Talk:Golden Team/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aranycsapat

In fact, "Aranycsapat" should not be written in separate words. --Biziclop 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Greates finest ever among all, starting new era ...

I have no idea where this text comes from and frankly do not care about the article but Wikipedia should stick with some standards and not sounds as propaganda to excite fans and attract more advertisement. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pavel Vozenilek, this article is kept to the highest standards according to football pundits and experts who have due diligence in research and "who actually" have homework on national teams from the past.

Well, I'd consider the team (being one of the more famous national teams) deserves the page. I just wonder about the length of the article (maybe a tad long for what should fit into an encyclopedia). Gian Giorgis 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Horribly Written

I agree with Pavel. Maybe the writers are knowledgeable but it is horribly written:

" It is credited with directly leading to a kind of a future tense football that opened a new chapter for tactical calculus and positional roles in the game that would render understood contemporary concepts a game of other times; sculpting a precusor to the "Total Football" genre that later the Netherlands football scene cottoned to, and its adoption and definite perfection by succeeding Brazilian teams."

Long sentences in a very inelegant and wordy style. It's almost impossible to read or understand much of it:

"...with a ledger that is inconceivably remarkable..."

not just a 'remarkable record', but 'inconceivably so' and a 'ledger' no less. I've noticed this on Football related articles: they read like a breathless fanzine. Please just the facts.

"The gorgeous arch of Bozsik's ball was true and Kocsis outleap both of his markers and with his head diagonally netted a one out of a hundred goal from 10-yards out, and Brazil was flummoxed 0-2."

Gorgeous?? Arch?? One-out-of-hundred?? (POV) Flummoxed??

Maybe it was written by a non-native English speaker or translated from Hungarian. Ben davison 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

article can be removed

since all the 30+ pictures have been removed by wikipedia, the entire article may be deleted. Not one picture I had posted when writing this article remains of this team and its competitive matches. As the original writer, it's fine then to remove the article as well, thank you. Gallopingmajor

Feel Free to delete Aranycsapat article

since Wikipedia had deleted all the player and game images from the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team ) that I found the most important in the whole article and being that it was written poorly by me, Wikipedia can and should delete the whole article. I wished to show the players and its games on the article, without those images the article is not the same. Please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team from the Wikipedia archives. Thank you.

Keep Article

Although the article needs improving, I think it should be kept. This team was legendary and they deserve an article. Djln--Djln 10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I think that this article would be better named "Magical Magyars" rather than "Golden Team" because "Golden Team" is a term that could be used about legendary teams from other countries, generations and sports, whilst Magical Magyars is a term specific to the 1950-55 Hungarian National Football Team.Teabag Yokel 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true. The article being name the "Golden Team" is completely illogical since many nations use the term to refer to their "Golden Teams." "Magnificent Magyars," "Magical Magyars," or "Aranycsapat" would be a better title.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

I put months into the Golden Team article Djln, and I understand that you took a few a days to completely wreck it Djln. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallopingmajor (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

• To Galloping Major

Response to message posted at personal page

• With the greatest of respect, you abandoned the article (see comments above). It was very badly written and very long and needed major work. I have improved article considerably. Djln --Djln 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but if I have to choose one of the two versions, I'll certainly go for the old one. The current one says very little about the team except some statistics. An article of this sort should certainly say something about the work of Gustav Sebes or the concept of (Hidegkuti as) the "withdrawn centre-forward".

On the other hand, the old one could have done with a serious copyedit. The language often is too flowery, messy or complex (see the description of Puscas famous goal in 1953 or the first goal v Brazil in 1954) or overelaborate (was there a need to allocate two paragraphs for the elo ratings ?). A copyedit to simplify the language and trimming would have been the better option than deletion of whole sections. Tintin (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Tintin. I do realize the old version needed work, but there was valid, important information that should have been kept and improved. If we can recover the information, I will appoint myself to help bringing it to Wikipedia standards. I just happen to think that badly written information is better than no information. Just bring it here to the talk page so we can all work on it. It should be a good article this one. --ChaChaFut 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied it to Golden Team/temp. Tintin

(talk) 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If the original was better why was the above added. Even the above editors, while supporting the original, point out serious faults in it. Of course this article can still be improved further, but this is a massive improvement on the previous version. Djln--Djln 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it as a personal cricticism, Dljn. I fully understand that your intentions are positive. All that we are suggesting is that the original contained plenty of useful data which can be salvaged and used to create a better article. (Btw, we all have experiences of "our" articles being edited out of recognition by other editors !). Tintin (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Npov tag

phrase "a 7-1 hammering in" seems to be pov. pl check.Yousaf465

RFM

The process for changing the name of this article is a "request for move process" but the name is not something random you think of that minute it should have some reasoning behind it. The two previous names of the article were the current "Golden Team" and the Hungarian translation for it "Aranycsapat". Discuss. Hobartimus (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"B" class

There is no way that this article in its present form can be classified as "B" - it is so riddled with hyperbole as to be virtually unreadable. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New Edits

