Talk:2014 A-League Grand Final

TV coverage in the lead
I don't believe it belongs there. Especially which TV stations showed it. That's just commercial promotion. It's not about the game. Total viewership, if reliable figures can be obtained, could go there, but not the broadcasters. It's trivia. User:2nyte has twice reverted my removal of this nonsense, without even the courtesy of an Edit summary. Very bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The information summarizes what is in the Broadcasting section, besides that the coverage of the match is notable for the lead. Such coverage has never been achieved for an A-League match. And this is a major sporting event, I would think local broadcasters and the international audience is far from trivia. You may think it is "commercial promotion", but it's not like I specified "Starts on Fox Sports 2 at 4:00 pm, with pre-match coverage starting from 3 and a 2 hour post-match analysis thereafter!". Also, the 250 million viewership has been reported on local and national new, ABC and the commercial networks. You removed that specific information saying, "Speculation from a somewhat involved party does not belong here", yet you removed it after a added an independent source.--2nyte (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. International audience figures won't be known that quickly. And speculation about anything is never acceptable on Wikipedia. If the amount of TV coverage is different from in the past, it would need to be considerably so, and the emphasis should be on the difference, with an explanation mentioning the difference, not on the fact that there was some coverage. Look at the corresponding articles for NRL and AFL Grand Finals. No mention of TV coverage in the lead. It's just not normal to put that much detail of TV coverage in the lead of a sporting event. As I said above, it's not part of the game. But the biggest problem initially with your edits was your complete lack of Edit summaries when you reverted my changes, after I had gone to considerable trouble to explain every change. That's just confrontational. It looked like you felt you owned that article. Even later your Edit summaries were far from satisfactory. HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)