Talk:Diego Alves

File:Diego Alves Carreira.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Diego Alves Carreira.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Known as"

I see an ongoing edit war of sorts for some time, regarding how the player is "known as". Some users advocate on their edit summaries he is known as Diego Alves, while others insist (somewhat aggressively) on Alves only. Shouldn't this be discussed as to settle the matter?
I have reason to believe "Diego Alves" is the correct denomination. It is what Valencia's official website calls him on its player list (note that other players are listed only with their surnames, whereas Diego and some others with two names, so clearly that was a deliberate option). Also, googling news related to Alves portero (Alves goalkeeper in Spanish) yields many results which don't relate to the player at all, while when one googles news about Diego Alves portero the results clearly are related the player and show the media refers to him as Diego Alves, just as Valencia officially does. The sources already in the article show Diego Alves as the most common denomination.Felipe Bini (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think two names should be used only in the case of Spanish/Portuguese/Brazilian footballers and not in this fashion ("Juan Pablo/Juan Pedro" or "João Paulo/João Pedro", both first names). Why the use of "Diego Alves" when there is only one Alves in the Valencia team? There is this custom of naming several players by two names, I live in Portugal and here it is horrible, even mixing names with nicknames (for example Pedro Pauleta)!
I rest my case (especially after being called aggressive, I know it was directed at me), sorry for any inconvenience. Intro stays like it is presently. But one favour, if I can ask you: can the intro say only "known as Diego Alves" at least? Just to be less of a confusion? And especially since "simply" is used to refer to when a player is known by his FIRST name, not his surname which is what "Alves" is?
Thank you, happy 2016 --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 84.90.219.128, thanks for the reply! The fact I am trying to argue is that this is not a matter of us editors "choosing" a name by which the player is known as, by settling on a naming convention or something like that. My point is that the player is already known in the footballing world in one way, and that way according to most sources is Diego Alves, so that information should be the one conveyed to the readers. The fact that he is the only Alves in the Valencia team hasn't stopped the team itself from referring to him as Diego Alves in their official roster page, for example, which further shows how he is truly "known as". This is the case of someone with more than three names being known by two of them, contrary to custom in its home country where many players are only known by their first names or nicknames. Examples which I think are more akin to this one than Pauleta's and could be cited: Lucas Lima, Gilberto Silva, Douglas Costa, Douglas Santos, Lucas Moura.
In any case, only a few news sources refer to the player solely as Alves, whereas the majority of them refer to him as Diego Alves (as the Google link above shows), in Portuguese, Spanish and English. That, I think, should be enough to settle how he is "known as".
I too think the intro would be better only with "known as Diego Alves", I added that trying to avoid the edit war, but agree that it's not the best choice in this. When I mentioned the aggressiveness, it's what was in the edit summaries by you and other users, and precisely why I thought best to discuss it here, no worries about that. I removed the bullet in your comment and added indention to better viewing, hope you don't mind. Cheers, and happy 2016! Felipe Bini (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)