Talk:Royal Challengers Bangalore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Royal Challengers Bangalore is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

A fact from Royal Challengers Bangalore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 25 February 2008.

[edit] 2008 IPL Season

Can the user Ammrg explain to everyone how this previous description of the season resembles a newspaper article, or personal opinion? I will now cite exactly what was written before:

Despite the large amount of money spent and buzz around the team, the franchise experienced some turbulent times very early on in its existence. << THERE IS NO PERSONAL OPINION HERE, THE TEAM STRUGGLED

(Reply) The above statement about "large amount of money", "turbulent times" and "buzz" is your speculation and not a fact.

(Reply-Akhilmago) Speculation? Paying almost 112 million in franchise fees, and more than 4 million on players isn't "a large amount of money"? Is this speculation? If it is, then saying things like "The team was not very successful" (as you wrote in the article) is speculation too. Whats the definition of successful? You are being too picky.

(Reply-Akhilmago) "Turbulent times" ... again hows is this based on personal speculation? The author of this article - and many others - agree that the Royal Challengers, from the tournament's start have had a horrible time (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ipl/content/story/350817.html)

(Reply-Akhilmago) Again, "buzz", this article here.. written from the point of view of someone at the first RCB game concurs with the "buzz" around the team, and further supports that it is not a case of personal speculation.. in fact he uses precisely the same choice of words i did. (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ipl/content/story/346964.html)

Thats not the way how Wikipedia works, buddy. Here we try to present facts and not fiction. A "large amount of money" is a relative term, and what do you exactly mean by "buzz" (did they have honey bees buzzing over their head?) and "turbulent times" (their plane experienced turbulence?)? Such words should be best avoided in an encyclopedia.

Alright then, you have written in the current article "The team was not very successful". What defines 'success'? Was the team not successful because they didn't make the playoffs? why does that define success? I can use your argument for anything you have written. What if success was defined as having 4 or more wins? Doesn't that mean the team was successful? Explain... please

The team won only 3 of its first 12 matches in the Inaugural IPL Season. << THIS IS A FACT

(Reply) Agreed.

(Reply-Akhilmago) OK

In addition, the composition of the team was heavily criticized for resembling a Test Team more than a Twenty20 squad. As a result of these issues, the CEO of the team, Charu Sharma was unceremoniously sacked only months into his position.[7] << ALSO A FACT, WITH A SOURCE CITED

(Reply) Who criticised the team as a Test team? AFAIK, the only person whose comments could be of value, Vijay Mallya supposedly told "my friends told me it is a test team". You cannot call that a heavy criticism, thats an observation which cannot be attributed as a cause for the team's failures.

(Reply-Akhilmago) "http://www.ac tion8cricket.com/cricket_article-chennai_superkings_vs_bangalore_royal_live-1385.htm"

"http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ipl/content/story/347845.html"

(Reply-Akhilmago) Both the above articles articulate that the RCB resembles a test team, along with Vijay's comments. Again .. this must be my personal opinion, right? Ridiculous...

An opinion of one newspaper does not have weight-age to get included into the article. For example, you can say the contrary that the team had good U-19 players and successful T20 (ODI) players like Misbah, Virat, Dale Steyn. How do you then say it is a Test Team?

Opinions of people (analysts) who cover the sport are clearly relevant. They are the body of knowledge in the sport of cricket.. despite what you think, they know more about the sport than people like you and me. Stating something to the effect of "Analysts critisized the team for resembling a test squad" is a statement of fact and can be eviidenced by newspaper srticles (despite the fact I did not cite a newspaper article), online articles, etc from reputable sources. I have proved that at least one source - cricinfo, probably the biggest body of knowledge - expressed the opinion that they resembles a test squad. I agree my opinion does not matter, however those of professionals do. What, we shouldn't use doctor's, scientests.. etc opinions in wikipedia articles? Its the same bloody thing. Nothing I wrote was of personal opinion.

The owner of the franchise, Vijay Mallya later blamed team captain Rahul Dravid as one of the main causes of the team's poor performance. Mallya cited Dravid's poor captaincy, his inability to adapt to the T-20 format and differences between them over team selection during the player auction. The team eventually failed to enter the semifinals. << A FACT WHICH CAN EASILY BE CITED, DETAILS REASONS WHY THE TEAM HAD PROBLEMS INTERNALLY

(Reply) This has been taken care of already in the article.

