Talk:Olympiacos SFP (women's volleyball)

"Notable" players and coaches
How can you say they are "notable" if they don't have Wikipedia articles. Tagging for challenge and removal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, the fact that these players don't have (English) Wikpedia articles doesn't mean that they are not notable. I am sure you will agree that Wikipedia still has many gaps and many unwritten articles in a vast range of areas. Now the fact that this article looks like a puff piece to you is really baffling to me, but I assure you that it ain't. I will be delighted to provide you with sources, but I must inform you that the vast majority of the available sources on the particular subject are in Greek language. Anyway, as far as the names are concerned, I'll try to add some additional sources. The facts are already sourced. The article is a product of research and experience and every fact and name in it is accurate. Looking forward to hearing your point of view, Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we take the word of the editor above, whose contributions are limited only to articles about this team. I am afraid the editor, like many other sports enthusiasts, or perhaps sports public relations paid agents, is taking advantage of Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit policy. I fear not much can be done about this EXPLOSION of content, but we might as well start here. Even if this team is Notable (supposedly, who knows?), does that make articles about it exempt from a requirement for sources? In short, how are we supposed to check out all of this information? Yes, a requirement for sources may be pro forma, but it's still a central tenet of the WP philosophy. I don't mind carrying on a conversation about this, and if you can refer me to a previous discussion on this matter, well, please do so: I am no zealot, just fed up. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I always provide numerous sources and conduct a thorough and meticulous search before contributing to Wiki. I fully understand your concerns but I really feel that they are a little bit far-fetched. I agree that sources are of vital importance to the Wikipedia philosophy and I personally take this matter very seriously. You are absolutely right when you say that no articles should exempt from the requirement for sources, but on the other hand, over-sourcing and constant suspicion over everybody who adds new information to Wikipedia are not commensurate with the Wikipedia philosophy and with the whole concept of contribution. Now, as far as yours truly is concerned, I can assure you that I most certainly am not taking advantage of Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit policy, I am not a sports enthusiast, nor am I (unfortunately for my pocket) a sports public relations paid agent. I am just someone who happens to have an extensive knowledge on all these things and I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia by providing trustworthy and sourced information. I suppose you'll have to take my word on all these, obviously I won't be able to provide you with any sources whatsoever. Keep up the good work, Gtrbolivar (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes
I hope my recent changes make sense and will be adopted for the other articles in this series as well. Deleting the brackets is easy enough if you paste the document in a word processor first. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You practically destroyed the article. You removed every link to other wikipedia pages, leaving the names unfinished or wrongly written. You added a totally unnecessary flags section(???). Can you explain why you removed links to other wikipedia pages? Why you removed the emblem of the club? You even destroyed the categories of the article, removing the links. Unbelievable. I really don't understand why you're doing all these things, especially when there are thousands of sports club pages in Wikipedia written in the same way (Fenerbahçe Women's Volleyball, Vakıfbank Spor Kulübü, Panathinaikos women's volleyball for example). Look them up. Are you going to make the same changes to those articles too? Anyway, I suppose being an editor gives you the right to do whatever you like. I am really looking forward to reading your answers. I don't want to start a confrontation with you or with anyone, but I really cannot understand your demeanor and your way. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I found some more links that had been inadvertently deleted, and I restored them: I think I got them all. I didn't find any "names unfinished or wrongly written." Can you fix them, please — or let me know which they are, and I will fix them. Sorry about the categories and the emblem: I fixed them, too. It was all a matter of my having removed double brackets in the markup. As for the "thousands of sports club pages in Wikipedia written in the same way," well, we all have to re-read WP:Other stuff exists from time to time. Also WP:Ownership. As I mentioned above, for too long these pages about athletic clubs have just gotten away with flouting WP:Policies left and right. As for the flags, well, it's my opinion that we need a guide to explain what they mean: Not everybody recognizes the flags of the world. It is very helpful, indeed necessary to have a reference close at hand. Another solution would be to use a word, like "Poland," instead of a flag, but I don't suppose we could get a consensus on that. I am happy to work with you or any other editor on improving this page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, next to the flags being used in the notable players section, the name of the country is mentioned. What's the point in adding an additional flag section? I don't think is right, it's an exaggeration. Secondly, did you see any of the pages I gave you as an example? Did you see the structure, the links and everything? They are exactly the same as my edit. In fact I used their structure and writing pattern to write this particular article. You didn't mention anything. Thirdly, why are you removing links to other wikipedia pages (Piraeus, Eva Chantava, Maja Ognjenović etc). It is totally unjustified and doesn't make any sense. I corrected them and once again you removed them. I think you should take a look to the links I send you (Fenerbahçe Women's Volleyball, Vakıfbank Spor Kulübü, Panathinaikos women's volleyball), I believe it will change your perception. What's wrong with adding links to wikipedia pages? I mean that's the right way and it encourages other users to create the unwritten pages, thus contributing to Wikipedia. You strike me as an open-minded person and I strongly suggest that you reconsider some of your views on the matter. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What is more, I simply cannot understand why you are removing the Wikipedia link brackets from every name in the article. What's the problem with that? As I mentioned above, adding the links to unwritten pages encourages other users to create those pages, thus enriching the article pool of Wikipedia. If you take a look at the other pages I sent you, you'll see that it is common practice. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea is for editors to cooperate in improving the pages. If you find a name that already has a WP article, then by all means link it. I have done just that with the names you listed above. As for the other pages, well, I hope that we do so well in improving this page that other editors will take note and copy all the improvements we have made. I can dream, can't I? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't believe they are improvements. I like the structure of the other pages I referred you to. My editing was based on them. We have entirely different opinions regarding the majority of the issues raised here. I really hope that another experienced editor will weigh in here. Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You like a sea of red links and a page with no sources? Icons that make no sense? If so, there are some new sections on this page to post your remarks, or you can start your own. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I told you that I agree that further sourcing was necessary and I provided it. On the other hand, I disagree with your edits, and with your point of view on several matters. As far as the icons are concerned, someone who doesn't recognize the flag can easily click on it, or just point the cursor on it and he is provided with information about the country forthwith. It is something obvious and I believe you understand it. The flags section is unnecessary, it's too much. Now as to your remark about the sea of red links, I must remind you that at first you removed every link, even the active ones like Eva Chantava, Maja Ognjenović, Piraeus, Greece, AEK Athens V.C. and the volleyball positions of the players. Anyway we agree that we disagree, but I would suggest -once again- that you take a look at the pages I sent you regarding other women's volleyball departments. I really hope another editor like yourself will weigh in, so that we can have a third opinion. Despite our differences I believe that we are having a decent dialogue. I respect your work and I think you should respect mine and most importantly the precious time I lost editing this article. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons
In this article, there is a problem with placing flag icons under "Coaches," "Managerial staff" and "Current squad." In the section on "Notable players," the home country for each flag is quite obvious, because each flag is followed by a word. I have provided a list of the flag icons used on the page in the "References and notes" section at the bottom. The reason is that most of the flags are meaningless to a lot of Wikipedia readers. If we don't want to have such a reference list, then I suggest we use words to impart the information: "Poland," "Serbia," "United States," etc. Please place your comments on this topic here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single flags section in any Wikipedia page of any major sports club article (Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barcelona, Milan, Inter, CSKA Moscow etc). Flags are used all the time and no additional flag section exists in any of the club pages. As I told you before, next to each of the flags, the name of the country it symbolizes is mentioned. What new, what extra explanation does your flag section provide? None I suppose.Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. What about "Coaches," "Managerial staff" and "Current squad"? The icons are simply meaningless to most people, just blobs of pixels taking up space. As for the other pages, well, they all suffer from the same faults as this one did just a few days ago. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So your opinion is that the vast majority of the major sports club articles suffer from important faults such as the lack of a flag section? How come and nobody after all those years, after the millions of edits didn't feel the same way? Have you ever given any thought to the notion that all these might be your personal concerns and your personal ideas? I don't suggest that you are wrong, but the common practice is obviously different. Your argument is that the pages I sent you, and thousands of other pages that don't live up to your standards or personal perception of what's right and proper, are not properly edited and should be changed. I think at that point you should start reconsidering some of your opinions. I tell you once again that I edited this article based on the structure and the standards of the other pages I sent you. It surprises me that you felt compelled to make all these changes to this article, without even looking up how other major articles of the sort (specifically women's volleyball departments - take another look here Fenerbahçe Women's Volleyball, Vakıfbank Spor Kulübü, Panathinaikos women's volleyball) are edited. All these years, you never saw any other articles of the sort? How come that so far you never displayed that kind of sensitivity for other articles "who suffer form faults"? Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Red links
The chance of creation of articles in the English Wikipedia concerning most of these people is slim to none. In addition,

