Talk:Golden Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, "Aranycsapat" should not be written in separate words. --Biziclop 09:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1 Greates finest ever among all, starting new era ...
2 Horribly Written
3 article can be removed
4 Feel Free to delete Aranycsapat article
5 Keep Article
6 Naming
7 Copyedit
8 Npov tag

[edit] Greates finest ever among all, starting new era ...

I have no idea where this text comes from and frankly do not care about the article but Wikipedia should stick with some standards and not sounds as propaganda to excite fans and attract more advertisement. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pavel Vozenilek, this article is kept to the highest standards according to football pundits and experts who have due diligence in research and "who actually" have homework on national teams from the past.

Well, I'd consider the team (being one of the more famous national teams) deserves the page. I just wonder about the length of the article (maybe a tad long for what should fit into an encyclopedia). Gian Giorgis 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horribly Written

I agree with Pavel. Maybe the writers are knowledgeable but it is horribly written:

" It is credited with directly leading to a kind of a future tense football that opened a new chapter for tactical calculus and positional roles in the game that would render understood contemporary concepts a game of other times; sculpting a precusor to the "Total Football" genre that later the Netherlands football scene cottoned to, and its adoption and definite perfection by succeeding Brazilian teams."

Long sentences in a very inelegant and wordy style. It's almost impossible to read or understand much of it:

"...with a ledger that is inconceivably remarkable..."

not just a 'remarkable record', but 'inconceivably so' and a 'ledger' no less. I've noticed this on Football related articles: they read like a breathless fanzine. Please just the facts.

"The gorgeous arch of Bozsik's ball was true and Kocsis outleap both of his markers and with his head diagonally netted a one out of a hundred goal from 10-yards out, and Brazil was flummoxed 0-2."

Gorgeous?? Arch?? One-out-of-hundred?? (POV) Flummoxed??

Maybe it was written by a non-native English speaker or translated from Hungarian. Ben davison 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article can be removed

since all the 30+ pictures have been removed by wikipedia, the entire article may be deleted. Not one picture I had posted when writing this article remains of this team and its competitive matches. As the original writer, it's fine then to remove the article as well, thank you. Gallopingmajor

[edit] Feel Free to delete Aranycsapat article

since Wikipedia had deleted all the player and game images from the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team ) that I found the most important in the whole article and being that it was written poorly by me, Wikipedia can and should delete the whole article. I wished to show the players and its games on the article, without those images the article is not the same. Please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team from the Wikipedia archives. Thank you.

[edit] Keep Article

Although the article needs improving, I think it should be kept. This team was legendary and they deserve an article. Djln--Djln 10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

I think that this article would be better named "Magical Magyars" rather than "Golden Team" because "Golden Team" is a term that could be used about legendary teams from other countries, generations and sports, whilst Magical Magyars is a term specific to the 1950-55 Hungarian National Football Team.Teabag Yokel 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I put months into the Golden Team article Djln, and I understand that you took a few a days to completely wreck it Djln. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallopingmajor (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

To Galloping Major

Response to message posted at personal page

With the greatest of respect, you abandoned the article (see comments above). It was very badly written and very long and needed major work. I have improved article considerably. Djln --Djln 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but if I have to choose one of the two versions, I'll certainly go for the old one. The current one says very little about the team except some statistics. An article of this sort should certainly say something about the work of Gustav Sebes or the concept of (Hidegkuti as) the "withdrawn centre-forward".

On the other hand, the old one could have done with a serious copyedit. The language often is too flowery, messy or complex (see the description of Puscas famous goal in 1953 or the first goal v Brazil in 1954) or overelaborate (was there a need to allocate two paragraphs for the elo ratings ?). A copyedit to simplify the language and trimming would have been the better option than deletion of whole sections. Tintin (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Tintin. I do realize the old version needed work, but there was valid, important information that should have been kept and improved. If we can recover the information, I will appoint myself to help bringing it to Wikipedia standards. I just happen to think that badly written information is better than no information. Just bring it here to the talk page so we can all work on it. It should be a good article this one. --ChaChaFut 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied it to Golden Team/temp. Tintin

(talk) 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.
Please improve it or discuss changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

If the original was better why was the above added. Even the above editors, while supporting the original, point out serious faults in it. Of course this article can still be improved further, but this is a massive improvement on the previous version. Djln--Djln 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it as a personal cricticism, Dljn. I fully understand that your intentions are positive. All that we are suggesting is that the original contained plenty of useful data which can be salvaged and used to create a better article. (Btw, we all have experiences of "our" articles being edited out of recognition by other editors !). Tintin (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)