Talk:Number (sports)

message: Although this page was alright as Squad number when I created it, as it mostly referred to sports with squads, it's now expanded beyond that - in particular, the auto racing section really doesn't belong in an article with this title. I'm thinking of moving the page to Number (sport). Opinions? Erath 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: I think the artikel is very english because the number 10 is in world football the most important number (and not the 7). This number was worn from Pukas, Pele or Maradona
===baseball jersey low numbers citation===
see Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" for the appropriate citation on the desirability of low numbers in spring training because high numbers denote a minor league invitee unlikely to stick the roster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.143.18 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English View

message: see Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" for the appropriate citation on the desirability of low numbers in spring training because high numbers denote a minor league invitee unlikely to stick the roster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.143.18 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: baseball jersey low numbers citation

message: What does this sentence mean? -- 85.177.42.160 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arsenal and Chelsea wore numbered shirts in their left across each line the numbering was" 

message: Cliff Johnson never wore 99.  So says Baseball Almanac.  I've removed this reference.99.237.62.225 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cliff Johnson

message: I trimmed down Squad number#Shirts of special significance, since much of the section had little to do with the topic, where certain numbers at certain clubs have special significance because they were "worn by particularly great players in different eras". But it seems silly that the first examples in the section only name one player at each club. And it's hardly a "coincidence" that great players end up wearing #9 or #10. 
It seems that the section works better incorporated into the more general section about club football. --Mosmof (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very necessary. Thankyou. Erath (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shirts of special significance" section 

message: In one paragraph, we have the sentence "If two or more players make their debut in the same match, they are given numbers alphabetically based on surname.", the phrase "first in alphabetical order amongst that England XI", and the parenthesised sentence "(If two players make their Test debut in the same match, the numbers are allocated alphabetically according to the player's surname).". Does the same criterion need stating three times? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket 

message: To those editing this article,
For quality improvement, please avoid the following terms:
    "Some say" - Who? - "Bob at AXQ News Organization says[1]" - better
    "It is generally believed" - Overtly-general, try adding ", by the AQP Sports Organization[2]" - better
Wikipedia articles need specific citations of sources for material; otherwise the unsourced material, truthful as it may be, could be deleted, reducing the overall richness of Wikipedia due to a minor quality issue.
--173.58.198.209 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Hearsay 

message: In lacrosse (particularly at Syracuse University), the #22 jersey is coveted because of its association with Gary Gait and the Powell brothers.  From 1987-2004, it was worn at SU by 5 different four-time All-Americans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theycallmebruce (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacrosse 

message: This was raised in one of the discussions above. The article encompasses examples of sports using squad numbers, position numbers and both. A more appropriate article name is needed, in my opinion. Couple of ideas I had: Sports numbering, Sports player numbers, Team sports numbering (my favoured option). Any suggestions/thoughts? LunarLander // talk // 18:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: The fullback is number 15. Number 1 is the loosehead prop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.64.87 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby Union 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was page moved as per counter proposal. The most significant opposition either preferred "squad" or "jersey", and most preferred a move to a neutral title. Although the counter proposal was posted very recently, it drew from the discussion and clarified. I feel that adequate consensus has been reached for this move. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the issue is that Squad number is not universal, so opposing based on universality is a bit of a mistake. Squad number is never heard on this side of the ocean, and in fact before I came to this article I was unaware it was used anywhere. I think the proposal below is probably the best solution. Or even Number (sports). -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Number (sports) works well IMO, see below. Andrewa (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Or Number (sports) as suggested above... in the local commentaries I've heard, they generally don't say Jersey number 20, it's far more often just Number 20. This has the advantage of conciseness, it seems accurate and well within policy in all respects that I can see. Andrewa (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Conciseness===
Posted after the closure of the discussion and outside the archive box for that reason
The comment is made above that the new title number (sports) is as concise as the previous title squad number. Actually it is more concise, as within text it will often be appropriate to use the pipe trick  which gives simply number when you save it. The options of linking via the redirects from squad number and the others are still there, but we now have this additional option when the context is clear. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Posted after the closure of the discussion and outside the archive box for that reason
The comment is made above that the new title number (sports) is as concise as the previous title squad number. Actually it is more concise, as within text it will often be appropriate to use the pipe trick  which gives simply number when you save it. The options of linking via the redirects from squad number and the others are still there, but we now have this additional option when the context is clear. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conciseness

message: The goaltender shown in the image has almost never played in the NHL (played exactly twice). In fact, in that exact image he's not playing in the NHL at all. It would be nice to represent more leagues, especially those outside North America, in this section, but as it currently stands it only talks about the NHL. Makes the use of this image rather questionable to me. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point now, I removed the image. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goaltender picture in ice hockey section 

message: Regarding this edit, which reverted my edit: strictly speaking something cannot be "more unique" as something that is unique is one of a kind. In usual North American sports journalism, pronouns match the apparent pluralism of the subject, so I feel it is more apt to use "its fanbase" for the Minnesota Wild than "their fanbase". I think the phrase "not for a player" is redundant within the context. Thus I propose restoring my edit. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First, "unique", according to my dictionary, can also be an adjective meaning "particularly remarkable, special, or unusual", which is clearly the intended meaning in context. "Not for a player" is our way of saying, "Yes, we're aware it looks weird, but no, they did not retire the number for a player." No opinion on "its" versus "their". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically written English doesn't use the phrase "more unique"; one wouldn't say something is "more particularly remarkable". "for being more unique" is an awkward phrase. I think something like "to be more distinctive from other goalies" is more direct and easier to understand. Regarding "not for a player", I don't feel there is a need to repeat that the number was not retired for a player; readers can judge for themselves if it is a common occurrence. isaacl (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to sound confrontational, I really don't, but that's quite a sweeping generalization of written English, not to mention it needs a source whether it's just for this discussion or for being put in an article.  Most English doesn't also use constructions like "purple polka dots", yet they exist and are perfectly fine where they do. I don't think there's anything  with clarifying that the number was retired for someone other than a player; to me, it seems awkward to  do so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, unique means "'without like or equal'. Hence there can be no degrees of uniqueness." Of course, English is a very flexible language, and so all kinds of phrasing can get written. My statement was a shorthand for "best writing style practices recommend the following". And when talking about "purple polka dots", that phrase is fine, but you wouldn't ordinarily see "polka purple dots", because that doesn't follow the usual order of precedence for adjectives. Regarding redundancy, as the saying goes, brevity = wit. isaacl (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don't find it redundant nor lacking wit for being the way it is. I'm fine with making it more concise - I like that your edit removed a bit of cruft, to be sure - but I don't really see how having it go out of its way to explain a bit more, especially regarding something that isn't terribly common among sports franchises (it  happen, but rarely), is hurting anything. One  argue it's not really stated in the source that this is unusual or that it was done to one thing as specifically opposed to another, but to that I say it's not a stretch to make the clarification since nearly all the discussion in context centers on players and team personnel, so the one time it doesn't bears a bit of emphasis in my view because it can kind of throw the reader for a bit of a loop on first pass. It  a bit WP:SYNTHy the way I'd written it before, but now it's not, whether we do it your way or mine. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited ESPN article didn't add an additional explanation; I don't believe readers are confused by the statement that a number is retired in honour of a team's fanbase. Also, the article doesn't say that goalies started choosing numbers other than one to be more distinctive, so perhaps that part should be omitted entirely. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Six teams have retired the No. 1 (not including the Minnesota Wild, who retired the number in honor of their fans)" certainly sounds like they did to me. Clearly, there is a distinction in there of the type I made in this article. Also, "Roy's legendary exploits in Montreal and with the Colorado Avalanche truly began a wave of iconic goalies wearing numbers that were uniquely theirs." Perhaps something could be clarified a bit, but I don't really see a problem here. If the statement is factually incorrect and is only an inference by the author himself, that is on ESPN, not us. We're using what is available to us, and we can't really be blamed for that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Usually when a passage is under discussion on the talk page I like to refrain from editing the section in question until an agreement is reached, but that's OK. I've made further copy edits to reflect that the choice of numbers has also been influenced by favourite goalies. Thanks for your changes. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for yours! (Sorry for the wait, been super busy at work) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: The subheading is to encourage coverage of numbers as used in other, especially non-North American, hockey leagues. That's what the "worldwide view" template at the top of the section is for. Though unsourced, this information did once exist here. It just needs sources so we can add it back. Also, that subsection specifically focuses on the numbers themselves - again, there once was info on jersey number practices in the NHL, but all of it was unsourced. What I'm trying to do is get other people to come forward with sources of their own, eventually, and add things representing the subject on a more international scale. Then the subheading will make more sense. But people won't know we've specifically identified a need for that without it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the status quo doesn't promote that, it just creates an awkward sub-section in the middle of already discussing the NHL. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose the only way to fix that is to add things that  have to do with the NHL, then - which is the issue I'm trying to draw attention to. The section's not finished,  but if you have a better way of pointing prospective editors towards the final goal, by all means, the floor is yours. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHL in ice hockey section 

message: Why is there first Nascar, then Formula 1, then Indy?  It should be either in alphabetical order, or in popularity. Either way Formula 1 should be first. 
88.148.201.199 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto racing 

message: What number 7 players 2405:3800:8EC:50DB:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handball number