Talk:Dirk Kuyt

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

Kuyt or Kuijt?[edit]

Do you spell his last name as Kuijt or Kuyt?

His website is DirkKuyt.nl, so I think we should go by that name. Aecis 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

The Dutch-language articles always seem to use 'Kuyt'. They also use 'van Nistelrooij'. Mjefm 15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Voetbal International' (major Dutch football magazine) always uses Kuijt. See for example: [1] Also note that the right hand summary shows his name as Kuijt aswell and not as Kuyt.

Frederikton 23:43 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuyt is the English spelling of his name, which should be used as this is English wikipedia. kuijt is the dutch spelling, using the dutch letter ij (which is not just the english letters i and j). The same goes for van Nistelrooy DJDannyP//Talk2Me 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed by a Dutch friend that both spellings are correct. His name was originally Kuijt, but in anticipation of a foreign move he encouraged the Kuyt spelling to allow non-Nederlanders to pronounce his name properly (as the ij confused them). By the looks of the section below, it really hasn't helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.94.207 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 1 September 2006
I don't like the way the article currently says "Dirk Kuyt, originally spelt Dirk Kuijt". My problem is that this implies that his name is now not ever spelt "Kuijt". I would like a citation from a reliable source to show that he has actually changed his name to Kuyt, and if he hasn't then the word "originally" should not be used. aLii 08:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With originally (you can also use officially) I mean he was born as Dirk Kuijt and still is named Dirk Kuijt. He didn't change his name of whatsoever. The name Kuyt was used by the media to allow foreign people to pronounce his name better like already stated above. The same happened for instance with his former team Feijenoord that changed their name into Feyenoord after they won the Champions Cup and several other international prizes. The (Dutch) source Sportweek tells this in their report on his move to Liverpool. SportsAddicted | discuss 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch wikipedia uses (Dirk Kuijt, soms geschreven als Dirk Kuyt), which can be translated as (Dirk Kuijt, sometimes written as Dirk Kuyt), which literraly means his name is Kuijt, but Kuyt is used as well. SportsAddicted | discuss 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I dislike the word originally as it implies that Kuijt isn't used now. Your source was also pretty useless as it gave no real information, and was in Dutch! Anyway, for now I have put back the word sometimes and instead of a reference left a footnote explaning the situation. I feel that you may be better placed to correctly edit/write the footnote as you seem to know more about the situation than I, but I've made a start on it. Hope this meets with your approval. aLii 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the footnote, and changed "he" in "the media". Although I don't have a reference I'm pretty sure he did not change his name officially. This is done in most (if not all) cases for similar players and clubs after Feijenoord changed their name into Feyenoord. Other examples include Ruud van Nistelrooy, Johan Cruyff and Arie Luyendyk. André Ooijer and Pierre van Hooijdonk however are as far as I know always named in the original way.

Pronunciation[edit]

Ruud Gullit says 'Kite', Martin Jol says 'Kowt'. Some commentators still say 'Koyt'. Which is it? Mjefm 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Kuit, which is a typicle Dutch syllable. It is nearly impossible for english tongue speakers to pronounce it. It is the same syllable as in Huizen (Huizen) or Muiden (Muiden). 145.18.202.50 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English tongue speakers have difficulty pronouncing Huizen or Muiden, it's true, but those of us who use our lips and jaws don't have much of a problem with those syllables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.54.9 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Wikipedia has an audio description of Kuyt, in which some kid pronounces his name multiple times. He pronounces it as "Kowt" listen here. aLii 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know how 'Deerik Kowt' would by written using the IPA?2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 729 (talk • contribs) 0:34, 29 August 2006
I've heard it pronounced dɜrk kɔɪt and kaɪt, though neither of those show up on my browser. Basically either to sound roughly the same as quoit, though more with the lips than with the lower jaw, and kite, though sucking the mouth back slightly further as if one was pronouncing the Spanish word "muy". Do those pronunciations show up? Bobo. 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kuyt himself cleared this issue up on Match of the Day. It is pronounced "Deerik Kowt" DJDannyP//Talk2Me 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the MOTD interview doesn't really clear it up, as to me it seems in between Kowt and Kite. A Dutchman I know says it's closer to Ku-yit, so all we can do is put the differences down to regional accents I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.94.207 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 September 2006
Personally, I would pronounce his name as "Koyt", just as I would pronounce Cruijff (as in Johan Cruijff) as "Croyff". - PeeJay 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard anyone say Johan 'Crowff' so it should really be "Koyt" Spiderone (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation on the wiki page is just plain wrong. Dirk himself pronounces it differently here: http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d837/Dirk_Kuyt To someone from Finland, the wiki page says "Köyt", as in "work" but Dirk himself pronounces it "Käyt", as in "back". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.90.192 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer fee according to Dutch media[edit]

