Talk:Joe Allen

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

The Observer, 2 September 2007[edit]

This article is cited in an article in today's Observer, and Joe Allen denies that he is related to Lily Allen and Keith Allen. It also says he's from Pembrokeshire, not Carmarthen(shire). Haydn01 10:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 August 2012[edit]

Joe Allen is now a LFC player. http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/allen-completes-liverpool-move Mr tim111 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mr tim111 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request on 10 August 2012[edit]

Swansea city playing years end 2012 Liverpool playing years 2012- (confirmed signing) 86.22.33.61 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As above Mr tim111 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request on 10 August 2012[edit]

Joe Allen has just signed for Liverpool F.C. He now plays for Liverpool F.C and not Swansea City F.C. The announcement has been made on Liverpool F.C. official website. Andrew Ndirangu (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As above Mr tim111 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

personal life[edit]

Has this young man had three wives in his short life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.9.209 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Height data[edit]

I propose switching the display to feet and inches first for the following reasons:

  • To comply with WP:UNITS - there is no good reason not to. WP:UNITS says "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds" and "For situations in which the units used as primary in the article differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary" as Joe Allen is a Brit.
  • It would then be consistent with the usage of the majority of official Brit (English/Welsh/Scots/NI) sites especially the PFA Who's Who cited which is the footballers bible.
  • It would then be consistent with Brit usage.

Is there any valid reason not to? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The PFA book is not as authoritative as the websites of the individual teams or Premier League.
  • The fact that the majority of UK websites are imperial first concedes the obvious fact that some UK websites (Premier League, and several of the teams) are metric only or metric first demonstrates beyond doubt that British usage is inconsistent.
  • The fact that British usage is inconsistent calls into question the wisdom of insisting that all UK players' profiles must as a matter of policy be imperial first.
  • If others think that it is a good idea that this player's height be changed to feet and inches, so be it, but I would prefer just adding a citation to Premier League and then leave it as it is. Michael Glass (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary units[edit]

WP:UNITS requires that for UK related articles "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". I propose to change this article to observe that requirement unless a good reason not follow the guideline can be given.

That a certain source uses certain units is not a valid reason as the guideline recommends using the "flip" option in such circumstances: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary". Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the majority of the profiles are metric first, and as many football teams and the Premier League give their information in metric units it would be more sensible to leave the order of units as they are. Please see the tenth footnote to the MOSNUM policy. [1] Of course, if you felt that this was not satisfactory you could take up this issue with MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 14:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– The three other Joe Allens have all failed to receive 500 views within the past 3 months.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant per his reasoning sorry for any confusion Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question where's the argument addressing the second half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The reason we have two halves to this guideline is so that page views are not the only criteria. For example, what results does "Joe Allen is" get in a search of Google Books? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic.
  • ... and sorry Oppose a quick Google Book search shows that this footballer, all credit to him for page views, doesn't meet the second part of the guideline. Anyone who searches will quickly find out which article has more claim. But there doesn't have to be an absolute topic, there usually isn't, and there isn't here. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a primary topic and it's the Welsh footballer. It's only you that seems to ever quote Google Books, even though it has no relevance whatsoever. Unreal7 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying in effect is that the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be deleted, and we've just seen someone delete it when cited in an RM. But as it stands WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has two parts. If what is the primary topic in real world books has no relevance whatsoever than what do you propose as an alternative to books? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no user other than your good self has ever brought up Google Books, I see no requirement to use it. Google searches, news searches and pageviews are far more of a legitimate factor. Unreal7 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support As demonstrated by the page views tool 99% of readers are looking to access the footballer in question. In this case readers are inconvenienced by navigating through a disambiguation page. I have noticed that occasionally objections are raised and moves are blocked despite there quite clearly being a primary topic. I hope this does not turn out to be one of those silly occasions.--EchetusXe 15:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Allen. 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. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Allen. 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. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Allen. 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. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Allen. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Joe Allen[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Joe Allen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2019/20":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Allen&oldid=1204729406"