Talk:Exhibition game/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Preparation match?
ResolvedIs it really true that "preparation match" has mostly replaced "friendly" as a term to refer to international matches of this sort? It seems to me that both in the press and in conversation I've heard a whole lot of references to "friendlies," and very few references to "preparation matches." john k 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, not at all, friendly is far more common. Looking at the first couple of pages of Google and Google News hits for "preparation match" vs "friendly match", preparation match appears to be an americanism, a large proportion of uses seem to involve the US national team. Maybe US national team press releases have been using it? In any case, the statement is not true. Oldelpaso 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- For what (little) it's worth, I've never encountered it "in the wild," so to speak, even in the U.S.--Ray Radlein 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge?
ResolvedI notice that the merge tag has been here for more than three months, now, without garnering any discussion. I personally don't see any reason why the articles should be merged; the two concepts seem sufficiently distinct as to warrant separate articles. Among other things, I've never heard of intra-squad exhibition matches being referred to as friendlies; are "all-star" matches or other matches involving ad hoc teams ever referred to that way?--Ray Radlein 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another three months with no comments. I don't see what distinguishes friendly match from exhibition game. When they charge admission for an intra-squad game, that is also an exhibition, but such games are rather rare. All-star games are also classed as exhibitions, but many fans would not think of it that way.
- Is there some meaning to "friendly" that I am missing. The concept here is that you have a league of teams who play a season to determine a championship, but they also play games which don't count toward the championship. These are two articles about those games that don't count. I say merge 'em. -- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Imho, the two are separate concepts and should not be merged (possibly cross-referenced?). "Exhibition match" is clearly an American term, and refers predominantly to American sports. "Friendly" is quite a football (soccer) specific term and is the only term used in Britain. Also, incidentally, friendlies can be competitive (eg friendly pre-season tournaments) and there are often cards & substitution limits! -- MLD · T · C · @: 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Friendly match should merge into this article. They are both about precisely the same thing, and the "friendly match" term is an informal one. The British actually use "exhibition match" and "exhibition game" all the time (for examples, see various high-profile snooker player bios on Wikipedia, which have been almost entirely written and edited by British Wikipedians, or search bbc.co.uk for these terms). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in the UK and have been a football (soccer) fan for 25 years and I've never heard the term "exhibition match" used in the UK to refer to a football friendly. Maybe snooker uses it, I dunno, I never watch it, but football certainly doesn't use the term ChrisTheDude 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who said anything about football? The term is a widely encompassing one that covers all professional competitive activities. That football prefers to use a different term for their exhibition matches doesn't make the concept any different, and doesn't warrant a separate, POV-laden stub. At any rate, there's no real conflict here - the merged article mentions both terms in the intro, and uses the proper one for football (soccer) which has top-billing in the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been bold and done the merge. The only people (a small handful) who have opposed the merge at all since July 2006 are people who think (very mistakenly) that "exhibition game or match" is a US English term for US sports that is in opposition to their UK English term for the same thing in football (soccer), and that they have to defend their UK usage from Americanism especially since American football and football (soccer) exhibitions/friendlies aren't precisely the same in every way. The entire debate it completely silly. Exhibition game/match is a blanket term for all such consequence-free competition in all sports and games, all of which have differences (notice that there are sections for hockey, baseball, basketball, etc.), which are accounted for in the merged article. After almost a year, Friendly match has never gotten out of the poorly-written stub state. If it were important to WikiProject Football which never bothered to even talk-page tag it, it wouldn't have stayed in such a sorry state. This is an emphatically sensible merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I'm sure there are American football fans who would like to "impose" the term "exhibition game" on soccer, e.g. by adding a soccer section to the original Exhibition game article and not using the term Friendly match; it was really just a matter of time, and this merge prevented that from happening. The merged article will actually help disabuse them of this notion in the future. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PPS: If anyone's still unclear on the rationale: The existence of two separate articles, with a lot of POV and frankly rather snotty embedded remarks in one of them, was due to a pissing match over what to call this concept in soccer (and the merged version resolves that dispute in favor of the soccer fans' preferences). The end result before the merge was a blatantly incorrect Exhibition game article and a rather useless Friendly match one, that in the end did a disservice to the reader by reducing the very broad term "exhibition match", which is used in US and UK English, across any sports/games, to "it's the American term for 'friendly match'", which is simply counterfactual. I doubt anyone would have an issue with there being a main article for Friendly match eventually if it were an actual article (with a History section, references, etc., etc.) instead of a three-paragraph stub (well, four counting the little intro). I could go write an article about exhibition games in billiards - there's certainly enough material to write one - but until someone actually makes a real article about that, the topic shouldn't be anything but a section in this article (and I hope to create just such a section at some point). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PPPS: Another upside is that instead of two Stub-class, Low-priority wanna-be articles we now have a Start-class article that can almost certainly be rated at least Mid-priority on the assessment scale by WikiProject Sports for Wikipedia 1.0 purposes. One big step closer to Featured Article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Px4S: Also, to characterize this as a UK vs. US English thing at all is kind of off-base. Football (soccer) is popular in the US too, and getting much more so every year, and US "soccer" fans (other than that word) tend to use traditional (i.e. mostly UK-sourced) terminology within that context. I don't see any evidence at all that US footy fans call friendly matches "exhibition matches". I.e., the dichotomy that resulted in the forked articles appears to have been an imaginary one to begin with, other than (as noted) there probably are fans of American football (and baseball, etc.) who don't even understand that soccer people call soccer exhibition games "friendly matches"). In the context of football (soccer) there is no US/UK conflict. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PPPS: Another upside is that instead of two Stub-class, Low-priority wanna-be articles we now have a Start-class article that can almost certainly be rated at least Mid-priority on the assessment scale by WikiProject Sports for Wikipedia 1.0 purposes. One big step closer to Featured Article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PPS: If anyone's still unclear on the rationale: The existence of two separate articles, with a lot of POV and frankly rather snotty embedded remarks in one of them, was due to a pissing match over what to call this concept in soccer (and the merged version resolves that dispute in favor of the soccer fans' preferences). The end result before the merge was a blatantly incorrect Exhibition game article and a rather useless Friendly match one, that in the end did a disservice to the reader by reducing the very broad term "exhibition match", which is used in US and UK English, across any sports/games, to "it's the American term for 'friendly match'", which is simply counterfactual. I doubt anyone would have an issue with there being a main article for Friendly match eventually if it were an actual article (with a History section, references, etc., etc.) instead of a three-paragraph stub (well, four counting the little intro). I could go write an article about exhibition games in billiards - there's certainly enough material to write one - but until someone actually makes a real article about that, the topic shouldn't be anything but a section in this article (and I hope to create just such a section at some point). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I'm sure there are American football fans who would like to "impose" the term "exhibition game" on soccer, e.g. by adding a soccer section to the original Exhibition game article and not using the term Friendly match; it was really just a matter of time, and this merge prevented that from happening. The merged article will actually help disabuse them of this notion in the future. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For me who lives in Ireland and regularly read football articles from Ireland and the UK, the types of matches described in Football (Soccer) section of this article are not exhibition matches. They are friendly matches. A exhibition match typically involves one or two one-off team (such as all-star matches in the MLS and J. League, or a match between, say, Real Madrid VS the Rest of The World). Do people in the American soccer community use the term "exhibition match" to describe what we call a friedly on this side of the Atlantic? If not, this article contains wrong information. Tarafuku10 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the phrase "exhibition match" is also used in Commonwealth English but with a different meaning from "friendly match", then simply edit the article to include that meaning. The article already explains that the sorts of exhibition matches described here for soccer are called "friendly matches" by soccer people. I.e., this appears to be a non-issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- PS: The text already addresses this, in quite a bit of detail, so this subtopic is now moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Japanese baseball
More info is needed on the Japan All-Star Series.[1] [I moved this here from an HTML comment left inside the article itself, and have no opinion, pro or con.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Confusing multi-sport multi-dialect
Reading this article, one would not know that "friendlies" are not played in American baseball or basketball. The word is meaningless to Americans uninitiated in soccer jargon or some other place where this word is used. Kdammers (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exhibition game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509095048/http://www.remembertheaba.com/ABAStatistics/ABANBAExhibitions.html to http://www.remembertheaba.com/ABAStatistics/ABANBAExhibitions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exhibition game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607091644/http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/crawford-takes-part-in-bounce-game/ to http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/crawford-takes-part-in-bounce-game/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)