Here is a source regarding the transfer fee. Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf" ("De" is "The" in English). De Telegraaf is convinced that Liverpool HAVE paid Feyenoord 18 million euros, which IS 12.2 million pounds. [2]

The article also states that Kuyt will earn 1.7 million euros a year in a four-year deal. It should be in the region 25,000 pounds a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchlad1985 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2006

That's great and all, but neither Feyenoord nor Liverpool have told us the actual fee. None of the British press quote such a high transfer figure, with the local Liverpool press and some national press quoting a fee as low as £9 million. I think under the circumstances it is correct to quote both fees in the article, as we have no way of knowing which (if either) is correct. aLii 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Dutch national radio, Dirk Kuyt was asked about the transfer fee. He replied by saying: "Well, strict agreements are made about that matter, so I won't comment on that, but it's a lot of money, that's for certain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchlad1985 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2006

Newcastle 'dream' quotes[edit]

http://www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s70.php?f=71&i=565483&t=565483&sid=70 suggests that the quotes about Newcastle being Kuyt's "dream move" were made up, and then picked up by a vast number of news outlets. I suppose it's somewhat of a verifiability grey area, as the sites that are apparently wrong are more credible than the one that is apparently right. Thoughts? KeithD 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that the quotes in the article here are from May. Apparently on 13th August there was an article by "Jan Hattinga" [3] — this was the joke article. So in my eyes the quotes already in this article still stand. aLii 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rewritten the whole transfer section, and removed the Newcastle quote, as it's no longer needed. aLii 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscoring Statistics[edit]

I'm currently working on a table of Kuyt's goals/games record and I'm finding it difficult to find details on how many games he's actually played etc.. For instance; I've realised that the Dutch Eredivise has extensive end of season play-offs, and this link leads me to believe that the numbers on this page (33/22), and some others could well be wrong because they aren't including them. So it would seem that Kuyt actually scored 24 in 35 games last season. Another problem is that I can't find any statistics about his participation in the KNVB Cup - he must have played some games?! Anyone know of some sources for this kind of info? aLii 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cup matches are not to be included anyways (since not every club plays the same amount of mathes in the cup system). The domestic league records seems to be ok. Try [4]. Intangible 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically [5]. jaco♫plane 22:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's ok. The play-offs have only existed for the past season - I'll put those games seperately under others. rsssf.com has some useful info on the cup - it has all the goals, but not the number of games... I'll check your link out, cheers, aLii 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if someone can include his assist stats in the club performance table, since he (like Andriy Voronin) is a player who contributes alot in goals of his follow strikers. badkhan 20:10, 2 September 2007.

Ok, so this is what I have at the moment:

Club Performance
Club Season Premiership FA Cup League Cup Europe Others Total
App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals
Liverpool FC 2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Club Season Eredivisie Dutch Cup - Europe Play-offs Total
App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals App Goals
Feyenoord 2005-06 33 22 1 0 - - 2 1 2 2 38 25
2004-05 34 29 3 4 - - 7 3 - - 44 36
2003-04 34 20 2 1 - - 4 1 - - 40 22
Total 101 71 6 5 - - 13 5 2 2 122 83
FC Utrecht 2002-03 34 20 4 2 - - 2 1 - - 40 23
2001-02 34 7 3 3 - - 4 1 - - 41 11
2000-01 32 13 5 3 - - 0 0 - - 37 16
1999-00 32 6 4 4 - - 0 0 - - 36 10
1998-99 28 5 2 1 - - 0 0 - - 30 6
Total 160 51 18 13 - - 6 2 - - 184 66
Overall Total 261 122 24 18 0 0 19 7 2 2 306 149

all done! aLii 03:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Liverpool?[edit]

The article states 'It is widely expected that Dirk Kuyt will leave Liverpool in the summer of 2008 as his first choice opportunities have diminished since the arrival of Fernando Torres.'

I feel that should be sourced. I'm not convinced that he his 'widely' expected to leave. I also don't think that we should be indulging in conjecture, as there haven't been any reports in the media suggesting that this is true.

