Talk:Alphonso Davies

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

14.136.160.58 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of "FC"

The majority of professional football clubs have the "FC" suffix (or prefix, in some cases) dropped in reference to it. Several player articles on Wikipedia follow this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogieFreeman (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitecaps FC do not. Part of the reason is that in North America the sport is not known as "football" and so using the usual initials for "football club" is a misnomer. It is used, therefore, to associate it with the European sport (and the sport on other continents). It is also its WP:COMMONNAME. This has been noted at the WP:FOOTY project multiple times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The same is the case with Seattle and several other MLS teams (or clubs). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite the sport having a different name, people largely refer to a club without the suffix. You don't talk or write about the Whitecaps or the Crew and consistently refer to it with the "FC" at the end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogieFreeman (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Really not necessary to have FC on display, Walter Görlitz It's very uncivil to engaged in an edit-war and post on someones talk page to which you are engaged in. You really need to stop doing that otherwise it will get you into trouble. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, I didn't engage in the edit war. Please check the edit history. Two edits over two days is not an edit war. Three in a short period of time is which is why I warned the editor.

You are also wrong to state that for these Norther American clubs, where there is clear consensus so the contrary, that FC is not necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And now BF has broken WP:3RR and so I have reported the incident. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In reverting, I am at two reverts in 24-hours, three in two days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Finally found the community consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53#Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue. This has also been discussed at the league article and countless other locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ye, but no consensus was ever met, you tried to discuss it, but really, there isn't enough input from people or any consensus derived. Often when there are two names to a club you can cut the FC, Govvy (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, often, but not with Vancouver Whitecaps FC or Seattle Sounders FC. The convention goes back to before they both entered MLS. Around 2003, when they were playing USL, they were both just Vancouver Whitecaps and Seattle Sounders. The names changed as Seattle was planning to enter MLS as an expansion franchise. Vancouver followed suit. By the time Vancouver entered MLS in 2011, they both sported the FC. And to distinguish them from the previous incarnations, the convention was kept. If we need to discuss it, we should do so at the FOOTY project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protection in December 2018

I asked that this article be semi-protected for the remainder of December, to stop IP editors from making changes to indicate that Alphonso is with Bayern, while his contract doesn't start until January. PKT(alk) 16:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. He is training with the club, but clearly not yet under contract to play for them, and the hidden comment doesn't seem to be dissuading them from editing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Chronology vs reserve teams

I'm noticing certain users, at least for Canadian players are always putting the reserve team before the first team (if it's a sanctioned league team) even if the player began to play for the reserve team after making his first team debut. Is there a rule on this? I assumed whatever comes first chronologically is what is used. For example Daniel Van Buyten has played for BM II but he still has Bayern Munich first. On many Canadian players they have their reserve teams first even if they made that debut after their first team one. Davies, Adekugbe, Hamilton are all examples on this.Vince193 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. It's usually chronological rather than anything else. I don't see a reference as to when his first match for the reserve team was, but if it was earlier than the first team—and I believe it was—then it should also be listed first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The prime examples is someone like Sam Adekugbe. He has Whitecaps FC 2 first even though that team didn't exist until after he made his Whitecaps FC debut. We should also try and figure out how to categorize these player movements. There's no consistency. For Canadian players whoever does this edits doesn't treat them as loans, which is fine, but then for players in America (usually MLS) they are loans. Seattle Sounders FC for example lists their players who have appeared with Tacoma Defiance as loaness, Roman Torres or Jordy Delem are examples of this. The obvious thing is the relationship between reserve teams and their parent clubs should be consistent across the league. Vince193 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the rules are that you can be used on a reserve team up to three times without having it constitute a loan, and injury is a special case. You can be placed on and started in the first team while technically being signed to the reserve team up to three times as well, but then you have to be officially loaned or transferred. I just recall that for Davies's first game on the first team, he had been playing on the reserve team prior to that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Delinking Ghana and Liberia

@Walter Görlitz and S.A. Julio: Regarding the de-linking of Ghana and Liberia, do you really think that those are the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar and that they are major examples of countries per WP:OVERLINK?

