Wikipedia

Talk:2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page


Article comparison.

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking at Arsenal's and Man U's season pages. I thought Arsenal's looked messy, but I like the way in Man U's how after each written section it holds the statistics for that section. I was wondering if we should apply the same format here or not. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Arsenal's looks really poor at the minute, I'm just waiting for august to end to fully update the recap sections, transfer window, august summary etc, I think stats at the end of the month could be a really good thing if not too much trouble,

Maybe a small table, like:

Month Games Won Drew Lost Scored Conceded Points Other
August 5 5 0 0 20 4 15 Advanced to League Cup Third Round

and a cut-off of the league table at the time at the end of the month recaps would be pretty decent Prem4eva (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

that sounds like a cool idea, and the cut off of the table should just show three teams, Spurs between what ever teams, or top of the league with two teams below. :P Govvy (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dos Santos

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems to be missing from the injurey list. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

NPOV

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Examples

edit
  • "Tottenham continued their encouraging start to the pre-season..."
  • "Goalkeeper Rob Green pulled off a string of wonderful saves..."

- Dudesleeper / Talk 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit
You have examples down, this doesn't help, point out the direct problems you see in the article please, as for neutrality; Although there is repeat information of media sources. To explanations by many, many who read these articles normally already know the sport. It can be implied in sport which is a contest that a biast nature will happen to what ever team you support and there for, POV becomes less able to apply true neutrality. Govvy (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
As someone who's managed to write impartially on Blackpool F.C. articles, it makes me cringe to read these "fan" articles. Other editors manage to write without bias, so why do Spurs articles have to be different? - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it has something to do with being a Tangerine rather than a Cockerel? Oh dear there goes my Christmas card from my brother in Fleetwood.Tmol42 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Can anyone in Fleetwood afford a Christmas card? - Dudesleeper talk 15:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
From the Manchester United F.C. season 2009–10 page..."As the Reds – wearing their all-black change strip – searched for an equaliser, the final ball kept evading them and several promising moves came to nothing, leaving United to endure a defeat.", surely with your examples that constitutes POV...but alas it isn't a spurs article!, I don't know if you have a vendetta against Tottenham but this is getting stupid, either put POV tags on all of these articles or provide proper examples and an explanation of why an extra adjective in a sentence suddenly turns a whole article upside down Prem4eva (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Have a look at the bottom of the first history page of the above article. - Dudesleeper talk 15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll make it easy for you. - Dudesleeper talk 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
So? that example I just showed is there at the moment but are you hurrying away to add a tag? no-one has every been against removing POV on this page or the main tottenham page, but you have just made a throwaway comment in a section near 2 years old and added all these tags, and there has been absolutely no explanation from you apart snide little comments, again, either put a POV tag on the others or give a proper explanation to follow for the full article and to apply to all the other articles.
How does the age of a section on a talk page matter? The section was about neutrality, so I refreshed it. The NPOV tag is there to draw the attention of other editors. I don't think the Manchester United articles need tags, because PeeJay is objective and will likely bring them into line. I can't say the same for the editors of Tottenham's articles. - Dudesleeper talk 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I really am tired of this and this whole issue of POV, I've made some big edits to the main Tottenham page over the last few days, so the POV (or the vast majority of it) is gone from the article now. As shown by the, I believe, good 2008-09 article, Tottenham does have some good editors but the way this issue has been handled in this instance hasn't been great by anyone. I will look at the 2009-10 page when I can look properly and carefully, but this is it from me on this discussion. Prem4eva (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

November update

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi All, I noticed that an IP has added a summary for November overnight (GMT wise) unfortunately for them they had not realised that it is not visable due to a residual bit of 'nowiki' formatting. I had a look though via the diff and although it would be easy to dismiss it for its excessive hyperbole and POV (a sensitive point at the moment I know!) it was otherwise conscientiously done and I left it there without editing and draw attention to it as it does at least provide the skeleton for the month's summary rather than start from scratch, hope you agree! Tmol42 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It does provide a useful summary of the basic events but pretty much every sentence would have to be rewritten to remove the hyperbole and references added, so I'm not sure how useful it really is. If someone wants to improve it rather than rewriting from scratch, that's their choice though so I'm happy for it to stay as hidden text for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll give it a look a bit later, as you say it will be easier than re-writing from scratch so it should all work out Prem4eva (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

statistics table, player numbers

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why does it say N/A ? I don't understand that, because they have numbers and they are registered for a whole season! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I changed it because new players (most notably Eidur Gudjohnsen) took over the squad number from another player, so instead of having two 17's etc, I just put N/A for all players that are now currently at the club, I will add a small note to the bottom to clear it up but I thought it would be less confusing for people than to see two players immediately next to each other with the same squad number. Prem4eva (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Citations

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a little concern that you're using to much sourcing from the Tottenham website and not enough from news sources such as News papers, BBC and television citation websites. Govvy (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The majority of the cites are to do with transfers and I think the official site is reliable for that, when the 2009-10 season summary part gets cited (probably when the season ends), it will be bbc/espn or other non-official site source, cheers Prem4eva (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

POV

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've looked through all of the season section and removed what I thought could have been construed as POV, descriptions such as "stunning" or "wonder goal" still remain in places because in certain cases it is the only fitting description, if there is believed to be any more, please list it here and it will be discussed/removed, cheers Prem4eva (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added the "peacock" tag as there are too many instances in the article of a wonder goal, stunning volley, stunning effort, fantastic goalkeeping, etc. C679 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
K, shall have to go through it again and take out the ones I see. Govvy (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done replaced the two links with an active link from the BBC. Govvy (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

DASHBot?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed in the citations there are notes from DASHBot, whats that about? Govvy (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on 2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. 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) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._season&oldid=1196558884"