Also, Kuyt doesn't even play in the same position as Torres anymore, and 'first choice opportunities' haven't been limited for him thus far - he appeared in 41 matches last season.Arae (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we have to be so careful reporting transfer speculation. Because, lo and behold, he didn't go. --Ged UK (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Dirk Kuijt[edit]

information Administrator note Consensus and WP:NAME see a clear preference for the current name over the proposed name, so there will be no move and the article should be consistent with this. Regards SoWhy 07:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • SUPPORT.::This is the guy's name, what is there to argue about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.173.27 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • SUPPORT.::What's on the back of some footballshirt in England isn't relevant to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is about facts, and his official name is Dirk Kuijt.

Sabine1981//rofl 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This would be in direct contravention of WP:NAME, which clearly states Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Just about every football fan in the ENglish speaking, and just about every language other that Dutch, would recognise Kuyt over Kuijt. Additionally, refering to Kuijt throught the article just makes it look stupid. That that is the 'official' spelling of his name is already recognised within the article. He himself is happy with the 'Kuyt' spelling, otherwise it wouldn't be on the back of his shirt, nor his official website (http://www.dirkkuytofficialwebsite.com.) --Ged UK (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT.::You can't talk in terms like 'every' football fan, this is not kindergarten. On Wikipedia you provide sources, and unless you can provide me with a source where there is some research about how his name is recognized in the world OR sources of his OFFICIAL name change i think its fair to say that we just stick to the facts. And this fact is that his name is Dirk Kuijt and not Dirk Kuyt just because it is wrongly printed like that on a football shirt.

Sabine1981//rofl 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It's not a question of having it 'officially' changed. . If he had a problem with how it was spelt, why would he have suggested it in the first place? As WP:NAME points, out, it should simply be the name most people would recognise. As all English language references refer to him as Kuyt, including his own website and his own shirt, it seems to be quite clear that this would be the most recognisable form of his name. The article acknowledges that it is not the orignal spelling. --Ged UK (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT.::I won't repeat myself anymore, so unless you can provide me with official research of what English speakers recognize OR if you can provide me with a source of his official name change: his name is Dirk Kuijt, a Liverpool football shirt doesn't change this. Since when is Wikipedia about the wrong spelling on a football shirt and not about facts anymore.

