Talk:Michael Ball (footballer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


One web source title says "I won't be a one-cap wonder". Hmm, I guess he still has time... Kq-hit (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Twitter comment[edit]

Several editors have added or amended the section of the lead detailing Ball's January 2012 FA fine for a homophobic Twitter comment. This incident resulted in the most prominent coverage of Ball by reliable sources during his career to date and as such should be included in the WP:LEAD which " should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Without beginning a discussion here or placing any notice, one editor began a discussion at WT:FOOTY which appears to have resulted in no clear consensus. While consensus here supports inclusion of this issue in the lead, and with policy on their side, I suggest the edit should remain. Exok (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that it "resulted in the most prominent coverage of Ball by reliable sources during his career to date" is garbage. The story broke 48 hours ago, and the "sustained coverage" apparently equates to one bit of press copy multiplied by however many sources ran with it. If we're simply making completely unsourced assertions, I'd state that Ball's most notable aspect is that he's played in the Manchester, Liverpool and Old Firm derbies, a snippet which is slightly less salacious but almost certainly better known. I've removed it from the lead again until someone can seriously demonstrate that this is a key aspect of Ball's life and career. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't completely understand your use of quotation marks. I didn't claim the coverage was sustained but that it was prominent. It is a fundamental principle of WP:NPOV that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Ball has never featured in reliable sources to the extent he did on 23/24 January, appearing in 7 national newspapers in articles where he was the sole focus. We don't need to rely on what you personally believe to be his most notable aspect when a simple Google search for his name reveals it. You need to find something to counter the guideline WP:LEAD, which, as I've quoted above, indicates that the start of the article is where such a notable aspect should first be introduced. Exok (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Easy: WP:UNDUE ("discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news"). Football players do not, as a rule, make the front page of any newspaper unless they have a) been charged with a serious crime or act of unfair play, b) slept with someone other than their spouses, or c) died. In the event that any one of those is true, it is likely that every news outlet in the country will cover it. So "prominent coverage" is not the sole arbiter of due weight. I am perfectly aware of WP:LEAD (I'm one of the project's strongest proponents for full lead sections), but it calls for all key points to be summarised in the lead and not simply every reported event. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Ball (footballer). 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.

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) 13:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)