Talk:Nigel Owens/Archive 1
 | 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 1 |
Principal matches
This entire section, of 5,928 bytes, was removed for a second time, with the edit summary: "if it's not covered in the prose, then it should be; a table is not a substitute for text, merely a supplement". Is the editor who removed it kindly offering to convert it into (probably very dull and barely readable) text? Otherwise it looks rather like this easily assimilated information, in a clear tabular format, is being removed just to make a point? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not making a point, I'm following Wikipedia's policy regarding prose. Your opinions regarding how legible that prose may end up being are irrelevant. As it is, it seems like a cop-out to simply settle for a table when this information could be conveyed just as well, if not better, with actual words. User:Rugby.change added almost 11,000 bytes to this article this afternoon (including almost 6,000 in that table); forgive me for making assumptions, but are you telling me he was bothered enough to add 5,000 bytes of text but then just got bored and did a table for the rest? If Nigel Owens' accomplishments are sufficiently noteworthy (which I, for one, believe they are), they should be covered by prose. If they're not worthy of actually being written about, what use are they in a table? – PeeJay 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just as a small addendum, I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith when commenting on my contributions. Oh, and I corrected your spelling mistake in the header of this section for you. – PeeJay 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- PeeJay what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting write the "principal matches" as text, or show them in a different format rather than a table. A list perhaps? I did it as a table format for 2 reasons, 1 so that all the "principle matches" are there in a clear format, for each season, and 2 so that there isn't an article made up of lines and lines of text. As the text stands, in my opinion flows, should we change the table format into text, the text will turn into done this done that sort of thing.Rugby.change (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm suggesting. My suggestion is that someone write an actual biography for Nigel Owens. To be honest, most of the important events are covered in the prose as it is, but if there are significant events in his career that aren't covered by the text, the answer isn't simply to say "oh, let's just stuff them in a table"; it's to incorporate them into the text in a flowing and engaging way. – PeeJay 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, PeeJay, for correcting my spelling mistake in the header. You missed the grammar mistake in my text. I'm quite prepared to accept good faith when someone makes a large deletion as part of WP:BRD. But when no explanation then appears on the article talk page, and exactly the same information is then simply deleted a second time, exactly an hour later, I think it's reasonable to question the motive. Are you really disputing that all those facts are perfectly true? Don't you think that quite a lot of effort went into constructing that table? I'm certainly not telling you that someone added it simply because "they got bored"! That would hardly be WP:AGF, would it? I am amazed that you'd wish to deny the reader access to all that carefully-formatted information, just because you think it should be prose. If you really care about that point of prose so much (and I think it's application is somewhat borderline here) maybe you'd like to go ahead and write a proposed prose substitution, here on the Talk Page, so that interested editors can judge for themselves which is the best format? And do that before you delete it all again? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- PeeJay what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting write the "principal matches" as text, or show them in a different format rather than a table. A list perhaps? I did it as a table format for 2 reasons, 1 so that all the "principle matches" are there in a clear format, for each season, and 2 so that there isn't an article made up of lines and lines of text. As the text stands, in my opinion flows, should we change the table format into text, the text will turn into done this done that sort of thing.Rugby.change (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do like the table (it looks similar to the one at Richie McCaw#Playing achievements), but I guess that it could be argued that it is original research as there is no sourcing and it does seem like we have simply chosen the matches we think are his highlights. I personally have no problem with the selection of matches and most of those should be presented in text anyway (debuts, finals etc). One thing that looked odd was the use of n/a. It looks like he wasn't refereeing some division some years, when I think you are trying to say he had no notable matches, which is misleading. They would be better off blank. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, sources would improve the table, and you're right that we shouldn't be picking and choosing which events are notable and which ones aren't. However, Nigel Owens is a referee - a very good one, but nonetheless a referee, and referees just don't get the same amount of media coverage as players, so it may not always be the case that Owens' greatest achievements in his career are covered by the media, even in passing. But that rather backs up my point. If his achievements are notable enough for the media to write about, then we should also write about them, not just give them cursory mentions in a table (which to be honest takes up far too much space on the page). Furthermore, looking at the archived version of the table below, User:Rugby.change included quarter-final and semi-final appearances in the Heineken Cup; usually, unless something especially noteworthy happened in those games, they wouldn't be worth mentioning in the article text, so again, why are we mentioning them in a table? Just because they were in the knockout phase of the Heineken Cup? An appearance at that stage of a competition wouldn't be listed in a player's honours, so why in a referee's? – PeeJay 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The media are horrendous when it comes to referees. If we decided on what was notable for inclusion for referee articles based on media reports they would just consist of long lists of errors with block quotes by aggrieved coaches, managers, players and fans. Fortunately we are not the media, instead we are more like biographers. This means our articles should present the referees career as a whole. Professional debuts, international debuts and being appointed to prominent games form a much better story of their career than that one time fans (reporters) of a team were upset a call didn't go their way. Sorry for the slightly off topic mini-rant, but this is an area I am currently working on across all sports so have good idea of some of the crap that people add into articles based on media (see User:Aircorn/Sandbox/REF for more details). AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, the media are horrendous at covering referees. I'm not sure why that should be the case, since a game can't take place without the bastard in the black, but regardless, surely the lack of media coverage proves my point. If there is insufficient media coverage, then we shouldn't be including stuff in this article as it is therefore inadequately sourced. We all may know that game X was Nigel Owens' first match in