Sabine1981//rofl 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. The player calls himself "Kuyt" and his employer calls him "Kuyt". There are less than 10,000 results for a "Dirk Kuijt" football search, whereas there are 270,000 results for a "Dirk Kuyt" football search. There appears to be nothing other than the nominator's point of view in support. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In the English-language media, this player is more often referred to as "Dirk Kuyt" than as "Dirk Kuijt". Similar to Ruud van Nistelrooy/van Nistelrooij. – PeeJay 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on EN.wikipedia.org we should use the English spelling. Liverpool's official site has it as Kuyt, and a quick Google (English language) search returned 627000 hits for "Dirk Kuyt" and only 14700 for "Dirk Kuijt". Beve (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose restricting the search to Google News English language, which should give a higher proportion of reliable sources, gives Dirk Kuijt 574 hits compared with Dirk Kuyt 11,800, which makes it clear that Kuyt is the English-language common name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - King Kuyt has gone over to use Kuyt at least since the 2006 World Cup and when he subsequently joined Liverpool... What I've even seen on youtube he had Kuyt at least sometimes on his Feyenoord shirts... And it seems he's even called Kuyt in the netherlands [6] — CHANDLER#10 — 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kuyt is clearly the common name in the English speaking world. King of the North East 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If his official website uses the current spelling then so should Wikipedia. Qwghlm (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Kuyt is the common name used; the majority, if not all, the English press use that name. This does not mean that his real name is not "Dirk Kuijt" but then again no one claims that Andre 3000 is his real name either. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY SUPPORT Don't understand that Wikipedia would encourage to write articles with mistakes. His name is Dirk Kuijt.
The majority of the people in the world, except for the UK uses "Dirk Kuijt", so this is an argument (plus that it's his name) to stick to the CORRECT name.
I don't think wrong names on football shirts should be the guidance for Wikipedia to put false info on the site. This is a serious encyclopedia, and not a collection of gibberish printed on football shirts.
The fact that the wrong name Kuyt appears more on google says nothing, it just shows that a lot of websites take over the wrong information and in the end it will produce more hits on Google.
Also the fact that Kuijt himself 'agreed' with the name Kuyt on his shirt is not a justification to put that wrong name on Wikipedia. This is because he probably agreed for the wrong (financial) reasons, at Wikipedia we should stick to facts and sources.
The people who oppose are football fans, and not fans of facts so it seems. I don't think the argument that "It's printed on a football shirt so it must be right" is a good enough reason for Wikipedia to put WRONG information on the website. I invite all people to present me a source where he claims he officially changed his name (preferably with a picture of this official Dutch document).
Until then I propose that Wikipedia sticks to facts, and Dirk Kuijt is the name. Bluefront1 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Bluefront1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You need to read WP:NAME, just because it's his birth name doesn't mean his article should be on that name. See Pele, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. And NO not everyone except the UK uses Kuijt... I don't use it, it's more probable to say ONLY some in the Netherlands use it the rest of the world uses Kuyt — CHANDLER#10 — 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kuyt himself, Liverpool FC, the KNVB, FC Utrecht [7] and Feyenoord [8]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The is a bit of a pile-on, but oppose per the very clear guidelines at WP:ENGLISH. In English he's referred to as "Kuyt" almost exclusively. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He is only wrongly referred to as Kuyt in the UK, not anywhere else. End of story CBluefront1 - talk 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And also in the USA as well - also note that USA Today produces zero hits for Kuijt. It's already been shown that the Kuyt spelling has been used repeatedly in Dutch media for at least five years now, so to say this is a British invention is unverifiable to say the least. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It is very clear that WP:UE and WP:UCN both come down firmly on the side of Kuyt. Where people have used the term 'official name' above, I assume this means what is printed on his birth certificate, but birth name is completely irrelevant here, people often change the spelling of their name, abbreviate it, use their middle name or change it altogether. For example, you wouldn't expect to find Nigel Martyn's article at Anthony Martin, even though that's his 'official' name. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 10:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Dirk Kuyt is his common name, it's the exact same situation with Ruud Van Nistelrooy and that has remained -y instead of -ij so Kuyt is in the same boat. Prem4eva (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. English sources almost exclusively use Kuyt, and even the KNVB website seems to favour this spelling (513 hits for Kuyt over 125 hits for Kuijt). I also don't agree with the footnote's assertion about the British media deliberately changing his name - has this ever been officially recorded? It seems to be original research to me. I also think the lead sentence is a bit POV, and should be changed to something more neutral such as "also spelled Dirk Kuijt". There, that's my tuppence worth. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Bettia about the footnote. ArtVandelay posted a link above to FC Utrecht 2002/03 which spells him Kuyt, the KNVB were spelling him Kuyt in 2004, and I suspect most of the English-language media wouldn't have heard of him that long ago, let alone had any influence on the spelling of his name in reliable Dutch-language sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - his name in England is spelt as 'Kuyt' and as this is the English-language Wikipedia, we must use that name. GiantSnowman 11:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're approaching WP:SNOW here aren't we? There appears to be one argument for the move, which isn't in line with any WP policies/guidelines and a whole heap against. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 13:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to summarize: people who oppose are football fans from the UK and they just want something they recognize from a football shirt on TV to be on Wikipedia as well, otherwise they get confused. People who SUPPORT like to stick to the facts and that's that Dirk Kuijt is his official name, and football shirts aren't a reliable source. Bluefront1 Facts 14:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'official name'? Do you mean the name on his birth certificate, as I suggested above? I don't see how a person can have an official name, like an organisation or a business can. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read this discussion properly - it's clear that the use of 'Kuyt' goes way beyond his shirt. Not that shirtnames are unimportant - we wouldn't use Pelé or Kaká's birthnames throughout their articles. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes his correct name, the name he is referred to in all media except for the UK. Everybody in the world knows him by his name Dirk Kuijt, the UK isn't the center of the world. Wikipedia is about facts, not about wrongly printed football shirts (or websites). Surely anyone who steps aside from their football obsession can agree with that.Bluefront1 Facts 14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But again, it's not just the UK - it's also the Dutch FA, both clubs he played for in the Netherlands, FIFA [9], UEFA [10]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT.:: - It is very clear his name is Dirk Kuijt and some dumb football fans took over this discussion. I suggest we stick to the facts. -Marketienneschoenmaker (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009

— Marketienneschoenmaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose: see precedents of Johan Cruyff, not Cruijff; Ruud van Nistelrooy, not Nistelrooij; Feyenoord's own name choice, acknowledging that the ij ligature is not used outside Dutch; Piet Pieterszoon Hein, not Heijn; Arie Luyendyk, not Luyendijk; and the overwhelming impression at IJ (digraph) that this ligature is essentially regarded, in Dutch, as one letter, and English has no such letter. Kevin McE (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above. DeMoN2009 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In addition to the precendents that Kevin McE cites, note that FIFA itself spells his name Kuyt.[11] —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per FIFA, UEFA, KNVB and other good references above. Camw (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favor of English usage, which seems to be quite clear in this case. When titling articles, we regularly ignore people's "official", "birth certificate" names when there is an alternative that is widely used and more recognizable. Those that repeatedly insist that "Kuijt is his official name, and that's what we should use because that is a fact and wikipedia needs to be based on facts" are welcome to try the same argument at Tony Blair (which "should" be titled "Anthony Blair"), Bill Clinton ("William Blythe"), or Pele ("Edison Arantes do Nascimento")Erudy (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 2 cents-worth of BTUs against the snowball. I am no football fan -- and as for dear Dirk, nevah hoida da guy. It seems, however, that whatever is written on his birth certificate, he is known as Kuyt: the English-speaking press overwhelmingly calls him "kuyt"; FIFA calls him "Kuyt"; his own website calls him "Kuyt"...etc etc. Put the "correct" spelling in the lead para ("born Dirk Ku-t") or whatever. BTW there is a hyphen there because I can't find the IJ ligature in the edit box. SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name issue[edit]

Can I just take the opportunity to remind all editors of the Three revert rule and the concept of edit warring as we edit and revert each other on how the player should be referred to throughout. We need to discuss this on the talk page rather than just reverting all the time. Thanks --Ged UK (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, stop changing it because his name IS Dirk Kuijt and vandalising it to Dirk Kuyt is childish. Bluefront1 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2009

Don't be so petty. The text of the article should match the article title, i.e. all references to the player should be written as "Kuyt", not "Kuijt". There should, however, be a mention of the alternative/original/correct/incorrect spelling in the lead. – PeeJay 09:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed don't be so petty and stop vandalizing the article, his name is Dirk Kuijt. Bluefront1 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2009

Cheers for reverting my helpful additions. What I changed was to say that he was "(born Dirk Kuijt, 22 July 1980)". I copied the example of Bill Clinton. Once the page move has been settled I believe this should be re-added. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the vandalizing Sabine1981 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009

His professional name (per, among other usages, the FIFA records page) is Kuyt. The article title is Kuyt (which is where consensus appears to be in the move discussion). Other than one reference to explain that Kuijt is an alternate spelling, it should be Kuyt throughout the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate? His name IS Dirk Kuijt, and the alternate wrong spelling is Dirk Kuyt, or do you have an official source of the Dutch state document where he changed his name officially?—Bluefront1 (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You dont understand wikipedia guidelines, and your edits are of pure vandalism when you've been told why his name is Dirk Kuyt. It is only a SMALL amount of Dutch people who use Kuijt, his Dutch teams and the Dutch football association use Kuyt in line with THE REST OF THE WORLD, not just the UK. So stop your vandalism. — CHANDLER#10 — 14:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page has been locked now, on the Kuijt version as it happens, so we need to get this resolved. I would propose that the outcome of the page move discussion above is carried as how he should be referred to in the article. Should we vote? --Ged UK (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As an impartial observer, Kuyt's name is Kuijt, since Dutch uses IJ instead of Y, but per WP:COMMONNAME, his name is used as Kuyt throughout the football world. Compare this to Andre Ooijer, Ruud van Nistelrooij or van Nistelrooy, van Hooijdonk, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree. I've never said that 'Kuyt' is his correct, or official name (nor has anyone else as far as I can see), but this is the English language WP, and Kuyt is as close a transliteration as possible of a letter that we don't have in English. As long as the article makes clear the Dutch spelling of his name, then that should be sufficient as far as I'm concerned --Ged UK (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the key. I'm not trying to push either Kuyt or Kuijt. Whichever is used, an explanation to the other should be made clear. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version before this POV push started should be restored... Perhaps not only pointing at British media, but on the Dutch FA, UEFA and FIFA as well. — CHANDLER#10 — 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My biggest concern right now is that the article accuses FIFA of misspelling his name! By adding the "wrongly spelled" comment in the intro, the implication is that FIFA, among others, is misspelling his name.[12] What source do we have that Kuyt is an invalid spelling? —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer you to my above suggestion in this section which covers both undisputed facts that (a) he was born Dirk Kuyt (b) he is commonly know in his career as Dirk Kuyt. The article title should reflect the Common Name: this doesn't imply that it's his real official name or anything. Indeed, when Cherilyn Sarkisian popped out we can all agree that her mother didn't say "wow! I'll call her Cher, no last name or anything!". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, to bring the matter to a swift conclusion, here is the policy for using the common name — "Determine the most common name[1] by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." I'd like to see even just one reliable source in English that refers to him primarily as "Dirk Kuijt". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's pure POV to say it's "often wrongly spelled as Kuyt". Why not just follow the example of Ruud van Nistelrooy's article?
Dirk Kuijt, commonly spelled as Kuyt (pronunciationⓘ), (born 22 July 1980, in Katwijk aan Zee) is a Dutch professional football player, who currently plays for English club Liverpool FC.
or even
Dirk Kuijt, commonly spelled in English as Kuyt (pronunciationⓘ), (born 22 July 1980, in Katwijk aan Zee) is a Dutch professional football player, who currently plays for English club Liverpool FC.
Beve (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Is there actually more than one person in support of this move, or did they all turn out to be sockpuppets? And on that basis, what happens next and how long does it stay locked on the controversial, anti-consensus version (instead of the long-term stable version it was at before the edit warring started)? Beve (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As shown it is not only in English he's referred to as Kuyt, the Dutch FA even refers to him as Kuyt... Has it even been shown that he's commonly referred to as Kuijt in the Netherlands anymore? (as I stated higher up, I've seen him in a Feyenoord shirt under Kuyt) There was never any problems with the previous version before all the pov-pushing [13] — CHANDLER#10 — 01:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to search some dutch newspapers [14][15][16] and well.. they're not going with Kuijt 100% of the time thats for sure. — CHANDLER#10 — 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beve's suggestion, though can I also suggest disentangling the birth place from the (born... section as recommended in the Biographies manual of style? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the information to what I think is the majority consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong however... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad all this sillyness seems to have settled down now. Just as an interesting aside, I did a Dutch language Google search for "Dirk Kuyt" voetbal, and another with the other spelling and Kuyt seems to be clearly the most common spelling even in Dutch. :-) — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 08:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too am glad it's settled, and not just because it was the way I preferred. I actually think it has been a productive experience (article locking included) as it has clarified an issue that would otherwise have come back time and again, or just rumbled on. All hail the power of consensus! --Ged UK (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC Utrecht[edit]

