Regardless[edit]

The following discussion is a concluded merger discussion. 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 debate was Not Merge (1 merge, 3 not merge) debate has extended to the WP:RFC below further comment should be placed there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC) If you don't agree that needs a citation that's cool, no big deal. But this article is a duplication of content from Home advantage. Possible merger? As this appears to be little more than a definition. IvoShandor 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can ignore my comment, which is really rude, or I can just AfD this. IvoShandor 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See what I was hoping is we could just do a merge nice and quiet like, since this is so plainly obvious. I will propose it on each page in a bit. IvoShandor 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know that anybody responded. I wasn't ignoring you. Anyway, if anything I think home advantage should be merged here because of the other side of the article, road (sports). Both articles are related, but are two separate topics. If anything needs to be merged, it would make more sense to merge home advantage to home (sports) instead of vice-versa because that would remove the significance of road (sports) if there isn't home (sports) to compliment it. Ksy92003(talk) 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. This article is little more than dictionary definition, 3 of its 4 sources are dictionaries! It should either be merged with another article (I don't care which way it goes-have to fight that out with the folks at the other page) or it should be transwikied to Wikitionary per WP:NOT being a dictionary. IvoShandor 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently much more than just a dictionary definition. It describes the differences between the home team and the road team in particular games and describes the differences between the home team and arena and the road team in different sports. It's much more than just a definition. If the only issue is the fact tht three of four sources are dictionary definitions, then that can easily be improved simply by getting better sources. But I think that this article, complimented with road (sports), are too different to be merged to another article. Because of the differences between the road team and venue and the home team and venue, those two should remain separate, and this article shouldn't be merged into home advantage because of how Home compliments Road; it seems unreasonable to have Road (sports) and Home advantage talking about these differences. Anywho, TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) is the user who created these articles, so I think that you should get his opinion on this because, if any improvements could be made to the article to keep it from being merged, he'd be the one to best provide them. Ksy92003(talk) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep disagreeing, and probably won't agree with you. We should wait for other input from those not associated with the article. IvoShandor 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I also disagree that this should stay for consistancy of titles sake. IvoShandor 19:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using that as my reasoning for keeping it unmerged; I was using that as a consistency between related, yet opposite, topics. But yeah, us two are the only ones in this discussion and we have opposite opinions, so our arguments don't hold much weight unless some other people come into the discussion, I agree with you on that. Ksy92003(talk) 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I know you weren't but it seemed as if that was being used as an additional reason, just making my opinion about it known. I have put merge tags on both pages so some folks should, hopefully, come along. I am hoping for outside input, you and I obviously have opinions, and I am sure Tony's matches yours. What we need is people who don't have a personal stake in any of this, i.e. people who haven't worked on the articles. IvoShandor 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry for giving you that impression. Also, note that the article is in its beginning stage; it was created within the past week if memory serves. So not that many people, in my opinion, would be aware that the article even exists. I think it may take some time before a third opinion comes. Ksy92003(talk) 19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSY, thanks for defending me. I didn't notice the debate. The purpose of this article is to present encyclopedic information about being the home team other than home advantage, which is but a small part of the encyclopedic topic home (sports). Thus, if it achieves this objective it should have its own article. If you believe this article presents information on home that is not part of the home advantage topic, then you should believe it should have its own page. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article, the article on home advantage and the article on road (sports), my opinion is that this article shouldn't be merged. Obviously there is a strong connection between home (sports) and home advantage, but the two pages do not contain the same information (as Tony put it: this article presents information on home that is not part of the home advantage topic). As this page develops, a section could be titled home advantage, with a one paragraph summary of home advantage and a link to the main article, where the explanation is much more detailed. However, if the page is kept you have to be careful not to expand too much on home advantage, because that would create a greater argument to support a merge. Alex9788 08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is a concluded promotion discussion. 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.

Request for Comment: Merger RfC[edit]

Still no consensus to merge. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I put this request in because of the lack of non-contributor perspective on the merger discussion. IvoShandor 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British use[edit]

