Talk:BBC Sports Personality of the Year

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list BBC Sports Personality of the Year is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star BBC Sports Personality of the Year is the main article in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year series, a featured 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.

Title[edit]

The title of this article does not seem to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Beginning the title with the word "other" seems to suggest a hierarchy of articles. The official name of these "other" awards is not "Other BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards"; they are simply the awards presented at the BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony which are not the main award. I recommend this article be renamed Awards of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony and be made to include the main award as well. Each of these awards have separate articles; having an article about all the awards makes more sense than having an article about all the awards except the main one. Neelix (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very open to discussion on this (sorry it has taken so long to reply). I created this so I could find a home for the awards that have been presented once or twice and therefore do not warrant their own articles. The reason I chose "Other" is that I intended to predominently list these one-off or old awards, and provide links to lists of the others. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
These are all defunct awards, yes? So could other be replaced with "defunct" in the title? Or a similar meaning phrase, althougi cannot think of one as short as defunct. Ah, but the current awards are also included. Could this not be called "List of SPotY awards"? Having larger sections for the defunct awards would still make sense, due to following summary style.YobMod 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and moved the page to List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards. Feel free to discuss if anyone wants to. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

At a peer review for BBC Sports Personality of the Year user Oldelpaso commented that they expected an article with this title to be about the main award, since the winner is the "Sports Personality of the Year" and said they can't help thinking that the article could be merged with List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards to provide a summary style overview for the full topic.

Now from my point of view if the community decides that it is best I'll follow. For full disclosure I was recently told I would need to promote BBC Sports Personality of the Year for a SPoTY featured topic, however I didn't suggest this merge and will contact User:rst20xx. There are more things I think I should say, from the point of view for the topic ideally I'd merge to here (the longer of the lists) and then probably move to BBC Sports Personality of the Year. This would (I believe) keep FL status for the list. Now I don't see problems with that as the prose in the other article has just been peer review, however I'd be willing to take it to FLRC to review the changes, or do a completely new FLC, although I hope that the latter option won't be necessary. Please let you opinions be heard as it is very difficult to know what to do if only one or two users contribute. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that I found the idea of two separate articles a little odd and a possible 3b infraction. I have no problem whatsoever in the merger of prose from the article to the FL but I would say that a wholesale change to the FL should be re-reviewed so taking it through an FLRC can do nothing but make it even better. As you said, the article prose has been peer-reviewed, it's just a case of making sure the manner of the merger doesn't compromise the list against WP:WIAFL (which I'm sure it won't). If it was just a couple of sentences here or there then I'd see no problem at all in just changing the FL, but for such a significant change (and should we also consider GFDL attribution as well?) then a re-review is the safest and most transparent approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that merge makes sense to me. The combined article size is 51k which is very reasonable - rst20xx (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
A merge makes sense to me, but since we are merging a large amount of content from an article that was only audited via peer review, I would say we could just give the final merged page FL status, but require it to go through a full peer review after that. NW (Talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well despite its scary title, that's really what FLRC is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Support merge, and recommend peer review or FLR afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My final word on this is that Peer Review has never been used to demote a list. Now I'm not suggesting we'd have that scenario on our hands, but FLRC is a good vessel for reviewing and reconfirming the featured status of a list for various reasons, one of which can be that it's changed significantly since it was promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, is there a chance that the list could be delisted? If not, peer review would be better because of the chance for more outside eyes (as opposed to FLRC, which is mostly looked at by only FL regulars). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
But FLC is only looked at by FL regulars as well. I'm not sure what the purpose of outside views (i.e. peer review) on whether a list should remain featured is when we have a process for this very kind of thing. If we're reviewing a list to decide whether it still meets the WP:WIAFL, we should be using FLC or FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have a preference; it's just that this list will be more prose-intensive than most lists that pass through FLC. However, if consensus prefers FLRC, I'm all for it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well if it's too prose-intensive, perhaps it's better off at FAC? If we're getting twitchy that it may fall in the gap between FLC and FAC, we should discuss that specifically. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd like to see the merged version before coming to any conclusions. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Baring in mind I've only done this in one edit, I'd imagine it'd look a bit like this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Borderline case if you ask me. I tried something similar with England national football team manager a while ago and it ended up at WP:FAC with a lot of prose and some lists towards the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Borderline indeed. The history section is what makes it a possible GA/FA. I think you'll have to ask at WT:FAC and WT:GAN. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I realise next steps are still under discussion, but as consensus seemed to be for merging I have done so. Hopefully this will allow people to see the article/list in non-user space and encourage debate on what to do next. The other question I have is about names. I think this should probably be at BBC Sports Personality of the Year but I'd be moving over a page with GFDL history requirements. I'd therefore suggest moving that to something of the form BBC Sports Personality of the Year/old or Talk:BBC Sports Personality of the Year/old. I'd then customise a template similar to {{Merged-from}} to explain what has gone on. Does all this sound acceptable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have finalised the merge putting the old content at Talk:BBC Sports Personality of the Year/Old. A custom "merge-from" template at the top of this talk page should adequately explain what happened. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Controversy[edit]

it seems to me that the "2009 controversy" bit has been written in a partisan way, by a disgruntled fan rather than by an objective writer (I have no knowledge about the events, the circumstances and the actual award...for those I came on wikipedia..and I was severely disappointed by the quality of that particular bit of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.244.143 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 13 December 2009

Trophy picture[edit]

Sports personality of the year trophy.jpg

I was doing some related filming today, and was able to get a snapshot of the trophy on my phone. Sorry it isn't a particularly great shot, but it is what it is. Parrot of Doom 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a fantastic addition to the article and fits perfectly with the explanation of it as a four-turret lens camera. Thank you so much, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lord Coe Picture[edit]

Why is it a grainy image when there is a better quality, colour and more recent picture avaliable?

Lord Coe - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012 cropped.jpg

Narom (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Results[edit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/16/bradley-wiggins-sports-personality-year (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Who gets to vote?[edit]

The article doesn't explain (unless I missed it) how the people who vote are selected. That would be a useful addition. quota (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BBC Sports Personality of the Year. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BBC Sports Personality of the Year. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)