The name of the club is commonly referred to as "FC Utrecht" not simply "Utrecht". I made a comparison at Grant Alpaugh's talk page describing an analogy with FC Barcelona. Here are the official websites discussing their clubs' respective histories. FC Utrecht and FC Barcelona. I gave a reasoned argument, someone said nothing and pressed "undo". Can we either discuss this issue more (with reference to sources) or stop playing undo merry-go-round, please. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as we have a desire for everything to be standardised, it doesn't always work like that in the real world. I don't know much about European clubs, but I can think of a couple in England where you simply couldn't drop it: AFC Wimbledon and FC United. Beve (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i looked at the FC Utrecht article, and the second-reference form of the name there is still "FC Utrecht". If it's not shortened in the article about the club, there's no need to shorten it anywhere else. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion, I've updated the actual text in the article to match. --GedUK  07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Position[edit]

Is it still accurate to say that his primary position is as a striker? He's played so many games as a winger now, I think it's misleading to suggest that this is not his primary position. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's really his primary position, like Benitez said: "It's not his best position - we know that he is a striker - but he has been very good for us playing on the right side," [17]. JACOPLANE • 2010-05-18 17:07

"International career" is misleading[edit]

I feel that the heading "International career" is misleading in this and other articles concerning football soccer. I presume this is British English usage, perhaps also common in all Europe, but I think the correct terminology should be "Career with National team".

I interpret "international" simply as playing outside his country of origin, whether that is with his national team or not. Most European clubs are fairly international in this sense, they are always playing international, Europe-wide cups.

Perhaps the equivalence of "International career" with "National team" is fairly common in Britain, but it is not precise, and should be corrected.---189.250.200.1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style of Play[edit]

This whole paragraph seems very unacademic. Unrivaled lungs? Covering every blade of grass? Hardly written objectively! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.37.127 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MoS?[edit]

Due to the recent dust-up, with two editors disagreeing on what style to use in formatting the table (whether just one dash spanning multiple rows, or each row having its own dash), I am curious where the Manual of Style for such things is kept. Thanks, and cheers! Jsharpminor (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe or Feyenoord?[edit]

You will see the confusion if you read the article, really... KARA (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dirk Kuyt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dirk Kuyt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dirk Kuyt. 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) 03:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirk Kuyt. 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) 06:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dirk Kuyt. 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) 08:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dirk_Kuyt&oldid=1208063585"