Just in case you're not already watching the article, please can you take a look at my post on Talk:Road (sports) regarding the British term "away". This article too, could do with being made applicable to American and British sports. For example, in the article you refer to American football as football, and football as soccer. I understand these terms are widely used in America, and it's probably annoying when some Brit comes along and says you've got to use BrE, the same as Brits get annoyed when Americans try to force AmE (there's been a lot of debate on whether an article should be named gasoline or petrol). However, a simple click on those two links shows that wikipedia users have determined that they are the most appropriate titles for the sports on English wikipedia. In addition, what's your source for football (soccer) home teams wearing lighter [darker] colours? Not true in my experience. If you agree these changes need to be made I'll go ahead and make them, but I'll wait for your input. Alex9788 13:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources for any of these claims of the way things usually are (this is a general comment about the jersey colors not specifically at you Alex), obviously there has already been some wrong information and disagreement, sources would be nice, because, basically, our observations constitute original research and someone unfamiliar with the topic of sports enough to not know the colors of jerseys typical for home and road teams needs to be able to verify this information. IvoShandor 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I could give a very large number of examples where the away kits have been lighter [darker] than the home kits, I can't find a source that specifically says anything along the lines of "In football the home kit is often not lighter [darker] than the away kit", and to be honest I can't see a reason why anyone would make such a statement, for there is no reason to believe the home kit would be lighter [darker] than the away kit. Personally I think the sentence saying that football home teams wear lighter [darker] colours should be taken out anyway. It's more important to have a source for putting something in an article than for taking something out. For example, if I write a controversial claim on a page I definately need a source to keep it in. But if I wrote on a page "In 1834 a dog named Fred and a cat named Susan got married and had offspring called cat-dogs" it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to find a source saying explicitly "In 1834 there was not a marriage between a dog named Fred and a cat named Susan, and there were no offspring between these two animals". Of course any user would simply remove the vandalism without question, and if we needed sources to take out incorrect information vandals would have a very easy job. Of course the claim in question is not on the same scale in terms of rediculousness, but my general point is that one shouldn't have to have a source to take out incorrect information, it should be the responsibility of the person who wants the information kept to find a source. Hope that makes sense, Alex9788 11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have a source to take out incorrect information, but to correct it, yes, you need a source. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. None of that information is cited in the current article, it needs to be. IvoShandor 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you, most of the information in the article needs sources. Alex9788 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of football (soccer) around the world, and even in the United States with a team like LA Galaxy, is that the "home team" has its "primary uniform," whether those be vertical or horizontal stripes of off-setting colors, solid darks or solid lights. If a given team travels to an away match, they may also wear their "primary uniform" if it does not clash with their opponent's "primary uniform." A famous example of this is the all-whites of Real Madrid and the vertical blaugrana stripes of FC Barcelona. Regardless of where these arch rivals play their matches, both teams wear their "primary uniform." --Beach blvd (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the home team is listed last (or rather, later)[edit]

I had always imagined this to be a concession to brevity of speech (or writing); It's easier, especially when reading off a long list of matchups, to say "Boston at Cleveland" than it is to say "Cleveland versus Boston ... at Cleveland." However, if it's really the opposite for the rest of the world, then it probably is due to baseball setting the precedent for coverage of the other sports. WHPratt (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am less concerned about the reason for why the convention differs in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world than about the fact that the way the relevant paragraph is written is somewhat confusing. For one thing, the term "scoreline" is not very well defined; and I believe the distinction applies to descriptions of matchups as well. The more serious problem is that it is not clear how the last sentence is intended to relate to the first sentence. I.e., is it describing how networks tend to behave depending on what country they are in, or is it suggesting that networks need not adhere to the convention described in the first sentence? Furthermore, it is not clear to me why various media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, web sites) other than TV networks are not included. Since I cannot be sure what interpretation is intended, I am reluctant to fix it. What I have observed in my own (fairly extensive) experience is that media do consistently follow the convention described in the first sentence. Furthermore, in the U.S. and in a context in which the home team of a matchup is mentioned first, the abbreviation "vs." is used before the name of the visiting team - i.e., it's "at" by default and explicitly "vs." otherwise. In fact, this usage is so uniformly consistent, that I find it surprising that I have been unable to find any 'official' declaration of the convention. If this talk comment lingers for at least a week without dissent, I will modify the paragraph to make it express more clearly what I believe to be true; though I would prefer to see a credible reference. DrHow (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would regard a construction like "Chicago vs Cleveland" as ambiguous, and possibly referring to any matchup of those teams. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of a convenhtion that the home team goes first in any "vs" declaration. This would argue for using "at" whenever possible (e.g., "Detroit at Green Bay", reserving the "vs" for neutral-site matches (e.g., "Detroit vs Green Bay at Milwaukee"). WHPratt (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally went ahead and modified the paragraph to make the convention more clear and to remove reference to particular media. I also removed the speculation about the reason for the exception in the U.S. The reason is not really all that important in this context. Furthermore, the 'reference' cited for the reason was not authoritative - but just more speculation on the subject. As far as "vs." is concerned, my observation is that organized media, when listing matchups, do consistently list the home team first. In fact, I have never seen an exception. There may well be exceptions in the way people talk about matchups among themselves. It would be nice to have an authoritative reference on this subject; but all that we are really offering here so far is an observation of what seems to be very standard practice worldwide. My own observation of practice outside the U.S. is primarily limited to (but fairly extensive within) the U.K. and Australia. (Regarding my reference to "scoreline" in my previous comment, I did not mean to imply that the 2-word phrase "score line" is not generally understood - just that the single word "scoreline" is not to be found in any dictionaries I tried.) DrHow (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories