Talk:Bandy

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)

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)

Maybe I can write some. Ie :^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:55EF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 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)

No, it is formally quite all right to link to pages in other languages, even if it is usually better if you can find sources in English for the English language Wikipedia. Dammråtta (talk) 21:57, 5 June 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)

I agree. This would be a very welcome addition. There should be some sort of club tournaments in most countries where bandy is played, at least in the countries where they have a national bandy team, I think. Shouldn't it? However, I don't know where to find good sources. As bandy is a very small sport in many countries, in many countries it is unfortunately not covered in mainstream sports media. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as far as my experience goes, it is very hard to find information about local bandy games in different countries except for in Sweden, Finland, and Russia and to some extent Norway. It is such a niche sport in other countries that there is virtually no independent sources, like sports news sites, writing about the sport. This is a pity, of course. At least, I think so. :-) Dammråtta (talk) 21:55, 5 June 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)

Hockey on the ice

Do we really need to take this discussion again? "Hockey on the ice" is an old name of bandy, it does not mean ice hockey. It fell out of use in favour of bandy, because the term led to confusion with ice hockey, but this does not mean that hockey on the ice has ever been an official name for the sport of ice hockey. It has, however, officially been used for the sport now more often called bandy. Ice hockey is of course a form of hockey played on ice, but this does not mean that ice hockey has ever had the name hockey on the ice. Bandy is, by all standards and terms, also a form of hockey and also played on ice. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone's information, the term was discussed pretty thoroughly in September last year. The discussion is saved at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Hockey on the ice and should preferably be read before you give any opinion on the matter. Please note, that the result was no consensus, which led to the result that the redirects were left pointing to bandy as they had been before. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a new talking going on now at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_22#Hockey_on_the_ice. I don't know why it has been taken up again and why it was not noted here by the person nominating it. Röd Boll (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Sportsfan 1234 did that, instead of discussing her/his edits here on this here talk page. Well, that's at least better than just keeping on editing without discussing at all, gotta give her/him that. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is over now, it seems. I don't know why there was no notice about the end given here. Anyway, the links hockey on the ice and hockey on ice is now redirected to hockey#Subtypes, which perhaps is just as well, even if I haven't seen any source which shows that these terms actually were used for ice hockey or any other form of hockey in older times. I'll accept it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit strange, I think, that neither the person starting the discussion on redirecting the redirection pages (User:Sportsfan 1234) nor the person ending the discussion (User:BDD), made any note about it what so ever on this page. I don't know if they should have done that according to Wikipedia rules, but I think it would have been polite to do so, especially since the discussion was already going on here before the redirection discussion was started. Dammråtta (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty normal for redirect discussions not to be notified on the target page, only on the actual redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that so and is it a good thing User:Djsasso¿ Even if there's an ongoing debate about it on the target page? I don't know, I'm just asking... ie ? :^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:210:55EF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I might be missing the section but I don't see a section on this page talking about the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This section? You are writing in this section, which is about it (the ridirect) and the term hockey on the ice (the redirected term). The section immediately before is also about it. Röd Boll (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@DJSasso, I started this section and before that User:Skogsvandraren started the Talk:Bandy#Top links, hat note section above obviously to invite User:Sportsfan 1234 to talk about the changes User:Sportsfan 1234 did, since they were about removing the hat links to this page connected to the redirected terms. I agreed totally with what User:Skogsvandraren wrote. User:Sportsfan 1234 for some reason, unbeknownst to me, choose not to explain or discuss what he had done, so it was restored by me. Then I started this section about the same question. At the same time, well knowing about my asking him to discuss here but obviously ignoring this, User:Sportsfan 1234 started the new debate on the redirect (even if this had been discussed before, less than a year ago). The new redirect discussion is noted here, in this very section. The redirect as such has no section on this talk page, but the term which is redirected has this abd the one immediately before it. If you look in the archive page for this talk page, you will find some notes about last year's discussion too. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Right but neither of them were really about the redirect. I get that it is a related discussion, but they are not talking about the redirect. That being said, if they were about the redirect, then that would indicate you were aware of the situation and heading to a forum to get outside views would also be a typical and normal action. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but first you usually try to solve a question at the talk page of the article where there is a difference of opinions. In this case, one user has been invited to take part in a discussion here about a certain term but just hasn't cared to join it and in stead gone on to start a discussion about a very related topic (the redirect of the said term), where there had been a discussion about exactly the same thing less than a year ago. It may not go against any formal rules or regular Wikipedia practice, but I find it presumptuous and rude. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snowsuit Wearer, but I suppose there isn't much one can do about it. If Sportsfan 1234 don't want to talk about it, Sportsfan 1234 is not going to talk about it. There's nothing much anyone can do about it. *sigh* Skogsvandraren (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, the result of the discussion weren't that bad. I can live with it. And Sportsfan 1234 did not get it the way he wanted, which also pleases me a little bit. Skogsvandraren (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)