Talk:Number (sports)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Football Numbers are an Australian Invention
edithttp://www.iffhs.de/?3e1d08361d1529774c8c03fcf80317
In 1911 there was a sensational innovation at a local "Australian Football" match in Sydney when the players of both teams each wore a different number on his back. The Sydney soccer clubs Leichhardt and HMS Powerful followed suit, and in 1911 wore squad numbers on the their backs for the first time in world football history. In 1912 it was mandatory in New South Wales (Australia) for players at official tournaments to wear numbers on their backs. Therefore, wearing squad numbers on the backs of jerseys is an Australian invention – not a British one, as they have claimed since the 1930's.
Page name
editAlthough 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)
- Sounds reasonable to me. Numbers worn by competitors in a sport, whether a team sport or individual sport, often bear a sort of symbolic importance within the sport. The change in name would make the article more inclusive, and thus better. Number (sport) seems OK, but I always hate using parenthetical titles if at all possible. Is there any other term that applies and is more inclusive than "Squad number?" Uniform numbers maybe? Any other ideas out there? --Jayron32 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hockey Numbers
editGretzky 99
editGretzky did not choose 99 to distance himself from Howe. He did because 9 was already taken on his Major Junoir team the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds. Here is a direct quote from Wayne on the subject:
"When people ask me about my famous hockey sweater #99, I like to let them guess a bit. Some think it represents the year that I plan to retire - so I just grin. The truth of it is that i've always been a big Gordie Howe fan and #9 was his number. When I came to the Soo, I requested that number for my own. The Greyhounds rule was that if a team member had worn that number the previous year, he would have first choice on it again. Since Brian Gualazzi had #9, I reluctantly wore #19 and later #14 instead. When Phil Esposito was traded to the Rangers, he had asked for #7, however it had been Rod Gilbert's number. Thus, Phil opted for 77. That's when Muzz MacPherson suggested that my best solution was to wear double nine, or 99. The fans initially ribbed me about wearing a football number. Later the Soo Greyhounds retired my jersey with the 99 on it. It is permanently displayed , high in the rafters at the Memorial Gardens. Recalling the many friendships formed and the encouragement of the fans - despite the frigid winters - provides me with a lot of great memories of the Soo Greyhounds. I'll never forget the sound of Go Hounds Go".
From here - http://thehoundsforum.com/index.php?showtopic=597 ALSO - a second reference http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/gretzky/99reasons.html
Goalie Numbers
editEnglish View
editI 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
editsee 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)
"Arsenal and Chelsea wore numbered shirts in their left across each line the numbering was"
editWhat does this sentence mean? -- 85.177.42.160 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cliff Johnson
editCliff Johnson never wore 99. So says Baseball Almanac. I've removed this reference.99.237.62.225 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"Shirts of special significance" section
editI 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)
- Very necessary. Thankyou. Erath (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cricket
editIn 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)
Excessive Hearsay
editTo 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)02:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Lacrosse
editIn 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)
Page name
editThis 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)
Rugby Union
editThe 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)
Requested move
edit- 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)
Squad number → Uniform number – The term people most commonly seem to use in the most popular sports around (e.g. Baseball, Football) is "uniform number." Uniform number gets 1,870,000 GHits [1]. Squad number gets 1,210,000 [2], and "jersey number" gets around that much too [3]. Hellno2 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support "squad" doesn't work in sports where they are not called squads. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose The Squad number article refers to numbers worn on the clothing of sportspeople, your google search of uniform number of course got more ghits as it doesn't specifically refer to sportspeople & as for your argument it is used by the most popular sports is not correct, football the world's most popular sport uses Squad number terminology. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support per WP:CRITERIA. "Uniform number" better fits with Recognizability, Naturalness, and Consistency. When you read the paper or listen to a sports broadcast, the term "uniform number" is used, not "squad number." Even in soccer matches, they use the term uniform number. Stedrick (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose* - While you Americans might say 'uniform' number the rest of the world speaks diferently. And I don't know how you got those numbers for the Ghits but I saw 500,000 more for Squad. Adam4267 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose move to "uniform number" – the term seems to be used a lot for North American sports; however, most European folks either tend to use "jersey number" or "squad number", so WP:CRITERIA does not apply for all anglophone regions. If the article is to be moved, it should go to "jersey number". --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I would support a move as most sports do refer to it as 'Uniform number', but only if we also move Squad number (association football) to Squad number, and hatnote between the two. GiantSnowman 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - it must be an American thing as I have never heard it called a Uniform number and football the largest sport uses Squad number. Keith D (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - It seems to be an American term uniform number. Its obviously a regional thing. To me the redirect already in place deals with this ok. A move could happen but not to that.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd prefer something like numbering of players in sports if it is truly deemed necessary to move here. "Uniform number" certainly isn't appropriate as it is AFAICT an exclusively North American term. That's a deal-breaker. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Squad number doesn't apply to many sports. Where as uniform number is also often used for football. So I see this as a good step towards being the more universal term. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Edinburgh Wanderer. This is already dealt with. Only better title I could imagine is player numbering in sport but I feel the current title is sufficient. Cloudz679 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose requested move. Never heard of uniform number. I used to wear a school uniform, but that was never numbered. Jared Preston (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose BUT support a move to jersey number. – PeeJay 21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – Have never heard of a "uniform number" in any context. Agree with Chris above, if a move is really necessary, "numbering of players in sports" would be better. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I go for "Whatever number (sports)" like in Season (sports)--Feroang (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment From what I get here, it seems like "squad number" is a term used very much in soccer. But other terms are used in other sports, and followers of those sports have never heard the term "squad number." A term that would encompass all sports neutrally might be a good idea, but the suggestions that have been given so far have for the most part been more than two words. As someone mentioned, not all sports have squads, so squad number is not a good term here. But "uniform number," the term most widely used in baseball and gridiron football, is opposed because it doesn't fit soccer. I have heard "jersey number" used occasionally in basketball. I had thought of "uniform" as being a good word for this because these are technically uniforms used in all the sports using numbering, and the numbers are printed on them. Hellno2 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not just a case of "not used in soccer". I've never heard the term used in any team sport here in the UK. If this is indeed an issue of varities of English, we may be best simply leaving the page where it is and adding a hidden note to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think that uniform number is the most commonly used in the most popular sports around. If there is going to be a move i don't think it should be this. Bobbymaestro (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose Squad number is more commonly used. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The numbers of ghits quoted above are roughly equal for squad number, jersey number and uniform number. Claims above that any one of these is more commonly used are unsupported. And I've never heard the term squad number in many years of watching many sports in which numbers are used. It may well be a local thing. So IMO the question is, what's the most recognisable title? I suspect it's none of the above. Andrewa (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Inadequately supported, unconvincing argument in favour. Leaky Caldron 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – I'd probably elect "jersey number" if I were starting this article, based on the most universal use of which I'm aware, but with the WP:ENGVAR issue and lack of demonstrably dominant use other than the current title, I don't see the merit in this change. I would note the limitations of Google hits here, given that probably the best title would be that most widely recognized, not necessarily that most used, thus even if a term were used only %10 of the time, but were the only term used globally, that would be the ideal choice. Alas, I'm not sure how to identify such a term. ENeville (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:VNE] Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Number (sports) works well IMO, see below. Andrewa (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Counter proposal
editIt seems to me that none of the three squad number, jersey number or uniform number is broad enough in scope for this article as it is, as each is used in particular sports and/or localities. These two are related, as geography is a major factor in the popularity of particular sports and codes. So (and following Cloudz679 above), for this overview article I suggest Numbering of players in sport, or failing that a similar descriptive title. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support I as the original nom am willing to accept that - I mean "number (sports)." This is simple and is neutral to the concerns that different terms are used in different sports or regions. It is the same number of words as the current title, thereby preserving the simplicity. And the lead and possibly a whole paragraph or section can go into explanation about the various terminology that is used in different sports and regions, if references for it can be found. I noticed that someone in another discussion above has suggested that very title. Hellno2 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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
editPosted 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 [[number (sports)|]] 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)
Goaltender picture in ice hockey section
editThe 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)
- Moot point now, I removed the image. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Copy edit
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Came to an agreement following a rewrite of the paragraph in question. Matter is now closed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 wrong with clarifying that the number was retired for someone other than a player; to me, it seems awkward to not do so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 does happen, but rarely), is hurting anything. One could 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 was 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)
- 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)
- 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 does happen, but rarely), is hurting anything. One could 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 was 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)
- 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)
- 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 wrong with clarifying that the number was retired for someone other than a player; to me, it seems awkward to not do so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::"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)
All of this is hopefully moot with my newest treatment of the paragraph. This isn't me trying to quell discussion or control anything; an idea just hit me as I was re-reading it since I haven't actually done so in awhile. This new version definitely reads a lot more clearly to me and has hopefully addressed your concerns. Any thoughts? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
NHL in ice hockey section
editThe 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)
- 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)
- I propose the only way to fix that is to add things that don't 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)
Auto racing
editWhy 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)
Handball number
editWhat number 7 players 2405:3800:8EC:50DB:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)