Talk:Bandy

Template:0.7 set nominee

Rink bandy

I think there should be more written here in bandy article about rink bandy. They are virtually the same sport but on different size rinks. Is it logical to not have rink bandy here but in the same article as rinkball? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:320:8F03:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rinkbandy deservs its own article but should well perhaps be separated from rinkball. So rinkball should also have its own article, I mean. Åke Lunk (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Åke Lunk. Rink bandy can be seen as a variant of bandy, but it is better to have information about it in its own article. There have been special international and national tournaments in rink bandy, and even if many players of regular bandy have been playing in these tournaments, they do not in any way count towards the points in bandy leagues or international rankings. They have their own record lists. Röd Boll (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. While rink bandy of course is a variant of bandy, it is also worthy of its own article. Just like rink ball also is, by the way. That's my opinio . Bandy Blues (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Still, rink bandy is played by regular bandy players too. In countries where full sized bandy fields are not readily available in any high number, rink bandy is often the form chosen by bandy clubs and by the national team when practicing. This is an important form to have in many countries where bandy is still under development and where it may be hard to arrange for a large sized artificially frozen pitch the size of a regular bandy field. In many of theses countries, winter is not long enough either to pour water on football fields to have them as bandy fields during the snowy season. In stead, artificially frozen ice hockey rinks, which may be more easily available, fill an important place for the bandy players and bandy teams. But, while rink bandy do have a very close connection to bandy, it is still also a sport of its own and should have its own article, as it is right now. As for rinkball, I am not sure how much it is played nowadays, but it was played regullary and followed by some considerable number of audiences in the 1990s I think. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can gather, rinkball is still being played in leagues at least in Finland. I think this sport should have an article of its own, but let's keep that discussion there, i.e. at Talk:Rink bandy. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think rinkbandy is just a form of bandy while rinkball seems to be more different. So more information about rinkbandy in this article should be useful. Rinkbandy is often played by regular bandy players, if not for competition so at least for practice. Aaa men ändå (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I created a separate article on rinkball the other day, using the already existing sources. I have never seen a game of this sport being played, but it seems it is being played on a regular basis at least in Finland, so I think it deserves its own page. At the same time, I put the Category:Bandy in the article on rink bandy, since rink bandy is more a form of bandy than a sport of its own, as I gather. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The popularity of bandy

Bandy is the second most popular winter sport in the world. That seems to be a fact. Only ice hockey is more popular, and ice hockey is not even close to being rivaled by any other winter sport.

I have just added another source to the statement that bandy is the second most popular winter sport over all. It is a very interesting claim. This source is now the Federation of International Bandy itself, and even if the FIB of course is eager to market their own sport like this, I don't think this is a source which cannot be relied on. I think FIB is among the best sources one can think of in this regard. So I added it. The link to the text as such is this: http://www.worldbandy.com/newspost_7640.html , which I added as a source. For some reason, there was no date given in the source text itself, but there was a date on the page on which where I found the link to the text, namely this one here: http://www.worldbandy.com/news_archive.html , as it can be read right now. I don't know if I should add that page to to the referenced source. Maybe I should, because dates are important.

It is interesting to note, that the diagramme at the page is not linear but exponential. This is probably done (I think) so that the bar for ice hockey in the bar chart should not get away way overhead of all the other bars. Still, you can see that bandy has thousands of more people participating in it than all the other winter sports – except for ice hockey, that is, of course! Still, the others have a presence in the Olympic Games whereas bandy does not. I find it interesting to see if the International Olympic Committee will take in these numbers and understand that adding bandy to the Winter Olympic Games would only benefit the Games. It would be beneficial for both the Olympics and for bandy and probably for all the other winter sports already at the Olympics too, because the different Olympic sports always attracts spectators to each other when the Olympic Games are going on. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The headline of that article says that bandy is destined for the Olympics. As long as I have followed the inner politics of the bandy world, the Federation of International Bandy and the national federations in Russia, Sweden, and other countries, they have always been talking about the Olympics and how the sport will be in the Olympics the next time the winter games is on. Sorry, I don't really buy it. As much as I would want it too, because I do think bandy would fit well and nicely in the winter games of the Olympics, I still don't think it is going to happen. It's just talk and talk, while other, younger sports get picked up at the Olympic agenda - such as snowboard and halfpipe and other strange gymnastics. Bandy still isn't there.

