Talk:James Wilson (English footballer)

Lead

Info should not be in the lead only, and where he is born is not relevant to the section sentence. PJ Was advised here by User:The Almightey Drill [1] shouldn't be included, then here by me also stating must be included in main article and of course sourced directly before being in lead[2]. Ive improved the article by doing so in my next edit. PJ is displaying clear WP:OWN issues in relation to all Manchester United and is unwilling to discuss unless his preferred version is in place, even if more than one other editor disagrees.Blethering Scot 22:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nationality shouldn't be mixed with place of birth in footballing context. If article was bigger, pob was worded to avoid direct correlation with nationality and football and the very next sentence after lead wasn't stating the same then this could and should be included at a later date.Blethering Scot 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead again

@Blethering Scot: What is the purpose of introducing an extra phrase to the opening sentence of the article? And more to the point, why are you arguing over it? In good English, by which I mean English of a professional quality, there is never any need to introduce extra commas when fewer will do. Since we can word the sentence without the need for the extra commas, that is what we should do. – PeeJay 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously becoming extremely disruptive to Manchester United related articles where you are showing extreme cases of WP:Own. Why are you edit warring over it more to the point after being asked twice to discuss here? Once again if you are fucking reverted and told to discuss on the talk page, you don't then revert saying per BRD. Its too bloody late, your edit was opposed and you were advised to talk. You talk straight away you don't then fight to have your preferred version on the page before discussing. How many reverts have you made to this page I'm counting ten, one discussion attempt after you were bullied into it. Why won't you discuss with people.Blethering Scot 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bore off, mate. Instead of making personal attacks, why not address the question regarding the content? Is it any wonder I feel like you're targeting me? – PeeJay 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You bore off. Im not making any personal attacks at all, just facts you are displaying major own issues and have done over a variety of different Manchester United articles, whilst attempting to keep your own version by edit warring. You've edit warred should very little inclination to discuss with anyone. As for targeting you, I've interacted with you about two articles both of which I watch & especially this one which I've worked on. If i was targeting you it would be I'm very sure easy to find more examples of your WP:Own behaviour, the fact is I couldn't care less about you so why would I waste my time on you. Blethering Scot 21:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you request a discussion and then not engage with the topic you wanted to discuss? WHY DO YOU INSIST ON HAVING THE UNNECESSARY COMMA? – PeeJay 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your the one turning a comma into a your targeting me and bore off discussion, if you want a discussion don't accuse people who don't agree with you of targeting you. The comma isn't unnecessary, its required in that sentence structure. Its also is my view it reads better that way.Blethering Scot 22:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in that sentence structure. But if you change the sentence structure, you don't need the comma and you improve the readability of the sentence. Of course, readability is entirely subjective, so I don't give two hoots about whether you think it reads better your way, nor should you care about my opinion. Now, can you please restore the comma-less version and cease this stupid bickering? – PeeJay 00:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Noticed a unnecessay comma in the lead, then noticed I couldn't edit it, then came here and read this talk page, then checked through the history, then realised why I stopped editting on Wikipedia/ The pair of you should be ashamed of your childish behaviour. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And who exactly are you? Only person acting childishly is PJ, as to unnecessary comma, as you are fully aware it's not unnecessary in the sentence structure. Blethering Scot 09:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So when more than one editor outnumbers my opinion, you browbeat me until I accept "consensus", but when there's a majority against you, you start having a go at the guy because he doesn't have an account here? Talk about hypocrisy! – PeeJay 10:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect they actually do have an account here and that they actually made no point whatsoever that is valid, it is not an unnecessary comma in the sentence structure. Your point is readability, my point is this version reads better and as you've said its subjective. There is nothing wrong with the version that is in place. 4 people disagreed with you and you said no you were correct, not until there was a hell of a lot more did you accept anything so don't you dare call me a hypocrite because i see one in you. PJ nothing is going to convince me that you are acting in spite in anything you do regarding Manchester United articles where you have shown extreme own issues. So don't expect me to not challenge you when you are edit warring to get your own way. These articles do not belong to you any more than they do me. Im willing to start discussions your simply willing to edit war over them.Blethering Scot 11:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PJ do you have a compromise suggestion? Im willing to be the better person and change my view, even though i feel readability is compromised in your version but there is no point continuing this dramafest. I do want assurances you will start to discuss issues after you've been reverted, rather than making sure your preferred version is on a page before you do.Blethering Scot 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PJ are you kidding me, what part of discuss this have you not got. Nor did this edit validate your edit when it stated unnecessary comma and removes it where a comma is needed. It did not change the sentence structure at all to not need a comma. Your clearly not willing to discuss anything has have not made one reply here since 25 May.Blethering Scot 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You want me to discuss a simple matter of word order? No. It's absolutely clear that your word order (and thus the superfluous comma) are completely illogical. Why add clauses to a sentence when you can say the same thing simply and clearly without introducing unnecessary punctuation? You accuse me of owning this article, but you've started a ridiculous argument because you can't accept that someone else might have a better grasp of the English language than yourself. Look at any other article and you'll see examples of the word order I am suggesting. I've requested input from the Guild of Copyeditors, but it really shouldn't have had to come to this. Just suck it up and accept the superior wording that I have suggested. – PeeJay 19:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