In view of the concerns already raised about the readability of this article, I've copy edited the introductory paragraph, eliminating unnecessary adjectives, implementing NPOV as much as possible, deleting clauses and sentences that repeat material already stated and generally trying to tighten up, 'wikify' and clarify things. I also deleted the reference to the 'maiden defeat' of England, since the English had already been beaten on numerous occasions by Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and Ireland - Hungary were their first non-British or Irish defeat. I hope the edits help a little with the clarity. It would be great to get the article on this wonderful team to C or B class at least. There is a lot of good stuff in this article and it would be a lot more readable with a little more cosmetic work. ANB (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revisions viewable here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Team&action=historysubmit&diff=372582378&oldid=372335601 ANB (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I had some time on my hands today so I also copy-edited the first three main sections of the article in a similar way to the intro. ANB (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Response to OliverTwist88 cross-posted from ANB's personal page (comments are of more practial use in developing discussion here)

Although your contributions are appreciated, your efforts to make my article adhere to a more concise language has nearly ruined my article that has taken my years to write. You have removed approximately 40% of facts and data after your edits and have altered the nature and style of my work. I am the main author of this article and am asking you to please stop editing this article immediately. I'll incorporate some of your style into the eventual rollback. Thank you for your attention. OliverTwist88 (OliverTwist88talk) July 09 2010

I hadn't intended to 'ruin' it and wikipedia is a collaborative process. Numerous editors had suggested a complete rewrite of the article was necessary and the article itself has been tagged to this effect. I was careful to delete only information that I considered repetitive and avoid deleting factual material, though I realise this may seem like a subjective judgement. In any case, I'm sorry to have upset you in any way and I realise you obviously put a lot of work into this. Thanks. ANB (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is far from 'ruined' by recent edits; in fact it still suffers greatly from being overdone. The lead is way too long, and it would generally benefit from some drastic pruning all round. This is in no way to minimise the obvious sterling efforts that have already been made. I'd love to read this article in its entirety, but as things stand its overwhelming, and I think others coming to it with 'new eyes' would feel similarly. RashersTierney (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have received the following comment in chat from GrandMariner re.recent edits:

"I'm deeply concerned that you totally re-wrote, utterly pruned and vandalized an article that has taken me 5 years to write and do research on. I invested tremendous energy, and especially research in writing 99% of the article I created (Golden Team). All of the source material are listed on the bottom of the article. One day I went to do some minor edits and the entire article was gutted, you completely erased about 70-80% of my writing. This article was an excersize not only in sports journalism and history but a modern investigative exposition into 1950s socialist sport. I'm not sure what the admins will say about this. Expect me to incorporate some ideas from your edits, but also expect the entire article reverted to its original form. Please limit yourself to doing responsible editing and correction not broadsweeping vandalism. Thanks a bundle. :)" It seems that we have the same user with multiple userids treating this article as a "modern investigative exposition into 1950s socialist sport"... and here's me thinking it was a Wikipedia :) Coopuk (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-1954

The article as it stands (9/7/2010) ends rather abruptly with the 1954 loss to W. Germany. Can anyone supply a section on the team's performances after the World Cup final and the circumstances in which the side broke up after the uprising? Thanks. ANB (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-1954 (World Cup Final of 1954)

This article is still in the process of being fully written, and am in the midst of writing the World Cup Final of 1954. I still have to acquire the neccessary data and literature on the game before I resume its writing and am waiting on the arrival of a book. I have been the principal author to his article since Dec. 2005 who hopes to conclude this article shortly. OliverTwist88 (talk) 9 July 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

Are you the same person as Gallopingmajor? I hadn't realised. Great to hear that some further sections are on the way, and I look forward to seeing the final version. Good luck! ANB (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OliverTwist88 also appears to be Gallopingmajor and GrandMariner judging by the consistency of comments relating to anyone editing "their" work. Coopuk (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting

While this article may still be a work in progress, it is not too early to start cleaning up the prose and nailing down some of the references. I will take a stab at doing that in a few days when I have more time. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope no-one minds if I have done some judicious pruning of the article, which I thought was verbose and definitely not neutral in tone. I have received one comment in private saying that my edits are vandalism (!) and that someone intends to revert at least 60-70% of my edits back in... Any thoughts on whether I have done wrong? Coopuk (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Update 12Feb2011: a large number of the edits I made were rolled back and replaced with the verbage and peacock phrasing that the original aritcle suffered from. Can someone intervene? I do not want this turning into 'edit-rollback-edit' war... Coopuk (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Study: Germany 1954 World Cup winners 'were doped'

According to German olympic committee

http://www.footballfairplay.com/2010/10/germany%C2%B4s-1954-world-cup-winners-%C2%B4were-doped%C2%B4.html http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/story/14192143/study-german-1954-world-cup-winners-were-doped http://www.footballfairplay.com/2010/10/germany%C2%B4s-1954-world-cup-winners-%C2%B4were-doped%C2%B4.html http://www.footballfairplay.com/2010/10/germany%C2%B4s-1954-world-cup-winners-%C2%B4were-doped%C2%B4.html http://www.newstime.co.za/Sport/Study_claims_Germany%E2%80%99%E2%80%99s_1954_cup_winners_doped/13704/ http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/worldcup/story/Study-1954-World-Cup-champions-Germany-were-doped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)