competition Y, but even if the source we use here names him as the referee, we have no place identifying it as his first match in that competition unless the source does too. Otherwise, how is an uninitiated reader supposed to know what we're telling them is true. They can read the source and see he was the referee, but they have no evidence he'd never officiated a game before. Sources that say "Nigel Owens has been selected to referee his first Six Nations match/Heineken Cup final/World Cup final" are great, because they say definitively what the situation is, but I very much doubt they would say "Nigel Owens has been appointed to his first Heineken Cup pool stage match". – PeeJay 15:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- The media are horrendous when it comes to referees. If we decided on what was notable for inclusion for referee articles based on media reports they would just consist of long lists of errors with block quotes by aggrieved coaches, managers, players and fans. Fortunately we are not the media, instead we are more like biographers. This means our articles should present the referees career as a whole. Professional debuts, international debuts and being appointed to prominent games form a much better story of their career than that one time fans (reporters) of a team were upset a call didn't go their way. Sorry for the slightly off topic mini-rant, but this is an area I am currently working on across all sports so have good idea of some of the crap that people add into articles based on media (see User:Aircorn/Sandbox/REF for more details). AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, sources would improve the table, and you're right that we shouldn't be picking and choosing which events are notable and which ones aren't. However, Nigel Owens is a referee - a very good one, but nonetheless a referee, and referees just don't get the same amount of media coverage as players, so it may not always be the case that Owens' greatest achievements in his career are covered by the media, even in passing. But that rather backs up my point. If his achievements are notable enough for the media to write about, then we should also write about them, not just give them cursory mentions in a table (which to be honest takes up far too much space on the page). Furthermore, looking at the archived version of the table below, User:Rugby.change included quarter-final and semi-final appearances in the Heineken Cup; usually, unless something especially noteworthy happened in those games, they wouldn't be worth mentioning in the article text, so again, why are we mentioning them in a table? Just because they were in the knockout phase of the Heineken Cup? An appearance at that stage of a competition wouldn't be listed in a player's honours, so why in a referee's? – PeeJay 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure sevens are counted as tests and feel it is not linked as well as it could be (we should be able to link to actual tournament sections or game articles for most of these). AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have no issue with trimming the table, if necessary. And sources should certainly be provided, unless matches can be be given wiki-links. I still think this type of information can be more easily presented in the form of a table and that to convert it all to text would be a backward step as far as the reader is concerned.. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Our concern shouldn't be whether it's easier, but whether it makes for a better encyclopaedia. I'm open to the possibility that a table is easier to read, but unless something noteworthy happened in those games listed, I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be listed at all. For a referee, simply taking charge of a match isn't particularly noteworthy unless it's a final. – PeeJay 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Notability is a perfectly valid and separate concern. When I say "more easily" I really mean "more readily assimilated by the reader". Of course, if we are left with two or three matches, after your trimming, then that would not justify a table at all. Maybe we could have suggested trimming as a first step? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest trimming most of the semi-final and quarter final games apart from the first time he refereed one. Maybe a list instead of a table would work better, so there is not so much white space. I may work up a mock version below. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for your efforts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay have made a list. Still needs sourcing (which I will do before putting it in the article), but I think it covers the big moments in his career. Open to formatting and content changes. Not sure what was meant by first IRB match. @Rugby.change: do you mean the first tier 1 game? Also would be great to know how you compiled this information. Anyway, what do you all think. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The list looks fine to me and is less intrusive than a table. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay have made a list. Still needs sourcing (which I will do before putting it in the article), but I think it covers the big moments in his career. Open to formatting and content changes. Not sure what was meant by first IRB match. @Rugby.change: do you mean the first tier 1 game? Also would be great to know how you compiled this information. Anyway, what do you all think. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for your efforts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest trimming most of the semi-final and quarter final games apart from the first time he refereed one. Maybe a list instead of a table would work better, so there is not so much white space. I may work up a mock version below. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Notability is a perfectly valid and separate concern. When I say "more easily" I really mean "more readily assimilated by the reader". Of course, if we are left with two or three matches, after your trimming, then that would not justify a table at all. Maybe we could have suggested trimming as a first step? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Our concern shouldn't be whether it's easier, but whether it makes for a better encyclopaedia. I'm open to the possibility that a table is easier to read, but unless something noteworthy happened in those games listed, I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be listed at all. For a referee, simply taking charge of a match isn't particularly noteworthy unless it's a final. – PeeJay 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have no issue with trimming the table, if necessary. And sources should certainly be provided, unless matches can be be given wiki-links. I still think this type of information can be more easily presented in the form of a table and that to convert it all to text would be a backward step as far as the reader is concerned.. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Examples of table
Original table
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
List version
|
|---|
|
List of notable achievements
|
References
Quotable moments
Can anyone find WP:RS sources for:
- "The hands-out law changed 3 years ago - where have you been? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOtiGGiZd50 @2:20
- "I can't give you 3 points but I'll give you a go." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTaMYh1czgM @4:10
- "I'll shout louder then, OK?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HR2F7kbxeg
Classics, every one. Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)