I think the problem is the financial backing. Let's face it. The money decides, and the money is in America, or more specifically the American television broadcasting industry and the companies backing it by the payment of advertising spots. Bandy is not a big sport in the United States, and so the television networks are not interested in broadcasting bandy from the Olympics or from any other event either. On the contrary. Bandy would compete with ice hockey, which is the very best television sport for the North Americans. While downhill skiing and figure skating may be shown when there is no ice hockey on, they think bandy would only disturb the focus on the ice hockey tournament and they think it wouldn't give any sponsor money to the television networks. That's how I think they are reasoning.

I'd like to be wrong, but I think I am not. Money is what is deciding it in the end and the Russians and the Swedes are not powerful enough to persuade the Americans to show an Olympic bandy competition just for the value of the sport it is. Örtstedt (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not here for discussing the possibility of Bandy becoming an Olympic sport or not, is it? I think you should write that some where else, Örtstedt ! The talk page is for discussing the page it is attached to, which is Bandy in this case. Anyway, I am not complaining, I'm just saying. I mainly write because I want to ask Bandy Hoppsan about his post. Bandy Hoppsan writes about something called 'linear' and 'exponential' for a diagramme. What does that mean? To understand his message about the statistics he bases his edit to the Bandy text on, this seems to be a bit crusial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:218:7D8B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello 2A00:801:218:7D8B:0:0:0:1! (I suppose you might be the same as 2A00:801:210:86CB:0:0:0:1 above. It doesn't matter, though.) A linear function is a function or row, where the constants are within equal length from eachother. An exponential function, is when the distance is ever increasing. If you look at the vertical graph in the link, you see that it says 1, 10, 100, 1000 etc., which means that the distance between every point is ever increasing on this vertical. This is, in this case, obviously done so that it should be easier to read the lower bars of the graph. If the vertical had had a linear scale, 100, 200, 300, 400, etc., the actual difference between more than 1 500 000 000 for ice hockey and just over 500 for luge would make the bar for the latter very hard to see as it would be so small in comparission, or else the bar for ice hockey would be breaking the upper edge of the picture... You see, while bandy has a number which is about 3.5 times the number for alpine skiing, it isn't 3.5 times higher, just because the exponential grades on the vertical line let you see the difference easily anyway and still taking into consideration the vast differences in numbers. It's actually pretty clever and beautiful, I think. I hope you understand my explanation, because I am not a maths teacher and don't know if I can explain things like this so that an audience can understand it. I hope I can. Please ask me again, if it is still unclear. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Örtstedt. You raise interesting questions, but I think I will not follow your example and write what I think on the subject. It would take up to much space. :-) Of course you can speculate about who and what makes the decisions about what sports are to be added to the Olympic Games programme and about what information, economic interests and opinions this may be based upon, but it is not really for us to discuss it here. I added the source merely for the statistics which it presents. Even if the article is a pamphlet about how bandy should be included in the Winter Olympics, it also has these numbers for the reader, which I think are interesting and which you must say are reliable as a source for what is now said in the article about the sport's popularity. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course, you do have a point. I agree with you in a way. This talk page is really not the place to have a debate on the subject on wether bandy should or should not be included in the Winter Olympics or not. Still, it is a question which is to some extent covered in the article and therefore it may still be reasonable and valid to at least discuss the discussion here. If we can find good sources, like you have done, it must be quite all right to use them as sources to add information to the article about this on-going debate which is out there in the bandy community and in the winter sport societies and the sports world at large. And as long as it is so, which I think it is, I also think it may be fine to at least discuss the discussion here on this talk page, to come to common conclussions among the Wikipedia writers about what to add and what not to add &ndasch; and how to add it – to the article bandy. This is after all what a talk page is and should be for. Then, of course, the line can be fine and a bit hard to draw between the discussion about the discussion, a meta discussion which thus should have its place here, and the discussion as such, which, as you say, should perhaps not really be had here. But if you do write about arguments being held and being put forward in the debate, it is very easily interpreted as if you are having these views yourself and putting them forward here to make a point and to be a part of the real debate in itself. Which is perhaps not the intent, but it is easily seen as such.