"Red links to personal names should be avoided, ,,, Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people."

Also, Write the article first is always good advice. Please place your comments on this topic here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "The chance of creation of articles in the English Wikipedia concerning most of these people is slim to none". How do you know that? I totally disagree with your conclusion. I strongly believe red links provide a motive to somebody to create a new page. Especially when the person involved is someone important, the user feels compelled to add information. I myself created many pages this way. Now "the convicted criminals and the sex workers" part is far-fetched. We are talking about our case, specifically about athletic personalities. This undoubtedly justified concern doesn't apply here, not by a long shot. Anyway, I feel another experienced editor should intervene here, we will be able to have a third objective opinion regarding all these. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Roster 22-23
ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΣ

Πασαδόροι: Στέλλα Χριστοδούλου, Νεφέλη Χατζηγρηγορίου

Κεντρικές: Κατερίνα Γιώτα, Μελίνα Εμμανουηλίδου, Φρέιερ Όλμπρεχτ(Βέλγιο), Aγγελίνα Συριστρατίδη

Ακραίες: Βίλμα Σάλας, Μαρία Γενιτσαρίδη, Tζάιλ Γουίντερς(ΗΠΑ)

Λίμπερο: Μαρία Αντωνακάκη, Σοφία Κοσμά

Διαγώνιες: Mίλιτσα Κούμπουρα(Σερβία), Μαρία Τσιτσιγιάννη. 2A02:586:803F:3873:5145:C3C6:D0D6:93B7 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)