with the point of contention.

I don't believe that the FA reviewers actually signed off on having centre-half linked to two different articles. It was something that was overlooked (it appears what happened is that JennyOz pointed out that the infobox had Beattie listed as a central defender, and Dweller changed it to centre-half with a piped link, not realizing that centre-half used a different piped link in the body of the article). FAs are supposed to follow the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Redirects supports linking to redirects rather than piping. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piped_links_and_redirects_to_sections_of_articles especially supports linking to redirects rather than piped links to sections of articles. The piped links to subtopics were overlooked by FA reviewers, not explicitly approved by them.

Of 9 Featured Article on football players that give positions that don't have independent articles, 5 link to redirects and 4 use piped links to bypass redirects.

NOTBROKEN is not a two-way street. Redirect links are prefered in most cases, and shouldn't usually be replaced by piped links.

This seems to be a broader issue with football editors having an attitude towards redirect links that is out of step with the rest of Wikipedia. I spent way too much time reading through WP:FOOTBALL talk page archives yesterday (this is the first football related article I'm aware of having edited). Linking to British football clubs in the style of [[Ipswich Town F.C.|Ipswich Town]] has consensus among football editors (although this is not documented anywhere outside of talk page archives). As I understand it, this because British football clubs are commonly referred to without the F.C., but are frequently ambiguous with another topic (e.g. a city). F.C. is used in titles for consistent disambiguation, but is not displayed in text reflecting common usage. OK, that's fine. However, German football clubs are frequently referred to with initials such as VfB (WP:KARLSRUHER), so should not take piped links that omit the initials. Some football editors have taken what is a sensible practice for linking British football clubs to mean that all links to redirects should be avoided. That is not in line with broader practice on Wikipedia.

There is a thread in WPLFOOTBALL archives where an editor asks where a potential link to "asdet" should be piped to. It shouldn't be piped anywhere. There should be a redirect for asdet so the next editor who wants to link it doesn't have to figure out all over again where it should go. In this thread from 2 days ago, an editor is questioning the use of piped links to not display F.C. for American football clubs. Does this practice really have consensus for non-British clubs (it certainly doesn't for German ones)? In this thread from 2 weeks ago, an editor notices that linking practice for British clubs means that players such as Willis Rippon are linked to a club that didn't exist at the time they played for it, and the club they played for isn't mentioned anywhere in the linked article. How does that help readers?

There is nothing wrong with linking to redirects. In some cases there is nothing wrong with using pipes to bypass a redirect. Pipes should not be used to bypass a redirect that is a subtopic of the article it targets. Pipes should not be used to bypass a redirect that is a historical name of an entity. Plantdrew (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "replaced" redirects with pipes, the pipes were created at the time the majority of the article was constructed. I should know. None of this is evidently of benefit to our readers, and no-one outside this micro-discussion has suggested it's an issue for editors. Indeed, when it was on the main page securing in excess of 50k pageviews, I didn't see a single reader or editor complain about their lack of ability to update the article. That sadly appears to be somewhat without foundation. Anyway, as Dweller says, we're now WAY beyond LAME territory, and like everyone else interested in just maintaining the status quo here which has provided a great article for thousands of readers and editors alike, I'm done with the debate here. Trying to enforce the deliberate introduction of redirects where they never existed is disruptive, is a complete waste of editors' time and is of no benefit to the readers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!)

Cigarette Smoking Query

I'm not sure that the following sentence is strictly correct: "Beattie accepted a lit cigarette from a fan and smoked it whilst collecting his FA Cup winner's medal in 1978". Having just watched footage on YouTube he certainly wasn't smoking a cigarette whilst actually collecting his medal though it's possible that he had one in his hand whilst walking up and may have dropped it before receiving his medal. Nevertheless, I think the sentence is at the very least a bit misleading.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Beattie&oldid=986714730"