Talk:Bandy

Sponsorship

Sponsors are important in modern sports. It would be interesting with a section about sponsors in bandy. Skogsvandraren (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, no, please don't. Not here. This is Wikipedia. 1Sozi (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Why don't you want it? Why wouldn't it fit Wikipedia? Skogsvandraren (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is non-commercialized and should stay that way. I see no reason for bringing up information about capitalists messing around with sports, which should be an free endeavour, not commercialized. Wikipedia also. Wikipedia is non-commercialized and should stay so and not take in informercials about commercialized sponsors making the sport into a business for their own only good. It is of no interest and importance and has not place in Wikipedia. 1Sozi (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you are making it a political issue. That is not what I was thinking. Not at all.

It is a fact, that sponsors are paying for much of the costs of professional sports clubs and players. National teams and governing bodies also have sponsors. Modern professional sports wouldn't survive without it. Writing about this does not in any way compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. There is information about sponsorship deals in many sports articles at Wikipedia and I think there should be some information about sponsors in bandy too. I just hope someone knows enough about it to write an interesting section in this article. That's why I asked for it here. Skogsvandraren (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• If it is relevant, and properly reported on in-depth in reliable sources, sure. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  What Drmies said. Wikipedia isn't here to "right great wrongs" but to neutrally document the world. The inclusion of sponsorship in sport these days is perhaps regrettable—but also a practical requirement for the considerable expenses of large-scale sporting contests. Sports like Formula 1 probably would not be possible without the huge amount of money used to build the cars, pay for the considerable engineering, global travel and so on. If there are sources, cover the role of sponsors. But covering the role of sponsors does not mean an endorsement of those sponsors. It isn't a choice between not mentioning sponsors at all and Wikipedia becoming a place for "informercials". —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • • Thirded. Mentioning that teams and leagues are sponsored (and saying who those sponsors are) is factual and neutral (as long as it keeps to the facts). Intentionally omitting it in a (quixotic) campaign is the true POV pushing here. It cannot be allowed. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Fourthed. Of course sponsorships can be over-covered in some cases, but team and stadium sposorships are absolutely something readers would likely be interested in. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Top importance

Of course the main article about a main sport should be considerd top importance. I think so. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:54FE:5158:8BA1:BCA2:2855 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When comparing to other articles in that category, I see nothing wrong with this reassesment. We are all allowed to have our opinions and as long as they're not too far out there, you are of course allowed to do a change of this kind. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this question should better be discussed at the project's talk page? Now I don't think this change is controversial, but for a discussion about principles it might have been better to do it there. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

However, now it has been changed from "top importance" to "high importance" by User:CUA 27 without any previous debate as far as I can see. I cannot decide wether I think it should be "high importance" or "top importance", but I do think it would have been better to raise the question for debate like User:2A00:801:210:54FE:5158:8BA1:BCA2:2855 did, instead of just changing it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bandy appears to be popular in about five countries. Top importance seems more appropriate for sports and sports competition with broader appeal. CUA 27 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. There are more people playing bandy than curling for instance, and curling has been considered top-important, but curling is played in more countries and is an Olympic sport, a fact which always makes information about a sport more sought after since the Olympic games are followed by such a huge TV audience around the world. I think it is not certain what facts makes one sport more important than the other, but I accept your view. Mostly because I don't think there is any point in changing the assessment back and forth. Skogsvandraren (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

While there is some merit to these arguments, I have given it some thought too and when comparing it with the other sport articles in the top and high importance categories, I am of the opinion bandy should be considered top importance. This article clearly fits better there. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious — which top importance and high importance sports are you comparing to? CUA 27 (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I am comparing to all of the articles in both of those two categories. I find bandy fits better in the 'top' category than in the 'high' category. In the latter, there are also articles about some persons and about some events, while main articles about a sport are mostly found in the former. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you see any articles discussing a sport with limited geographical popularity (eg, popular in fewer than 10 countries) that were rated top importance? If so, which ones? CUA 27 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that the only criterium you think should matter, the geographical importance? You could compare bandy with American football, which is very popular in the United States but not in other countries even if it is spread around the world. American football is regarded as top important. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 07:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPORTS

I added some proposed generally applicable importance criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sports#Importance. I hope you take a look, and make any edits you think appropriate, or start any broader discussions of importance on the talk page there. CUA 27 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice, I'll take a look at it. There really should be more people weighing in on this discussion. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 07:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, bandy is from the 17th Century

I quote from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bandy

BRITISH & WORLD ENGLISHBANDY

There are 3 main definitions of bandy in English:123 bandy 3 See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary Line breaks: bandy Pronunciation: /ˈbandi/ noun

[MASS NOUN] 1A game similar to field hockey or ice hockey, played with a ball and large curved sticks. 1.1 [COUNT NOUN] (plural bandies) The curved stick used in the game of bandy. Origin

Late 17th century: perhaps from bandy2.