PJ, its come to anything because you have failed to reply here since May 25 when there was a clear opportunity to fix this. It has come to this because of your constant reversions to the page ignoring any attempts to discuss with you, hence why if you want to change it discuss it with me, don't try and revert and think you'll get away with it. And don't you dare accuse me of having a poor grasp of english, i don't think you have a better one than me. As you said yourself it is personally subjective what is better readability. I prefer the latter, you prefer the former. There is a mix of these on this site. Personally you are one of the worst editors i have come across on this site for displaying own issues and for constantly reverting when fully aware of discussions. Its your fault this hasn't been resolved not mine. I was happy to discuss changing this on May 25 against my better judgement but you clearly weren't interested, especially since i asked for assurances re you edit warring.Blethering Scot 19:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is the logical argument.Blethering Scot 19:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? We each have our own preferences that clearly neither is going to back down from, so what's the point in me trying to convince you? I'm just waiting for others to weigh in on the discussion. By the way, at least three editors have now attempted to remove your superfluous comma, but you won't accept my opinion because you have a problem with me for no good reason and you won't accept the opinion of anonymous editors because you apparently believe yourself to be above them. You are wrong. Accept it and go away. – PeeJay 19:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a clear offer to you on the 25 to discuss alternatives. I was willing to do so then, so you are bloody wrong. You weren't willing to give any assurances re your edit warring thats the only reason you haven't replied. IPS removed the comma, they never changed it to your sentence structure. PJ lets get this straight, i won't leave you alone when you edit war. If i see you doing it I will watch you. I don't believe myself to be above Ip's I'm certainly a better person than you however, although only you know how hard that would be. As for the comma, ill remove it, but don't change the structure as club should come before position. Blethering Scot 19:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are only two alternatives: "James Antony Wilson is an English footballer who plays as a striker for Manchester United" or "James Antony Wilson is an English footballer who plays for Manchester United, as a striker". By including a comma in the latter, you introduce a pause into the sentence that makes it read like getting punched in the face. You can avoid using the comma, and hence the pause, by rearranging the words. No words are added, no words are lost. They're exactly the same words, just in a different (and better) order. Why can you not accept this? – PeeJay 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean only two options not alternatives. In what way does it read like you are being punched in the face. Its grammatically correct, gives preference to the club which isn't changeable like position is per game. Im sorry but grammatically they are both correct and readable. You have been arguing & edit warring over two grammatically correct statements since the middle of May. User:PeeJay2K3 also this is hypocritical. You say the IP'S were correct and i didn't listen to them, they removed the comma without changing the structure. So if they were correct then the comma should be removed. They weren't correct which I said all along although you seem to be implying they were so what is it.Blethering Scot 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't introduce irrelevant content to this page. Anyway, maybe your ear just isn't as attuned to the finer points of English speech to recognise it, but the pause is unwieldy. It may be grammatically correct, but it's not logical. You say his position is not as changeable as his club? I agree, it's not; that's why it should be placed with the other non-changeable elements of the sentence, such as his name and his birth date. The club he plays for is an afterthought. When he is without a club, he will still be called James Antony Wilson, he will still have been born on 1 December 1995 and he will still be a forward. Put that info together and add the club he plays for to the end of the sentence. And no, I'm not saying the IPs were correct, I'm saying they have correctly identified that putting commas into sentences is usually excessive and we should find ways to reword sentences so that they don't have clauses ad infinitum. – PeeJay 20:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You've stated that I said the opposite of what i said, i give up with you I really do. Your also twisting what the ip's said and did. Do the hell what you want, this really isn't worth the crap when its grammatically correct for readability. We are talking just that written, not spoken. The audible gap isn't an issue here. As I said do what you want, this isn't worth it over a correct statement.Blethering Scot