(Reply-Akhilmago) Perhaps it has ... but your description is poorly articulated and really provides no insight.

Ehm, no. We cannot get emotional here and put in emotional terms. We are not newspaper journalists here, we are writing an encyclopedia with cited sentences. Not our own personal view of the whole thing!!! -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}

On top of the team's poor performance, the team also had their struggles off the field. On 16 May 2008, it was reported that Praveen Kumar, one of the team's strike bowlers, physically assaulted a doctor in his hometown of Meerut. It is alleged that at the time, Praveen was inebriated and being very difficult. Charges have yet to be imposed by the BCCI. [8] <<DESCRIBES ANOTHER ASPECT OF THEIR SEASON THAT HAMPERED THEM, IT IS CITED

(Reply) What Praveen Kumar did is his personal issue, how does it affect Royal Challengers? If Praveen was sacked or reprimanded for this incident by the RCB bosses, then the incident becomes relevant. Till then, this article is not the place for it.

(Reply-Akhilmago) You don't think that a players problems off-field effects a team? Do you think they were happy that he did what he did? You don't think, at some level.. be it team morale, chemistry, etc the team is effects? What if the BCCI imposed a punishment? still no detrimental effect on the team?

Sorry, Your response does not deserve a reply from me. All I can say is that you do not know the difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper article

okay.. you just don't know anything about sports in general

your description of the season provides no insight whatsoever. Refer yourself to other sports teams' pages.. i'll give you one from every major sport: Manchester United, Toronto Raptors, Boston Bruins, Miami Dolphins. note how all their seasons, or timeframes have a detailed description of their performances and reasons for such performance.

if you are going to change up the description of the season, put something up that provides some sort of insight, instead of limiting you discussion to "the team struggles, CEO was fired". the same goes for your edits to the Chargers' page (and I didn't even write that description).

(Reply) Read up WP:NPOV. I do agree that some more details could go into the seasons section. But only absolute facts should make it to the article, not speculations like "the team looked like a test team, hence it lost all matches", "he team had lot of buzz but faced turbulent times"; such statements are subjective and debatable and hence good in your blog, not in wikipedia. I am waiting for the season to get over before starting to add statistics related to the team in the 2008 season which will provide insights into the teams failures and which would be factual. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reply-Akhilmago) I've read Wikipedia's guidelines and are in accordance with them. You need to realize that there is a body of knowledge outside of basic statistics (which you seem to be consumed by) that can be used to describe the season. The statistics are the end result of problems that were inherent in the team's composition, chemistry and internal relationships (or lack thereof).

I am sorry, you need to know a lot more about how to write an article in Wikipedia. All your responses above are tinged towards emotions rather than facts. I can be of help if you need. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. If i want to be a control freak on these articles and write subsections in poor english, I will solicite your help.

I don't have time at the moment to contribute to the discussion about the content of the page, but I suggest that these pages might be useful for both of you: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Editor assistance. BTW, remember to sign your posts with 4 tildas (and this goes for every place in the discussion that you post a reply). Juwe (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points column

I have removed points column from the season table for following reasons-

1. There's no information or indication on what kind of system IPL will use in the league stage.

2. Even if IPL does use standard points system, there's no relevance of writing points won in every match in the season table. This part can be and should be covered by the main season article, 2008 Indian Premier League. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not Bengaluru?

I thought the name of the city had changed in 2006? Loganberry (Talk) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed quite frequently at Talk:Bangalore. While now I don't mind the main article having its name changed, the official name of the IPL team has Bangalore so shouldn't change it. There are teams like Deccan Chargers which dooesn't include the city in its name. If the official name was Abc Royal Challengers, that would be the name Wikipedia uses. Even if Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai had their Bombay, Calcutta and Madras names officially, Wikipedia would have to use these names then.

Speaking of the name, shouldn't Bangalore come before Royal Challengers? It sounds strange to have the Bangalore after RC but it wouldn't be suprising. Most of the IPL nicknames have been so poor, it is not funny. There are two Kings (Kings XI and Super Kings), two Royals, and a Mumbai Indians (?). The only two decent names are Daredevils and Knight Riders. The franchises could have resolved the conflicting names by changing to the Indian language equivalent like Maharaja but hey, it is not for us to decide, just like we can't use Bengaluru. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)