Talk:European Super League (association football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Europe (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

This article merits deletion, no sources what so ever, pure fantasy and not at all encyclopedia-tic. British Baron (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE[edit]

I am inclined to agree with British Baron. This seems to go against WP:FUTURE (part of what Wikipedia is not). In particular:

  • Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
  • Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.

The Super League is not decided; speculations are unlikely to be reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason this article can't talk about the (past) history of super league proposals. There is quite a lot of reliable source coverage on the topic: see [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Just about all of the links that are actually about the football superleague proposal are not concrete plans in any way - just various people speculating about it. Can you post some actual sources that you would use that could be used for an article that wouldn't violate WP:FUTURE?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Weapons to be used in World War III is of interest to a lot of people, yet policy explicity excludes it. Can you post some actual links you would use?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The current proposal was made about 2 months ago and the news stories date all the way back to 1990 so I somehow doubt they are all speculation about the proposal.
The article should start something like: "The European Super League is an often proposed "super league" that would match up Europe's best football teams. The first such proposal was ... Later, it the idea was proposed by ... Most recently the league was proposed by Florentino Perez ..." Hopefully that give you a better idea of what I am saying the article can be made into.
There is no reason a notable proposal can't be covered on Wikipedia - FUTURE says future events are usually not notable, not that they can't ever be covered. In this case, the proposal is obviously of great interest to many people as it has been covered by reliable sources extensively. As long as the article makes it clear that the league doesn't actually exist (yet), there is nothing wrong with having an article on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect/rename[edit]

There is already a European Super League in place. It has footy teams from Wales, England and France. Think this is a cut and dry case. Lando09 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There IS already a European Super League, per Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research to name but a few of the things that you would have to stick to on this community. I pretty sure that the rules are that you can't add something that could possibly happen over something that already exist, namely the premier first grade rugby league conpetition in the northern hemisphere. Lando09 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading through that material it is all very pie in the sky stuff. Here on wikipedia I think you have to go with what already exists, namely the European Super League with Catalans Dragons, Celtic Crusaders, Bradford Bulls, Harlequins RL, Salford City Reds, Hull Kingston Rovers, Hull FC, Wigan Warriors, St Helens, Warrintgon Wolves, Wakefield Wildcats, Huddersfield Giants, Castleford Tigers and the Leeds Rhinos. Lando09 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You are very much mistaken. The existence of one league established league with a similar name most certainly doesn't preclude an article about a proposed league in a different sport. Even if the name was identical, they could both have pages. Furthermore, articles about future projects and even failed projects are very much allowed on Wikipedia. Our inclusion requirements require two reliable sources that write about the subject - nothing more. As such your argument holds no weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved, per your suggestion. Lando09 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I most certainly didn't suggest such a move & have undone it. The correct question here is "what is the primary usage of the term 'European Super League'?" To answer that, take a look at [2] and note that the vast majority of these news articles are talking about the same concept as the article, and not an alias of Super League. If you still disagree, please take this to WP:Requested Moves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, strangely redirected. "Soccer" and rugby league are not the same game.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the page be moved to European Super League (Football), with European Super League as a disambiguation? It does seem a bit odd that something that is not even in existence actually takes precedence over something that does exist. It might also reduce opposition to the page existing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
yes, that works for me. Lando09 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The otehr league is not normally referred to as "European Super League" and a hat note already serves the same purpose. The rugby league is normally known as "Super League", "Engage Super League", or rarely "Super League of Europe." None-the-less, I wouldn't object to a dab page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Done.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

May want a disambiguation thingy at the top as the Australians call the premier rugby league competition in the Northern Hemisphere the European Super League, and there national sport is rugby league, which they call football. Lando09 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it myself but I don't know how. Lando09 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No one would arrive at this page directly and not know what they were looking at - that is the whole point of sending European Super League to European Super League (disambiguation). There is no need for hat notes are already disambiguated pages.
See also Super League (disambiguation) for various other "super leagues" that aren't European in nature. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah makes sense, much obliged. Lando09 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How do we address the unexplained issues in the tag, or how do we get rid of the tag?[edit]

This article has not technically been vandalized, but to me it feels that way, because it is fronted by a great big notice that in effect tells the reader 'This article is rubbish', a notice placed there by a user (hereinafter called the tagging editor) who makes no attempt to tell us in Talk what his objections actually mean, such as:

  • what bits may be confusing or unclear to readers (the only thing in this article that is confusing and unclear to at least one reader (me) is this disfiguring tag)
  • what additional context is needed,
  • why an 'expert' is needed, whether such an 'expert' could be NPOV on this issue, and how such an 'expert' can be found
  • how it fails notability guidelines (another editor, ThaddeusB, removed that request months ago with the explanation "notability established by 2+ reliable sources w/substantial coverage being present", but the tagging editor has simply restored it with no explanation)
  • what is being given undue weight
  • what significant viewpoints are being omitted.

The tagging editor had previously added a different shopping list of similar unexplained complaints in his tag, forcing other editors to spend time examining them and removing those that seemed demonstrably wrong (none are clearly right, partly because of the lack of explanation), only to find at least one of them restored without explanation..

My own instinct would be to remove the tags as unwarranted defacing of the article, using WP:IAR as justification if necessary, at least until such time as the tagging editor offers adequate explanations of his complaints in Talk. But I fear that would simply start a dsitressing and probably pointless BRD dispute where the odds usually tend to be stacked in favour of defenders of the status quo, or those who are most determined to win (meaning somebody with rather more stomach for this particular dispute than I currently have). Actually it might not involve such a dispute in the sense that the lack of explanations on this Talk page may indicate that the tagging editor has little stomach for a fight either, but I currently have so little stomach for a fight that I don't want to take that chance - I don't even want to fix the article except by removing this tag (partly because I don't see much else wrong with the article, partly becaause I'm not all that interested), let alone risk getting involved in a dispute.

Does anybody have any better ideas for fixing the problem (or alternatively more stomach for this particular dispute than I currently have)? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible merge[edit]

As far as proposed European football leagues go, I'm wondering if this page covers the same ground as Atlantic League (football), and whether it should be merged to that location (A. League seems better established as the working title of the proposed league by sources of these two pages but I could be wrong). It seems to me that it does and it should, but I'll check back. Musicandnintendo (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In the mind of European Champion Clubs' Cup fathers, was not a European Cup but a European Super League. Due to the lack of proper transports and high economic costs, the project was changed to the ECC Cup. I will improve the article with this information, once I get the book back (Noites Europeias - Uma História das Competições Europeias de Clubes (1897-2013) [European Nights - A Story about European Club Competitions (1897-2013)], ISBN 9789892041162).Rpo.castro (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)