Still, the matter of economics I rise above is an important one and it is one which is really put forward in the real debate about the subject. Even if I do agree myself with this particular argument, I also admit that I should have been clearer with the fact that this is not just me talking, but it is me re-telling views and subject matters which some or rather quite many people have already stated in different fora before on this matter. Economics is always important. While a bandy rink, or rather an indoor bandy hall (which is what you would want nowadays for a major event, like for instance the Olympic Games), would be fine to build in Russia, Sweden, Finland or Norway, where bandy has a following all year long, in other countries it would perhaps be standing more or less unused later, or that is at least what the descission making men (because they are almost always men, not many women in those circumstances) in the top if the International Olympic Committee and the organizing committees and companies in potential future Winter Olympic host cities are thinking. Think about it: a slope used for downhill alpine skiing or a landscape used for cross-country skiing may just be there in the existing land forms. An ice hockey rink always draw crowds in thousands in Canada and winter sport interested parts of the United States. These men are not realizing, that with bandy becoming an Olympic sport, it would boost the interest even more for this sport in all the world and in North America too. Because it is a sport with the same potential tense and tactics as association football, which is the largest team sport in the world, and a speed in the game even greater than the speed in ice hockey, the most popular winter sport in the world (as we have already seen above, in the link posted by Bandy Hoppsan in the beginning of this thread). Economics and infrastructure is important – for bandy as well as for other sports.

/Örtstedt (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, here is the link to a group on Facebook called "We want Bandy to be a part of the Winter Olympics!", which is created for and promotes the idea that bandy should be included in the Olympic Games (the Winter Olympic Games, of course): https://www.facebook.com/bandyolympics/ . I forgot to add it. I was meaning to ask about it: I don't know if it is proper to link to a page like this in the article or if it would be seen as too politicial or something. What do you think? It is really not a source for something in itself, but on the other hand it could, I suppose, have texts and links posted in it which would be interesting to add here as a way of showing the debate and what support and reasons the proponants (and perhaps also the opposing side) might have on the subject.

/Örtstedt (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A survey done in July 2015 by Sportbox, Russia's leading sports Internet portal, came to the concluession that bandy is 3rd most popular sport in Russia after ice hockey 1th and soccer 2nd with Biathlon 4th. So this is third over all, not only among winter sports. That is according to the link Órtstedt provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot Wing (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a link to this or any other Facebook groups from Wikipedia. A group there of course shows there are people having this opinion, but it is not very accurate to use the existence of a group like this to show that this opinion is put forward in the debate. You should rather link to debate texts in other media, like in newspapers and preferably written by people who might have some say in the matter. If you find something written on the matter in an editorial or some debate article written by some sports executive, I think this could be linked to in this article on bandy here at Wikipedia, but not just any grassroot initiative like a Facebook group. Anyone can start a Facebook group. Anyone can start a Facebook group about anything and invite all of his or her pals to make it look like a view held by many. With that said, of course, this group could perhaps be a place where you might find editorials or debate articles on the subject of bandy in the Olympics, because members of the group who might find articles like that would probably post links about it there in the group. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as the financial issues go, which Örtstedt writes about here in a long and well-formulated text, I tend to agree. I just want to say this, so Örtstedt does not think I am ignoring his comments and points of view. There has been numerous examples of Olympic host cities, which after the end of the Games have had a hard time living up to maintaing the facilities. It doesn't matter how fine they are, if they cannot be filled with events and paying audiences in all the years after the Games. Building an arena must pay off.

