Jump to content

Talk:Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 121: Line 121:
::::I've just re-removed the tag. If there had been a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, the article would have been deleted. Instead, there was judged to be no consensus, and even a brief look at the AfD makes it clear that the keep votes outnumbered the deletes. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain this kind of tag in these circumstances: it's basically your view versus that of the AfD. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I've just re-removed the tag. If there had been a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, the article would have been deleted. Instead, there was judged to be no consensus, and even a brief look at the AfD makes it clear that the keep votes outnumbered the deletes. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain this kind of tag in these circumstances: it's basically your view versus that of the AfD. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


== THIS ARTICLE IS A PRACTICAL JOKE ON ALL READERS ==

How in the hell is this a Wikipedia article?!! Let alone a front-page featured article?!! It's like writing an article entitled 'Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!' It is ridiculous drivel and should be deleted immediately. The inclusion of this article is an indictment of the editorial governance process within Wikipedia. Please remove this article, cease and desist from publishing such nonsensical bullshit in the future. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 11:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


:You mean [[Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead]]? [[User:Grapple X|'''G<small>RAPPLE</small>''']] [[User talk:Grapple X|'''<small><sup>X</sup></small>''']] 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:You mean [[Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead]]? [[User:Grapple X|'''G<small>RAPPLE</small>''']] [[User talk:Grapple X|'''<small><sup>X</sup></small>''']] 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


:You should probably explain ''why'' the article is "ridiculous drivel" and "nonsensical bullshit." [[User:Brutannica|Brutannica]] ([[User talk:Brutannica|talk]]) 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
:You should probably explain ''why'' the article is "ridiculous drivel" and "nonsensical bullshit." [[User:Brutannica|Brutannica]] ([[User talk:Brutannica|talk]]) 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

::First of all, REALLY? It is excruciatingly obvious why this topic is NOT worthy of encyclopedic treatment. However, since this point is apparently not obvious to the authors or editors, it is because the purpose of this article is to profile a person who was an utterly insignificantly member of an historically important sporting club, and to illustrate this person's complete lack of historical impact in excruciating detail. This topic is extremely trivial, and it does not meet any reasonable threshold for encyclopedic treatment. If it did meet such a threshold, then Wikipedia is soon going to have hundreds of millions of articles, which is too many articles to an exponential degree. I love cricket and admire Donald Bradman as much as I admire Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan. However, a separate article about Mr. Hamence's role as a minor member of an historic cricket team is as un-newsworthy as a separate article about James Edwards' role as a minor member of the historically successful 1996 Chicago Bulls. (No offense, 'Buddha.') Like Mr. Hamence, Mr. Edwards does have a brief biographical entry in Wikipedia. That is more than enough. The undeleted existence of this article demeans Wikipedia itself. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 00:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


:::The "threshold" is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and if that's satisfied, then we should welcome rather than spurn "hundreds of millions of articles". [[User:Grapple X|'''G<small>RAPPLE</small>''']] [[User talk:Grapple X|'''<small><sup>X</sup></small>''']] 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::The "threshold" is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and if that's satisfied, then we should welcome rather than spurn "hundreds of millions of articles". [[User:Grapple X|'''G<small>RAPPLE</small>''']] [[User talk:Grapple X|'''<small><sup>X</sup></small>''']] 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

::::'Coverage in reliable sources' is an absurdly low bar. An automated article generator could create billions of articles if that was your only test. I respectfully and vehemently disagree with this threshold, and repeat that it is demeaning to Wikipedia itself, which I consider to be the most important research tool in existence. This article and others like it are simply out of place in Wikipedia.

::::Btw, 'coverage in reliable sources' is a primary test for including specific information in any Wikipedia article, and appropriately so. However, I would ask you to reply with a link to the Wikipedia policy that defines the threshold for relevance as 'coverage in reliable sources.' Relevance and credibility are completely separate questions. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 00:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


:::::See [[WP:N]]. I'd also note that the sources were sufficient to develop the article to a state in which it was judged to be of Wikipedia's highest level of quality. Wikipedia is full of articles on not terribly important topics, which is generally a good thing given that its very broad coverage is one of the factors which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::See [[WP:N]]. I'd also note that the sources were sufficient to develop the article to a state in which it was judged to be of Wikipedia's highest level of quality. Wikipedia is full of articles on not terribly important topics, which is generally a good thing given that its very broad coverage is one of the factors which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