Oh and you should not remove other peoples talk page posts, thats not on.Blethering Scot 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If a comment doesn't relate to this article, I am well within my rights to remove it. – PeeJay 21:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was relevant, because it shows your treatment of other users in a similar manner to what you are doing here. And actually even then no your not.Blethering Scot 21:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My conduct is not at issue here. It wasn't relevant to this article. Get a clue. – PeeJay 21:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No you get a clue PJ, your conduct is very much been one of the key issues throughout this, including edit warring and abrasive attitude towards others. And the answer still stands its bad practice to remove other users talk page posts. My point stands do what you want with the article this isn't worth it, especially when they are both grammatically correct and as readable as each other.Blethering Scot 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Debut

The player is currently mostly notable for his debut, whether that is under GNG or WP:footy guidelines for playing in a professional league. It is therefore important that what he is notable for is covered. I believe how the goals came about on his debut is important as clearly does the people who added initially . Not every goal in a players career should be covered in detail but when they are notable for their debut it should be. Obviously as players careers expand and more content available every section should be trimmed for excessive detail but not early on in his career when he is only notable for his debut in the premier league.Blethering Scot 10:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Would also note PJ has made 7 reverts to this page without any attempt to discuss on talk page, if he objects to content he needs to discuss here.Blethering Scot 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't be "mostly notable" for something, and even if you could, you have to consider WP:UNDUE. Describing how his two goals were scored is giving undue weight to those goals. Anyway, I've expanded the page now, so would you please give this vendetta a rest? – PeeJay 13:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What vendetta, if you mean me having an interest in this subgroup then you are sadly mistaken if you think I will leave that alone. Personally don't think it was undue at all, but given its expanded it fine for now.Blethering Scot 19:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to +1 our Scottish friend here. Often in a player's article, debuts and first goals are all that are mentioned, and in the most detail. Hence why details of coming on as a substitute for a debut (for other players) is mentioned, but would look trite for say the 47th appearance. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a limit though. There was nothing noteworthy about the goals themselves, other than the fact that they were Wilson's first for United. Unlike Federico Macheda's debut goal against Aston Villa, Wilson's were pretty run-of-the-mill. – PeeJay 10:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

However, for the moment, he's more notable for the fact he scored those goals. If, next season, he plays lots of games and scores lots of goals, then I'm sure that can be removed, but at the moment it is still important. - 97rob (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But my point above still stands: if, in 1/2/5/10 years, those goals aren't worth mentioning in the article, chances are they aren't worth mentioning now. – PeeJay 11:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely though if someone comes to Wikipedia in the next few months looking for information about him, that's going to be of interest for them? - 97rob (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my initial point at this moment in time this is what he is notable for, articles will always be trimmed down later once the career has expanded to remove excessive detail. However with a new career there is very little excessive detail, if we are taking his 20th goal then going into detail would clearly be excessive, but in this case I'm not sure it was. At this point though at least the article is further expanded. Blethering Scot 14:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

England Under 18's

According to this Wilson has played for England Under 18's. Any other info?Blethering Scot 21:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. – PeeJay 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct, read it three times before I realised changed from England to United at the end of that para. It does however contradict our article which states he made his debut in a friendly aged 14 for under-18's, this article says debut aged 15. I would assume Metro means competitive debut but we should add clarity in article.Blethering Scot 22:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is sufficiently clear that the game he played at age 14 was a friendly. Unless you mean the article should mention his competitive U18 debut as well? – PeeJay 22:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact he made his competitive debut at 15 for the under-18's is more relevant than the fact he played a friendly aged 14. Its either mention both or remove the friendly option for me, as its a lesser significance.Blethering Scot 22:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why the either/or? Just state your preference, there's no need to suggest a destructive course of action when the best options are either constructive or neutral. Furthermore, is it not obvious from the text that the four league appearances he made must have included his competitive debut? – PeeJay 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would include both as I said, however it's more relevant he made his full debit for them aged 15 than it is to make an appearance in a friendly so if its too much detail to include both then it should be the latter. Blethering Scot 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Wilson (footballer, born 1995). 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/20140512223152/http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=1535 to http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=1535

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) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• James Wilson Accrington Celebration.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)