Definition of bandy in: US English dictionary English synonyms US English synonyms

SHARE THIS ENTRY

Shouldn't this be reflected in the history section of this article? Now it says that bandy was invented in the 19th Century. The present text also implied an older heritage, but this is not developed upon in the text. I think this is important and a more qualified source is hard to imagine. Bandy Hoppsan]century. er talk:Bandy Hoppsan|talk) 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is reflected in the article. Your dictionary quote does not say much more than that the word was used for a sport in the 17th century, and this is what the article says already. It is a good source, but the knformation kn the article is also sourced. A language dictionary does not say much about the game as such and how it was played. So your source is good, but does not add to the information already present in the article, as far as I can see. Boot Blues (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Boot Blues. The source is from a dictionary, it only says how old the word is, it says nothing about the sport as such. This information is already covered in the article. Modern bandy, with common rules, started in the late 19th Century (just like many other sports). Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

yess, modern bandy is from the late nineteenth century. the word has certainly Bern used before organised bandy begun to be played, bit this döds not in any way mean that bandy in its organised modern rules form is older than that. just like football. people havet Bern playing with balls for centuries but Möre as a passtime than as a real, regulated sport in the way we see it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.194 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Biographical articles for professional bandy players

The currently played 2016 Bandy World Championship got me thinking. There need to be more articles on professional bandy players. Even if not all the players in the world championship are professional athletes, some of them are, especially those from Russia, Sweden, Kazakhstan and Finland, as far as I know. There should be articles written about them. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

that is a good idea, but where do we find information? Is the information on club pages a good enough source or does one need third party sources like articles in newspapers and magazines? Do they have to be in English or is it all right to use Swedish language texts? I don't know if I should look for something before I know where to look... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.241.81 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a few biographical articles on Swedish bandy players who played in this year's World Championship, collecting information from the Swedish Wikipedia. It is easy for me, since Swedish is my first language. I just translate to English. I hope other people can do the same for players from their home countries. I don't know Russian, so I cannot write very easily on Russian bandy players. Dammråtta (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bandy is the second biggest winter sport, not just second biggest winter team sport

According to sources referenced by footnotes and links in the lead of this article, bandy is the second biggest winter sport in the world, when the number of participating athletes are counted. User:Ryecatcher773 changed this to say second biggest winter team sport, but that is not what the sources say. The sources say second biggest winter sport, period.

You may of course discuss how to compare team sports to individual sports. There are many, many people who are skiing in their free time. However, most of them are not competing. They just do it for recreation. So you can't count them when considering how many people are participating in down-hill or cross-country skiing as a sport, i.e. a competitive sport. It's like if you are out on your own on the ice, skating and playing with a ball – you are not playing bandy when doing so. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The first of the two cited sources is currently '404' (i.e. it is 'not found' and was apparently in Swedish regardless) and the second source is flawed in its statistical application of 'second most participated' as the commenters on the source point out... not to mention, the sentence in question (found in the lead of this article) makes no distinction between competitive/organized/professional sports and amateur/leisure pursuits -- who, regardless of lack of professional/collegiate status are no less participants in any sport. It simply says 'sport'. And there are more skiers in the world than people who play bandy. Make the distinction or you're trying dispute the indisputable. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are interpreting this wrong. The fact that a source is not available doesn't make it less reliable as such, nor the fact that it is in another language. I can read Swedish (it's my first language) and I know what it said. You can't just invent that it was talking about team sports when in fact it was not. Also, both the sources and the text in this article's lead is about athletes, i.e. active, competing sportspeople. That does not include recreational sporting people, whether they are skiing, playing bandy or doing something else. I will undo your change. If you want to uphold the text you are advocating, you should reference a reliable source supporting your opinion. Comments on a web page is not a reliable source. Dammråtta (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I also would like to add, that the phrase "[b]ased on the number of participating athletes..." clearly states that this is one way of counting. That was the way it was counted in the source. There may be other ways of counting, in other sources, but then those sources must be presented. You should not compromise the given source by adding words which are not supported by the source. Dammråtta (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.internationalbandy.com/viewNavMenu.do?menuID=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What links are ok to have from this page?

Would it be ok to add a link to for instance the this page on scores in games → http://www.flashscore.com/bandy/ ?

Is it ok to add links to pages about bandy which are written in Swedish language or should they all be in English? The latter could be a problem since there are so few serious pages about bandy in English even if there ought to be more. Röd Boll (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A!

I REALLY LIKE THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS INFORMATKON IN ENGLISH ABOUT BANDY. ITS SO COOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.246 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, caps look. Should I change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.246 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

National leagues and competitions

The sections about bandy in different countries should have more information about the cups and series in the different countries. At least some basic information is essential to know how the sport is played and followed by audiences in different places. This describes how popular it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.82.102 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to develop the text in this article and write something about the subject of national competitions, if you have good sources. I think it might be a good idea. Skogsvandraren (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Top links, hat note

Who removed the hat notes and links from this article and why? They are relevant. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Still no answer for this question here. How hard can it be to explain your reasoning? This is not nice. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs), I have asked you on your talk page to come here and give an answer. Don't you feel a responsibility to do so? Should I revert it myself without waiting for your explanation any more? Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored this now, together with another text section which Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) also removed without explaining why. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)