Talk:Tomasz Kuszczak

YouTube
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nickname
I've reverted the last change by an IP user - Kuszczak definitely was known as 'the Pole in Goal' at Albion (don't know if the Manchester United supporters have adopted it, but that is beside the point). A nickname doesn't have to be exclusive to be valid. --Jameboy 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to confirm and agree with this. At Albion he was always 'the Pole in the Goal', and as what mentioned I don't think there are any rules as to when a nickname should be considered "valid" Benjaminmin (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible edits by a London football club.
Wikiscanner returns the IP address of a lesser London club as having added an edit that Kuszczak is proactive in community work. Why would anyone who had access to the Computers at a premiership football club in west London make this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.40.243 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate
March 20 or March 23? Littlemissdevil (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you bring it up... I'm really confused as BBC, ESPN, UEFA, Yahoo!, and United's websites claim 20 March, but the Polish FA and Soccerbase claim 23 March. I'll look more into it tomorrow, as it's rather late where I am. But my guess would be on 20 March. – LATICS   talk  07:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The PFA Footballers' Who's Who 2008-09, Sky Sports Football Yearbook 2008-2009 and Manchester United Player by Player all give his birthdate as 20 March. Funny that the Polish FA would get it wrong, but I'm not surprised that Soccerbase got it wrong. They're just rubbish. – PeeJay 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My WBA-based sources are also split on this. Who's Who p136 has 23 March 1982, while Complete Record p419 has 23 March 1962 (a typo I think!). The official club website however says 20 March 1982 . --Jameboy (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Table caption
Starting the conversation off here, rather than on my Talk page... removed the career stats table caption and I reintroduced it, because I was told in the past that a table should have a caption. Pinging to see if they remember why, as it was sometime ago and I can't remember the reasoning behind it to be honest. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * copied from JMHamo's talk page – MOS:DTT. Really, it ought to be something helpful and explicit, like "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition". The MoS used to say (somewhere else, can't find it now) that we didn't need a caption if the table followed on immediately from a section header that said the same thing, but a) I can't find that now, and b) this one doesn't, there's an intervening image and date of update line. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see the harm in including a table caption, as it aids accessibility for the partially sighted using Screen reading software. JMHamo (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the presence of an image to the right of the table necessitates the table header, plus the table update line can be added to the base of the table. I'll demonstrate with my next edit. – PeeJay 11:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The image isn't to the right of the table when people are using screen readers. It follows directly after the section header and before any part of the table. I don't think we need to disregard accessibility aspects of the MoS just because we don't like it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But you can see both section headers immediately above the table when the page is rendered. It seems to me the presence of an image separating the two in the code is irrelevant. – PeeJay 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the thing I vaguely remembered about not needing a caption if the table followed on from the section heading doesn't seem to be there any more. A screen reader relies on the code it reads – not the rendered page – being properly structured. It reads "Section header: whatever it is", "Image: caption: whatever it is; alt text: whatever it is", "Table: caption: whatever it is; column header: whatever it is... " in that order, becase that's the order the items appear in the code. The user of the screen reader can decide to skip stuff: a helpful and informative caption tells them whether they're likely to want to read the table or skip it. We with normal eyesight do that by glancing at it, but a screen reader user needs help, and that's one thing an informative caption does.

But I'm absolutely no expert: you could always ask for a decent explanation at the relevant talk page, and quite possibly prove me totally wrong. Or User:RexxS was knowledgeable on accessibility matters and may be willing to offer an opinion if he's still about. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still here. One of the reasons why table captions are really useful for screen reader users is that technologies like JAWS allow them to call up a list of the table captions and jump straight to one of their choice. That means that if a user goes back to an article and just wants to find something in a particular table, they don't have to search linearly through a lengthy article trying to find the table they want. On the other hand, someone like (who is the real expert as he uses a screen reader all the time) tells me that he usually navigates Wikipedia pages by jumping to a particular heading. The result is that if we have a table captioned "Filmography" and it follows immediately, or soon after, a heading called "Filmography", then the caption isn't anywhere near so necessary. In other words, you have to judge how much text a screen reader user would have to hear before they found an uncaptioned table that they wanted starting from the beginning of a given section. Images, etc. still count as they are read out in the order they appear in the Wikitext. Does that help answer the question? --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Confirms me in my view that we shouldn't go counter to what the MoS recommends as best practice, make things more difficult for some users of assistive technology, or rearrange the standard layout of these sections to avoid the strict need for a caption, for what appear to be purely aesthetic reasons. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)