The IOC actually is aware of this, and nowadays they wnat to have what is called a "legacy plan", which sorts out the prospective future for the host city and surrounding area after the Games have been held. In this plan, the city, together with the IOC (if I understand this correctly), makes a kind of budget to the time following the arrangement for the city, the areans built and the infrastructure, buildings and other parts of the city built for the Games held. I think this is good. You can read more about it at Winter Olympic Games#Host city legacy here at Wikipedia, and in the sources given there. I have also seen other sources for information like this.

However, when it comes to bandy, you can have it in the same arena as where you have long track speed skating. There has been speed skating at the Winter Olympics for every Winter Olympic Games since 1924, so it is not likely that this sport will be taken away from the Winter Olympic programme. An arena for speed skating needs to be about as big as is needed for an internationally meassured bandy rink, the form which would (or at least should) be used at the Winter Olympic Games when bandy is included. All you need is for the ice surface to cover all of the field and not just the skating track closest to where the audience sit. This is also what is done now in some of the new, full-sized skating arenas which are being built at the moment. So if you think about it, including bandy in the Winter Olympic Games would not demand a much higher investment than what already is done for any Winter Olympic Games. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Including bandy would also add another team sport to the Winter Olympic Games. There are just one team sport in the winter Olympics at present, and that is ice hockey (I don't really count curling, the "teams" in that sport are just four people). Adding bandy would benefit the games in this way. While the Summer Olympics have association football, basketball, field hockey, volleyball, and water polo, the Winter Games only have one real team sport. By adding bandy, this deficit could be bettered. So this is another reason for bandy to be added to the Olympics. I think the arguments for adding this sport to the Olympic programme is legio and plentyfjl and the reasons against is modtly just formalities which the International Olympic Committee could come around if it just wanted to. It would give the Winter Olympics a fine and old sport with great traditions, which really ought to have been part of the Winter Games from the start. That's my 5 cents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.64.88 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Association football is not football, it's soccer

The usual way of abbreiviatting association football is by calling it soccer, not football. When you say football without any further speccification in the English language, you mean American football, not Association football. This should be reflected in the lead. Do not change this back again @Sportsfan 1234 and @Bandy Hoppsan, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.243.104 (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually no. Football across the world is known as association football, not some game played by Americans called gridiron. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sportsfan 1234 on this. Football is often used to mean association football and in this case, it is also clear from the context in this case, as in the sentence before it, association football is mentioned. So even if you happen to be from a part of the world where football usually means some other form of football than association football, it is obvious football in this case is association football. So let the text stand as it is: football. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In British English is "Football" meant football played with the feet. We have no article for any specific kind of "Football". Just a general overview. When using British English the following syntax is to be used "Association Football|Football" which point to Football. When in doubts, can the following forms be used

• FA Football
• FIFA Football
• FIFA/FA Football

As the (English) FA made the modern rules for the sport (last FA-rule changes was the modern form of offside in 1927), from the first ever World Cup in 1930 has FIFA (outside the British Isles) and from approximately 1949 also there (with a few remaining differencies into the 1970's). The English FA has however always had a strong influence also later. For instance 3 points for a won game has its origin in England in the 1980's. Although that wasn't a rule of the game. But still. Also the red and yellow cards was invented by a FA-referee , who got the idea at a stop-light ! (FIFA adapted the card for the 1970 World Cup, players was sent off far earlier, but without the cards)

In clear North-American related articles can

• Soccer (or possibly)
• Soccer-football

be used.