Considering the wide audience that reads WP (especially sports articles), I really don’t think that a majority of readers are very familiar with Ghana, and even more so for Liberia. That wouldn’t even be true if you solely focused on the populations of generally well-educated countries.

These particular links are also significant context for the article, since there aren’t many footballers (or even sportspeople) of Liberian descent at the absolute highest levels. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Linking of Ghana is unnecessary as Buduburam, which is in Ghana, is linked right next to it.

Linking to Liberia rather than "Liberian" is also unhelpful. At Liberian, the link for people is to Demographics of Liberia. I would not oppose that link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That Buduburam is linked next to Ghana certainly does not preclude linking Ghana. The text is not supposed to force the reader to click through Buduburam to get to Ghana, just as one wouldn’t omit a link to Cairo just because there is a link to Egyptian Museum nearby.

Demographics of Liberia or Liberia is fine, although the former is a bit more specific than I think a reader of a footballer biography would expect since Liberian is not a specific ethnic group. The key point here is that his parents came from Liberia; the key point isn’t the demographic make-up of the country. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Liberian was recently added as well. I'm not sure why it's needed. The fact that Buduburam is linked is sufficient to preclude a link to the nation in which it is located, and Cairo itself is an overlink, just as New York, London, Berlin, Los Angeles and Toronto are all overlinks. Remember, most links are not not clicked and so are not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The origin of a person is typically significant context for a biography of a person... so Liberia is significant context here.

It’s more than reasonable to link Cairo in an article about a museum in that city. Generally, the cities you mentioned are overlinks for articles where they are not significant context. Cairo is certainly significant context in the article Egyptian Museum. Liberia is significant context here. A link to a small place that most people have not heard of isn’t enough to preclude a link to the country it’s in. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is his parents' nationality important to understand that Davies is a sports person? If it were, we'd have every interview commenting on his Liberian parents, wouldn't we? Many interviews comment on his status as a refugee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles about him having Liberian origin: Globe and Mail, Face2Face Africa, Mirror, Goal, BBC (West African Pidgin), La Nacion (Spanish), Le Temps (French). In some of these (e.g. Le Temps), Davies even mentions having been eligible to play for the Liberia and Ghana national teams. A person’s origin is typically assumed to be important context for a biography regardless of whether they’re a sportsperson. There’s no reason to deny that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've also seen lots of articles that link United States and other things against OVERLINK so rather than point to others, let's focus on this article. you're not going to convince me. Let‘s hear from others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pointing to others, these are articles that discuss Davies's Liberian origin. Liberia is hardly as commonly known as the United States; that's a ridiculous comparison to others. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:30 requested to resolve the above dispute about:

1. Whether Liberia should be linked in the article body
2. Whether Ghana should be linked in the article body
3. Whether Ghana should be linked in the infobox

— MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I feel that our aim should be to provide useful links – links that the reader is likely to actually use rather than linking to everything the reader may be unfamiliar with. Thus I feel that it is important to consider the context of the article (otherwise, we'd just get a bot to link the first occurrence from a list of 'unfamiliar subjects' in every article). In the case of Libera, the article text His parents lived there after fleeing their homeland during the Second Liberian Civil War, which displaced more than 450,000 people in Liberia. and Davies was eligible to play for both the Ghana national team and Liberia national team. these specific links to the war and the national team are more likely to be of interest to the reader, as these are closer in subject to the subject of this article (MOS:SPECIFICLINK). Those articles both link to Liberia in their lead sentences, so a reader can quickly navigate from them to the Liberia article if they want more general knowledge. For these reasons, I don't feel that Liberia should be linked in the article. From what I understand of the subject, he came to Canada as a refugee and presumably lived the first five years of his life in the Buduburam refugee camp, so the link to Buduburam is much more subject-specific than Ghana and of likely interest to the reader. So I wouldn't link Ghana in the text. I'm more neutral on the infobox link. Although infoboxes do tend to be a bit more link-heavy in practice and I don't feel a link there would be as distracting as it would be in the prose, I'm going to suggest that Ghana does not fall under "key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and recommend not linking it in the infobox. So 'no' on all three points in small text above. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I would prefer to see Ghana linked early in the Buduburam article (it is currently linked only in the infobox), but that's another subject. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

add more info bout him Khaleeqscripts (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)