::::::Thank you. I believe this topic fails the 'significant coverage' test. The role of Mr. Hamence as a bag-carrier on this team may warrant a paragraph, or even two, in the article about this team. However, to my knowledge, there has been no book of any kind written about Mr. Hamence individually, nor any article save this Wiki entry written specifically about Mr. Hamence's role on this team. The role of Mr. Hamence on this team is merely one of thousands of trivial sub-topics that could be culled from the story of this important team, if the writer's goal was to congest Wikipedia with hundreds or thousands of articles about this one single topic. Also, the quality of the article is completely beside the point. A great article written about an irrelevant topic is still irrelevant, and in this case also demeaning to Wikipedia itself. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 01:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Per [[WP:5P|the Five Pillars]], Wikipedia incorporates features of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". There's nothing "demeaning" about this article... hyperbole will get you nowhere. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Per [[WP:5P|the Five Pillars]], Wikipedia incorporates features of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". There's nothing "demeaning" about this article... hyperbole will get you nowhere. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::There is nothing hyperbolic about labelling this article 'demeaning.' It is precisely demeaning to the mission of Wikipedia, which I do not believe includes serving as a repository for nearly infinite quantities of completely insignificant drivel, which will be the inevitable outcome of including this article and others like it. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 17:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Given that Wikipedia has articles like [[Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism]], [[Icelandic Phallological Museum]], [[Human–animal breastfeeding]] and about a zillion articles on porn actors, this is hardly dragging standards down. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Given that Wikipedia has articles like [[Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism]], [[Icelandic Phallological Museum]], [[Human–animal breastfeeding]] and about a zillion articles on porn actors, this is hardly dragging standards down. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Your 'standards' point is a red herring. Infamy and relevance are completely different points. Please note I am not proposing to delete the article on the 1948 cricket team, nor the biographical article on Mr. Hamence himself, which belongs in the same zip code as the biographical entries on the more obscure half of those porn actors. I am disputing the notion that Mr. Hamence's specific role on this team is worthy of a separate Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia has a specific protocol for the deletion of articles deemed to be un-newsworthy. I believe this article meets such a test.

:::::::::This article basically explains how Mr. Hamence did nothing whatsoever to contribute to the success of the team. A machine could generate many millions of articles (not hyperbole) to make parallel points about every topic known to humanity. The entire subject of this article is an irrelevant detail in the context of the story of an historically important sporting club.


:::::::::By the way, none of the replies above have specifically addressed the relevance of this article. The comments have taken issue with my 'hyperbole' (okay, fine) and cited the purpose and standards of Wikipedia, and I believe incorrectly so, but none have offered any support for the notion that this article meets any credible test for relevance or newsworthiness. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}} For the record {{u|Jrgilb}}, before the article appeared on the main page, I nominated for deletion, and the discussion is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|here]]. [[User:Harrias|<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Harrias|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}} For the record {{u|Jrgilb}}, before the article appeared on the main page, I nominated for deletion, and the discussion is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|here]]. [[User:Harrias|<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Harrias|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you for this, {{u|Harrias}}. Of course, I support your nomination. [[User:Jrgilb|Jrgilb]] ([[User talk:Jrgilb|talk]]) 18:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:47, 28 December 2015

Featured articleRon Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starRon Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is part of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 26, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 14, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
September 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept
January 6, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2009.
Current status: Featured article

Orphaned references in Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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 Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948'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 "o":

  • From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle RA Saggers 1948". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
  • From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle D Tallon 1948". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
  • From Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle KR Miller 1948". Retrieved 2008-12-10.

Reference named "Allen 1999":

  • From Doug Ring: Allen, Peter (1999). The Invincibles: The Legend of Bradman's 1948 Australians. Mosman, NSW, Australia: Allen and Kemsley. pp. 76–79. ISBN 1-875171-06-1.
  • From Ron Hamence: Allen, pp. 76–79.

Reference named "av":

Reference named "p176":

Reference named "sched":

Reference named "Pollard":

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⚡ 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reference

current ref 28 starts with "Barnes, p.180" but the book is not listed underneath.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doen YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The notability of this article is dubious - it really shouldn't be a featured article. Hamence didn't even play a test. Most of the references are passing mentions and routine coverage. What we have here of substance could be merged to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion has been closed as no consensus. I think that means the notability tag should stay; perhaps there could be a merge discussion. But I think the next step might be a FA review, since the FA status seemed to be important in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the FA criteria don't deal with things like notability - from what I can tell, FA reviews seem to focus on style. StAnselm (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the AfD result, I've removed the tag. I'd note that notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources which cover the topic, and not how important or otherwise individual editors consider it (I don't think that this is an important topic, but the references are clearly there). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - there is obviously no consensus at this point whether the subject is notable - that is, whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The tour is obviously notable, but not this player's role in it. StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-removed the tag. If there had been a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, the article would have been deleted. Instead, there was judged to be no consensus, and even a brief look at the AfD makes it clear that the keep votes outnumbered the deletes. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain this kind of tag in these circumstances: it's basically your view versus that of the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You mean Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead? GRAPPLE X 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably explain why the article is "ridiculous drivel" and "nonsensical bullshit." Brutannica (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "threshold" is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and if that's satisfied, then we should welcome rather than spurn "hundreds of millions of articles". GRAPPLE X 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:N. I'd also note that the sources were sufficient to develop the article to a state in which it was judged to be of Wikipedia's highest level of quality. Wikipedia is full of articles on not terribly important topics, which is generally a good thing given that its very broad coverage is one of the factors which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Five Pillars, Wikipedia incorporates features of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". There's nothing "demeaning" about this article... hyperbole will get you nowhere. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wikipedia has articles like Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, Icelandic Phallological Museum, Human–animal breastfeeding and about a zillion articles on porn actors, this is hardly dragging standards down. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Jrgilb, before the article appeared on the main page, I nominated for deletion, and the discussion is here. Harrias talk 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Hamence_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948&oldid=697088670"