Boeing720 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems you make things over complicated, Boeing 720. As for me personally, I've never seen anybody using the term 'soccer-football' before. Isn't that a tautology? And FA football or FIFA football, no, you don't need those terms in an ongoing text. They might be used in some table for clarity if 'association football' as a term is found to be too long to fit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.255.52 (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2017‎ (UTC)

Quality of sources

A request for Bandy to be "promoted" to Olympic status cannot be used in order to sate "Bandy is the second largest winter sport". Please find a NPOV source. If the statement was changed into "Bandy is the second largest team winter sport", I personally wouldn't protest. Average attendances above 1000 per game can only be found in Sweden and Russia, to my knowledge. While Downhill races and Ski-jumping often can see crowds of 50000 or 100000 or even more. Also other Alpine as well as Nordic skiing attracts large crowds , and so does ski-shooting (or whatever it's called). Please keep to "second team sport" - or find a neutral source. I prefer Bandy ahead of Ice-hockey, just by the way. It really ought to be an Olympic sport. But that's only an opinion, not a fact. And the source used is just the same, and hence cannot be used for the alleged statement. Boeing720 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We have already discussed this earlier on this page. You might personally think the statistics is scewed in the sources, but the source is still there and it presents statistics which seems to be plausible facts. If you want to question the sources, you are the one who should come up with some other source which points to different meassurements taken and different numbers given. As far as anyone knows right now, the numbers you give us here in your discussion post might just be your very own feeling about how many people would go to see competitions in different sports.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that any event of downhill skiing or ski-jumping could draw crowds of even 10,000 people. There isn't even room for many more people than that in the receiving area of the slope, where the audience is. Heck, even 10,000 seems like an indredibly high amount of people for such an event.

You cannot just go around guessing that the numbers are actually not for winter sports but only for winter team sports, saying the words should be changed according to what you believe is true. You have to come up with something more solid than your own ideas about what "must" be the case. Just now, I wrote that I don't think there would be any very big crowds at certain types of events, but I made it clear that this is what I personally believe. I have no statistics to back it up and therefore I wouldn't even consider going around changing in Wikipedia articles just because I find numbers inplausible. I would have to find my own sources first. You should do that too. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entire sentence, which is based on POV sources. To your latest revert, have I now followed the Olympic promotion link to the letter. Boeing720 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also here is a top-ten list of ALL winter sports (most popular) - http://www.sportsmuntra.com/top-10-winter-sports-world/ - not just Olympic ones, and the source isn't tied to any sport. But if you clearly can keep it at number of exercisers, well then it just might be OK. I think this (current) lead is sufficient, based on solely Bandy related sources. So please emphasize that it is about the number of exercises and avoid the more ambiguous word "popular", until you can find a Bandy-neutral source (it may well be in Swedish, but not tied to Bandy in particular. IF doing so, please include the most imperative quote and translate that part. Not too long, since there are copyright matters) I wish you well, and hope Bandy will become an Olympic sport. Boeing720 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You want quality in the sources but you only present a link to one journalist's own very subjective personal opinion on the matter? ROFLMAO! Where's the statistics? There's none on that article in Sportsmuntra.com.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.255.52 (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720, why do you keep asking others to find sources for you? You are the one to claim the existing sources are wrong. Well, then prove it! Don't go around asking others to do it for you. The only link you give us here is, as 77.218.255.52 says, not in any way based on any statistics. It's the typical kind of whimsical journalism that you often find in light-weight entertainment weekly magazines. This is some random journalist who wanted to write about winter sports and is blabbering on about nothing in particular, giving it a top-ten form just to get it a bit more appealing for the casual reader. It's really nothing to use as a reference for anything. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

IP-users. Yes I want quality sources, NPOV, not connected to the sport. The example I used here (at a talk-page) is at least not connected to any of the sports which it lists. The second comment is not understandable in its context. Read WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for starters.

Bandy-Hoppsan. As explained , the list was just a contradiction of your sources. (Not better or more reliable, meant as an example how sources have been used here). The sources you are using are all closely tied to bandy. In order to make the statement "Bandy by numbers of exercisers is the second most popular winter sport" (or in line with that) Do require a reliable source. In this case a source which is unconnected to Bandy. Or possibly a Bandy source which can reveal sources for what it states (see primary and secondary above). Also see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Boeing720 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You still don't explain why others should do the work for you. If you find the present sources unreliable, then show that they are. You cannot just claim that they are.

