Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 19, 2019

"Cardiff, which joined the Football League in 1920" In such a sentence, it would be far more usual in UK English to use "who" as the relative pronoun for a football club.

"the 1925 FA Cup Final, where Cardiff suffered a 1–0 defeat..." I think that should be "in which" rather than "where".

"He led the team to success in the 1927 FA Cup Final, defeating Arsenal 1–0." Keenor did not defeat Arsenal: the two clauses should have different subjects. Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Writing about association football is hard for me. Fortunately this one has been through a blurb review, so: @Kosack, Casliber, and SchroCat. - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Cardiff, which joined" is correct; "He led the team to success in the 1927 FA Cup Final, defeating" is also correct, as it's referring to the team. Either are mistake should unless one is trying to read them as such. "Where" is wrong ('where' is geographic), and I'll tweak that in a second. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"which" is not wrong, but is not usual UK English in referring to football teams, which tend to be personalised as "who". WP:ENGVAR.

If a sentence has two clauses, and the subject of both clauses is not the same in both, the subject needs to be mentioned in both. The second clause has no subject, so it must have the same subject as the first. The subject of the first clause is Keenor, but it does not make sense for him to be the subject of the second part. suggest "He led the team to a 1-0 victory over Arsenal".

However, I now also notice "Their triumph remains the only time the competition..." Their triumph was not a time, and it would be useful to readers to define the role of leadership he had (the manager could equally be said to led the team) so suggest "He captained the team to a 1-0 victory over Arsenal in the 1927 FA Cup final, as Cardiff became the first, and still the only, team based outside England to win the competition." Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"not usual UK English": ermmm... I'm also English, and it's common enough and correct enough.

Again, it's still not a problem unless on deliberately tries to misread

"time" is being used as "occurrence": in one of its many common forms, and is therefore correct.

No, managers do not lead teams: they manage them. Captains lead teams.

Again, you're making problems that are not in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

'led' is used in relationship to the manager's role in the articles on Alf Ramsay, Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger: don't claim that managers don't lead.

From BBC reports of today's PL matches "The Canaries, who finished 18 points above Villa last season," "Norwich, who have lost all four away league matches this season," "against a Blades side who have picked up more points" "Tottenham, who were in the Champions League final just four months ago" "clear of Manchester City, who play on Sunday". Now, how many can you find where they use the relative pronoun 'which' to refer to a team?

And no response on the misrelated clause issue? Kevin McE (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Captains lead. It's fine as it is.

If you think the standard we should aim for is that of online journalists, you will find gaps between that level and good writing. It's fine as it is.

Yes, you're making problems that are not in the text. its fine as it is.

You are reading in errors that are only there is you try to find them. That's way beyond any normal levels of pedantry and roaming right into the lands of disruption. I'm going to disengage now, as I think you're not doing this to be constructive, but for some other reason. Either way it's a waste of mine and everyone else's time. - SchroCat (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't help much with this one ... I'm out of my depth. I also have to be careful whenever I helped write the blurb, as in this case. Cas, Kosack, if you want to participate, great, if not, no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So SchroCat's approach is to ignore reliable sources as evidence of how the language is used in relation to this issue, and insist that what is in the blurb, although not in the article (which uses 'who' twice to refer to football teams, and 'which' not at all for that purpose), is correct because he/she says so. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Stop being so inflexible and arrogant. Teams are made of individuals, so yes we can use who, or it can refer to a team, which uses which. Just because you want to keep battling and being disruptive you crack on, but just because you keep demanding something doesn’t mean everyone else has to jump to what you de use. The sooner you stop being disruptive and learn how consensus works, the better it will be for everyone who has the misfortune to have to deal with you. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Prove your point then. Give 5 references to reliable sources using 'which' to refer to football teams, in UK English. It only took me a couple of minutes to find my five examples above, so it shouldn't take you long.

I have demonstrated that there is more than one role of leadership in football teams, and that 'led' is used of managers. You have been unwilling to explain why it is inappropriate for the blurb to make it clear that in this instance he was captain of the team.

I am not being inflexible: I am proposing using the language choices of the FA in question. You are adamant that the blurb should be unchanged, but have made no effort to demonstrate that it is correct. Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FFS... [1], [2], [3]. [4], [5], [6], [7].

Captains lead, and when we're discussing a captain of a team (and made no mention of him as a manager), it's clear to anyone who hasn't got a Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND mentality to discussion that what the text says adequately conveys the information without the need to misread nonsense just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But the reader of this blurb has no reason to assume that you are talking about a captain: I really cannot understand your resistance to making that clear, especially as it has been demonstrated that not only captains are described as leading.

Just as I cannot understand why you are insisting on applying 'which' to the blurb, when it is not used in the article in this sense, and is much less common in the relevant engvar.

To illustrate that, and though you did find examples of 'which' for a football team (and then supplemented that with two examples that had nothing to do with football), I followed your trick of doing a Google search of the string ""it was manchester city which": it got 4 hits. The string ""it was manchester city who" had 3,320 hits. Please explain why "which" is better. Kevin McE (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding my 2c. "Who" sounds more natural to me - groups of humans seem to switch to "who" from "which" quite often (like clubs and bands). Captains do lead, I'd never see it used of coaches or managers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

'Led' is however used of managers in the three manager articles I looked at (Ramsey, Ferguson, Wenger). Do you think there is any substantial disadvantage to using the more specific "captained" rather than "led" in the blurb? Kevin McE (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, not hugely fussed. I like "led" as it is more succinct. I can live with "captained" though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)