Talk:MyFootballClub
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article on MyFootballClub is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Similar Projects
The French project has existed for some time and should probably rank higher in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davoloid (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with you, except that of the 3 projects listed, Web F.C. is the one least like MyFC as is described in the article. Thus, I think it is probably best for it to be listed last in Similar Projects even though it predates MyFC for that reason. Additionally, although I don't speak French, it is my understanding that Web F.C. may not currently allow members to vote on team selection, etc. So before it is made more prominent, I'd want to get that sussed out. Friejose 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B-Class
I have upgraded the ranking of this article to B-Class, as I believe it meets the relevant criteria set forth by the WikiProject Football. Namely, a casual reader would have an understanding of MyFootballClub from reading this article, the article has numerous references for its factual claims, several subheadings treat different elements of the topic, and the language used throughout the article is clear and concise. -- Friejose (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Encyclopaedic tone
Friejose reverted to:
- MyFootballClub members hail from over 70 countries around the world, and many people not usually associated with English football have signed up. Some fans from countries outside of the United Kingdom have taken the opportunity allowed by MyFC to learn more about association football. According to one American MyFC member who joined with his family, "we plan on doing our homework and boning up on the league and the players." One of the regions ...
over my preference for a simpler, less journalistic:
- MyFootballClub members come from over 70 countries. One of the regions ...
He/she invited me to defend my preference here.
So, I would ask, what additional verifiable information is to be gleaned from the text I would delete? That many (how many?) people not usually associated (what level of association do they not normally have? Not owning a club? Not supporting a club? Not keeping an eye out for the results of a club?) with English football have "signed up" (not a very formal, or informative, term). That some fans (how many?) from countries outside of the United Kingdom (which countries?) have taken the opportunity allowed by MyFC to learn more about association football (MyFC is not an educational project: why are they described as fans if they do not know about the sport?). And what is encyclopaedic about a quotation from one anonymous subscriber among several thousand, whose resolution to do as he/she is quoted is unverifiable?
This is an encyclopaedia, and much that might be worth saying in journalistic writing is not appropriate here. If anyone really wishes to argue for the value of the text that I have deleted, let them: otherwise I will repeat my deletions in a few days time. Kevin McE (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- First off, thanks to Kevin McE for taking the time to defend his edits and to have this conversation. I figured that such a discussion was more helpful than a reversion battle.
- That said, I am disappointed with Kevin's limited vision for what should appear in a Wikipedia article. Kevin's edits are part of a worrisome trend on Wikipedia to strip out any language that is not dull, to remove any reference that is not boilerplate, to castigate any phrase that is felicitious. This dispiriting demand for the dull in Wikipedia conflates blandness with utility. Kevin, I fear, has fallen into the trap of believing that the only good encyclopedic entry is one that contains only declarative sentences and omits interesting details.
- The passage that Kevin deleted was grammatically correct, properly sourced, and directly related to the topic at hand. Further, the quotation involved provides a vivid image for the Wikireader to understand the appeal of MyFootballClub to people around the world, even to those who may not otherwise have much interest in football. The previously deleted information makes plain the why, which should be integral part of any Wikipedia article, instead of being satisfied merely with the what. Specific examples inform the reader in tandem with broader generalities. We should not be satisfied with bland generalities that only tell half the story. For this reason, the passage deleted by Kevin should stay in the article.
- If Kevin can point to a Wikipedia style guideline that he believe has been violated, I would be most interested to see that. Otherwise, he should refrain from reverting this article as his attack on so-called "journalistic writing" is misplaced and inaccurate. The writing is not journalistic, but it is encyclopedic in the best sense, the sense that allows the reader to more fully understand the topic discussed. --Friejose (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I did not pass comment on the grammar or sourcing of the text in question, and I am unsure why that has been raised. Quoting one person can only authoritatively describe one person's interest in the project, or perhaps that person's desire for how their interest will be interpreted. It has no wider relevance, and there is no apparent reason to take this subscriber as typical. An encyclopaedia can only try to explain "why" when that answer is clear and unequivocal, or at least should admit the failings of its answer where that is knowingly incomplete. As regards the style guideline, I would refer you to WP:MOSBETTER, especially sections 2 and 4. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- No counter argument in 2 weeks, so reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though let us not forget that Friejose has done a brilliant job with his edits to this article, alongside many others. The section in question is rather dull and disjointed now though - isn't there a happy medium to be found somewhere, where encyclopaedic fact on the subject can meet the passion and enthusiasm for the project? sparkl!sm hey! 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I appreicate the kind words Sparklism, and I have stayed away from Wikiediting for a few weeks because this was exactly the sort of petty, pedantic dispute that drove me to a two-year Wikihiatus. I was upset that these edits, which were made in the guise of being encyclopedia, actually made this article unnecessarily dull and lifeless. I don't think that was the intent, but it certainly was the result. I will not revert this in deference to the reversion rules, but I encourage other editors to liven the now drab section. --Friejose (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though let us not forget that Friejose has done a brilliant job with his edits to this article, alongside many others. The section in question is rather dull and disjointed now though - isn't there a happy medium to be found somewhere, where encyclopaedic fact on the subject can meet the passion and enthusiasm for the project? sparkl!sm hey! 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No counter argument in 2 weeks, so reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not pass comment on the grammar or sourcing of the text in question, and I am unsure why that has been raised. Quoting one person can only authoritatively describe one person's interest in the project, or perhaps that person's desire for how their interest will be interpreted. It has no wider relevance, and there is no apparent reason to take this subscriber as typical. An encyclopaedia can only try to explain "why" when that answer is clear and unequivocal, or at least should admit the failings of its answer where that is knowingly incomplete. As regards the style guideline, I would refer you to WP:MOSBETTER, especially sections 2 and 4. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