There are loads of sources all over Wikipedia which are, in one way or another, in some way connected to the thing that they are used to describe here. The sources are no secret, they are clearly shown to anyone reading this article just like in any other article. It is not like there is any deception going on. Government sources are often used for statistics about the land of that government, homepages of companies are used to show economic numbers for the said companies. This is usually deemed to be quite all right as quality goes for sources. If these sources are questioned, there are other sources saying so which are linked too. In this case, you haven't presented any sources of that kind.

The sources given may have text arguing for a view. However, they also have statistics in them. It is the statistics which is used in Wikipedia's bandy article, not the opinions. (Wikipedia is using them, not I.) I have seen more people than you questioning the numbers of these statistics, but I have seen no hard facts of any kind which has shown us that the statistics are wrong. This is probably because there are none. The statistics show us numbers which are facts. Until you can present a source which show us different numbers, all you have is your own doubt. You be incredulous if you want to, but don't let your opinion be a "source" for denying the use of facts from an actual source.

We could discuss the wordings if you want to, but let me ask you to please take a step back and see the thing with unbiased eyes first. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So User:Bandy Hoppsan - you are the recent IP-editors also. ("You still don't explain why others should do the work for you." came from an IP). This is really serious as you have used the IP-numbers as a troll and may call for severe actions.

Do never pretend to be more than yourself, and especially not in order to promote your own opinions or whatever, ever again ! . Although I'm not an admin, I could report you. And to use trolls is as bad as it gets. As I suspected, and lucky for you this time, are you still rather new here. In a nutshell - everything any contributor makes statements about, usually require inline referencing. About how and which sources you may use have I helped you with. It's not my job to find reliable sources for you ! Although I might consider helping you , provided I myself believed that Bandy in fact is the second largest winter sport - of all, not just team sports. But I simply do not. And two of your sources is clearly advertising for Bandy to receive an Olympic promotion. Not a reliable source, in general. The third one can't I even read (membership required, I have to presume). A brief overlook, tells me that you have put a lot of effort into this article, and that's fine. Nevertheless must a statement as this

• "Based on the number of participating athletes, bandy is the world's second most popular winter sport after ice hockey.[3][4][5] Bandy also is the number two winter sport in tickets sold per day of competitions at the sport's world championship compared to the other winter sports.[5]".

(also source no 5 is "Bandy want's to be Olympic"). If these statements are true, it wouldn't be that difficult to find NPOV sources. Like a list of the numbers who exercise a number of winter sports. Why not be content with "second largest Winter Team Sport" (without the necessary need of mention no 1) ?

Possible help - You write about statistics in the used sources. Who are responsible for their statistics ? If the source you wan't to use points at statistics made by a Neutral part, then you can use that statistics - but give the reference to the ones who have made statistic part only. This might be a way forward for you, provided the figures do not come from Bandy tied sources. I hope you can find NPOV sources for your statement. OK ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you are sure about what you are saying. First, why would I have to be the same man as a person who is just using an IP number, just because I happen to agree with what that person is saying?

Second, you are the one questioning the sources given in the article. Then why would I be the one who would have to be looking up sources to support the hunch you are having? You don't believe in the given sources – and that's fine, you may hold any belief you want – but then it is actually up to you to find something which can give us another view on the matter. Wikipedia is a collective effort. You are welcome to help out, but you do not do it by just erasing sourced information for the sloe reason that you personally do not believe in what the sources are saying.

Third, I am by no means the only person who have been working n this article. I have not personally put a lot of effort in it, I think. This is not a personal issue for me. It seems to be for you, though. I don't know why, and I don't know if I am interested in knowing why.

