Talk:IMG Academy Bradenton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bradentonacademics.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Citations

I don't understand the resistance to adding the requested citations to this article.

notable. This is a problem with many other articles on third- and fourth-tier amateur soccer teams as well.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

What I don't understand is why you are even challenging it.
WP:CHALLENGE says that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation". Is anyone likely to challenge these three blindingly obvious things? The three things are: 1) that the club is associated with the IMG Soccer Academy. The club's logo says "IMG Soccer" on it. You can't cite a logo. 2) That IMG Soccer Academy is associated with the IMG Academies set up by Nick Bolletieri. The first paragraph of the IMG Academies article states all that, which is why there is a wikilink to that artivle. 3) That the club used to have a women's team. The article on the women's team has links confirming it's former existence, and the logos etc. for the teams were virtually identical. What about that even needs challenging? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Clearly it's not "blindingly obvious" to me. The reason I placed the tags is that I after my own search I couldn't find any sources supporting the material, and hoped that someone else would have them. What should be obvious is that a team's logo can't be used to verify information; we need a published source for that. Additionally, the Wikipedia article on the IMG Academies does contain some of the material discussed here, but so what? Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles, and this is a case in point as to why: none of that material is sourced over there either. If this material is so obvious, to you, shouldn't it be easy to just add the requested citations?
Notablility is another issue at this article, and many others like it on lower level amateur soccer teams.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The primary sources tag needs to stay put, as there still aren't any third-party sources here. Except for the player roster, which hardly counts, which constitutes trivial coverage at best, there are no sources that are independent of the team or the USL. As I've said repeatedly, we need "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" to establish that the team is notable.--Cúchullain t/c 20:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Per

WP:REDLINK, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created". As I've said elsewhere, red links are allowed if they could "plausibly sustain an article", but there's no reason to assume all these amateur soccer players will someday be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They're certainly not notable just by virtue of playing for this team. It would be better to wait until a player actually becomes notable and has an article, and then linking to them here. If you're interested in tracking player careers, you can do that in project or user space, where it won't keep the article in a perennial poor state.--Cúchullain t/c 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I removed the redlinks again, for the same reason as above.Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm asking you to show me some
WP:GOODFAITH here. I'm an experienced editor. I've worked tirelessly on US soccer articles for five years. I wouldn't have the redlknks there if there wasn't a very. very good reason. You may or may not be aware, as I don't know how much you follow American soccer outside of Florida, but the USL does not keep a searchable historical record of players who have played for PDL teams, which means that complete career histories for players that played in the PDL prior to them playing in MLS (or another professional league) are almost impossible to keep track of. Having a record of these players via these roster lists allows editors to keep track of the player's minor-league career via the "what links here" function, when articles are created for the players in question. Removing th redlinks robs US football editors of the only - and I genuinely mean ONLY - way of tracking these players early careers, resulting in incomplete stats boxes, incomplete career histrories, and less complete biographies. There are literally hundreds of examples of players turning professional - and, as such, having articles written about them - from this level every year, including some from Bradenton itself last season (Bernardo Anor). We just don't know which ones will turn pro until it happens, and keeping the redlinks in place allows us to use Wiki's internal system to keep track of the players. So please, I'm asking you as a favor, show me some good faith and leeway and please stop deleting the redlinks. There truly is a *reason* we're ignoring the the rule in this case. JonBroxton (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMG Academy Bradenton. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on IMG Academy Bradenton. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IMG_Academy_Bradenton&oldid=1202922655"