User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
George John (soccer)
Hi. I really feel that a player's opinion on a transfer that might or might not happen is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It's not even a particularly high-profile or exceptional transfer. If you look at articles on footballers that have reached featured article status - such as Thierry Henry or Steve Bruce - that kind of banal transfer chat is not included. Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Dann
Hello. Thanks for adding a real-ish source, though I don't know why you needed to overwrite what was there before. In general, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a gossip column or a breaking news service. It's encyclopedia-worthy if and when a move is confirmed by the club concerned (not by Sky or any other media outlet, who can't confirm anything), but the BBC's or Sky's opinion on the current state of talks really doesn't belong here. Will anybody care, in five years time (or five days time, for that matter) what time of day someone from Sky spotted him arriving for his medical? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The bit about Arsenal didn't say they'd bid. It read "it was reported that Arsenal had opened preliminary talks", though I suspect neither you nor I nor Sky know for a fact whether they bid, enquired, talked, or none of the above. It's generally best to word stuff so the words reflect only what the sources actually verify. Incidentally, the bit about Wikipedia not being a breaking news service comes from section 1 of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Think adding whether he's had/having/yet to have his medical and whether talks are ongoing has to come under breaking news, to be fair. I'm not going to edit war about it, too soon to the deadline and there's enough rubbish being added on here without worrying too much about pre-empting this one, but in general it's worth bearing the guidelines in mind. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- True. It'd be good if we could leave off writing about a move until it either completes or stalls, but it isn't practical. Better to write the sort of thing you've put, so long as there's something resembling a reliable source, than write nothing and give free rein to people who think player seen in Blackburn must equal player signed for them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Think adding whether he's had/having/yet to have his medical and whether talks are ongoing has to come under breaking news, to be fair. I'm not going to edit war about it, too soon to the deadline and there's enough rubbish being added on here without worrying too much about pre-empting this one, but in general it's worth bearing the guidelines in mind. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The bit about Arsenal didn't say they'd bid. It read "it was reported that Arsenal had opened preliminary talks", though I suspect neither you nor I nor Sky know for a fact whether they bid, enquired, talked, or none of the above. It's generally best to word stuff so the words reflect only what the sources actually verify. Incidentally, the bit about Wikipedia not being a breaking news service comes from section 1 of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)