Fourth, if it is not difficult to find sources, why are you so reluctant to try to go out and find them yourself? You sit here going on and on about how you think the statistics might be wrong, writing long posts about it (posts which frankly, I must say, are not very polite in their tone), in stead of just trying to get some evidence to that effect. Why should I or anyone else even listen to you anymore? You make no effort whatsoever yourself. Please!

Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bandy. 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/20151118174654/http://www.bandyworld.se/archives/25336 to http://www.bandyworld.se/archives/25336
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511181936/http://www.worldbandy.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Rules/Bandyrules_FIB_Sept2011.pdf to http://www.worldbandy.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Rules/Bandyrules_FIB_Sept2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fuzilogik.com/index.php/Bandy/Bandy-Glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511163826/http://www.worldbandy.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Rules/Equipment2012.pdf to http://www.worldbandy.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Rules/Equipment2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151214022307/http://www.krsk2019.ru/en/universiada/Sports to http://krsk2019.ru/en/universiada/Sports
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160217153710/http://worldbandy.com/about-fib/members/ to http://worldbandy.com/about-fib/members/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424230703/http://eng.tatar-inform.ru/news/2011/01/21/33986/ to http://eng.tatar-inform.ru/news/2011/01/21/33986/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dn.se/sport/festligt-och-fullsatt-pa-stora-bandydagen-1.231109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613220129/http://www.hot.ee/estbandy/ to http://www.hot.ee/estbandy

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

England Bandy Federation changing names again?

Hi. Do anyone have some information on this? Please comment at Talk:England Bandy Federation#Great Britain. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

New title for England Bandy Federation: Great Britain Bandy Federation (GBBF)

The England Bandy Federation newly convened in January 2017 committee has decided to broaden its remit to include the home countries of the British Isles having people wishing to be included living or born in those countries within Great Britain. It is now called the Great Britain Bandy Federation. The website is awaiting the change of name. Lyn Gibb-de Swarte

Thank you for the information. I have made the appropriate changes (as far as I can judge) to the article on the England Bandy Federation, moving it to the new name Great Britain Bandy Federation as a new title for the article and changing links to it.

Will there be a Great Britain national bandy team or will there be different teams for the different home countries? In any occation, I would love to see it at the 2018 World Championship in China (it will of course have to start in the B Division, which will play in Harbin, China next year). Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Old PN Editor Lyn, I have a question if you can answer

It seems like a good idea to make the Emgland Bandy Federation into a Great Britain Bandy Federation for all of the home countries within the United Kingdom, if there were no bandy federation associations ready established and working already in Scotland, Northern Ireland and/or Wales. I wonder: Why have they decided to call it Great Britain Bandy Federation rather than United Kingdom Bandy Federation? Is that on purpose and if so, what does it mean, or is Great Britain just interchangeble with United Kingdom as a term in organisagional names like this? It is a curious querstion and I am interested to know. :-) /me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.200.188 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so. I don't think many consider this an issue. The names United Kingdom and Great Britain are in most cases commonly refering to the exact same thing, the same country, even if for historical reasons they may mean different territories if you are being pedantic about it. — 77.218.240.124 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia reference desk, and this question has been up for discussion a number of times. See, just for some examples,

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 3#Use of the phrase "United_Kingdom"
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2016 November 16#UK in popular usage
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014 May 8#GB - UK?
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 29#Olympics
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007 August 2#the United Kingdom vs Great Britain

There are also some articles where the difference is described. Most elaborated on the subject is probably the article Terminology of the British Isles.

If I try to summarize it all, I think the answer is, that the United Kingdom is usually preferred as the short form for all of the country, whose full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in sports, the term Great Britain is (still) often used because in the Olympics and some other sporting events, athletes from Northern Ireland have the choice to go either with the team of the Kingdom or the team of the Republic, i.e. the Republic of Ireland, the latter team then in essence becoming an all-Irish team and the former actually is called Great Britain officially by the International Olympic Committee, which is abbreviating it as GBR. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)