Talk:William Hill Sports Book of the Year

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading[edit]

This article is little more than spam I think it should deleted altogether or merged to the main William Hill article. Take a look at http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index.asp - it's clear that this 'prize' is just another marketing angle, a way to drive traffic from punters to their site where they are met by numerous free bet banners. And their PR staff have drummed up the amusing claim of being "the world's richest sports book prize" (it's probably the only sports book prize!). Does anyone else have an opinion? Hazir (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazir, what your describing is how most book prizes operate, there is a corporate sponsor(s) who puts up the money for the prize in return for recognition (marketing), it's the nature of many prizes, "sponsored by xyz". Also this prize receives coverage from notable reliable third-party sources, for Wikipedia purposes it's notable and not simply an in-house marketing organ ("spam"). Also, it's not the only sports book prize, and with a purse at 22,000 pounds, I can almost guarantee their "claim" of richest is accurate (and if it wasn't accurate, someone would be making a fuss that would be easy to spot on Google). Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets coverage, demonstrate it. Right now there are no references so the article appears to be spam. There are two external links that look reliable, so make them into references. 2005 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now the article could be merged with the William Hill article if the winners were deleted, but if the winners are kept the extra space would merit its own article. The problem is the zero references. 2005 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References were added. Similar to the thousand+ other literary award articles on Wikipedia, this one includes a list of the winners; and the winners include links back to this article, in reference to having won the award. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue&yellow caption for table[edit]

The table has had a blue header for years and is stylistically in line with the colors of the Award (see logo). There is nothing in WP:ACCESS that says we can't use colors in table captions. See Wikipedia:ACCESS#Color and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Images_and_color. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The colour is being erroneously and pointlessly used in the caption which is used by screenreaders to announce to partially sighted or blind readers what the table contains. It's not an opportunity for us to unnecessarily and garishly decorate a table heading making it look like a 14-year-old's HTML project. Please note, this dubious colour scheme was not there originally, and worse still, the logo (which appeared.... today?!) appears to be simply advertising for William Hill, and provides no real enhancement to the article.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, it is a personal taste issue and not a rules issue. As for logos, that is standard operating procedure to include them in infoboxes.I will open a conflict resolution case to resolve this. Merry Christmas! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "a rules issue"? I'm sure I understand that. Open a case, I won't be present or contribute because I have better things to do in improving the article, way beyond a pathetic purple heading to a table! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the MOS guidelines that says we can't use color in table captions. You cited WP:ACCESS as the reason for removing the color. But that is not the case. In truth, it comes down to your personal taste, you think the color is "pathetic". Well, I don't consider it "pathetic" at all. But since you apparently reverted the color three times already, there is no choice but to bring in outside resolution and see what others think about it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the self-declared "resident Wikipedia expert on literary awards", so you probably know better. All I know is that captions on tables are used predominantly for screenreaders and to assist blind readers, not for apply some kind of corporate branding to the list. If the "resident expert" thinks we need the page to look like a 14-year-old's HTML project, who am I to argue? Let's see others say at the already fresh dispute resolution you've opened!! You want the purple, they want the purple BIG text, you're welcome to it! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is one function, but the caption also serves as a header for regular readers and there is nothing wrong with having the article colors match up, it just looks better and doesn't effect blind readers. It has nothing to do with corporate branding, unless you think I am a shill for the company, which I told you I was not by pointing out my history and interest on Wikipedia in the area of literary awards. Not stuck on the Big text but the color really does look better. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not here to experiment in mad colour schemes. Or big text. Why would you want to corporately brand the table to match the corporate branding in the infobox? Is this an advert for William Hill? Although, you're the expert, so I'm not sure how many other literary award articles you've taken to featured status and for which you've gained community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, lay off the expert bit. I told you why I said that and you took it out of context. Each time your bring it up you look increasingly immature in my eyes, like someone beating their chest who doesn't know when to stop. Second, we clearly disagree about the use of color in the table and I don't see the point of going back and forth. We need outside opinion. Finally re: your plan to make this a "Featured List" is a problem, see below. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said you were the local expert and the one who had the most edits in these articles, like it was a badge of honour, I didn't mention anything of the sort beside having some featured material in this field. Second, yes, you launched a dispute resolution on the colour of the heading (that seems so funny when I read it back), so we'll see how that goes. Finally, there'll be no problem with FL, thanks for your advice though!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Collins as a source[edit]

Re: this as a source for Donald McRae. The problem with this source is it's not intellectually independent. The publisher of the book that won the award is reporting that the author won an award. According to WP:RS Context matters: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I don't believe this is a reliable source for this fact. A publisher can have vested interests in reporting awards it's authors may or may not have won. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of wasting time here, you might not have noticed I've already added another reference. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List[edit]

BTW if your intention is to make this a Featured List there will be trouble. This is not a "List of.." article, it is a full article about the award that happens to contain a sub-section with a list. If you want the list itself to be featured you would probably need to split the list off to a new article. See the Women's Prize for Fiction and List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners (FL), for example. This award is notable enough to have its own standalone normal article, with or without a list of winners. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there will be no trouble. I'll make sure it's up to scratch before I nominate it. Cheers for your advice though! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it was you who single-handedly enforced that split. I would suggest the two could be easily remerged, but hey, it's Christmas and I wouldn't want to burst your bubble. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. This is not a List article. If you want to make a list article go ahead, but there will also need to be an article for the award itself. They are not the same thing. There is no literary award article on Wikipedia that is just a list article. If you attempt to do that you will be going against all established consensus and precedent, it's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I welcome your attempt to create something entirely new on Wikipedia. I would of course challenge such a misplaced and futile attempt, and since I spend nearly full time on Wikipedia, would devote myself and my time for as many weeks and months required to see it through. Christmas is nice and all, but we are here for the long term, no favors or bubbles needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand? Of course I do. Happy Christmas, enjoy the dispute noticeboard, I won't be back there again, and have a lovely festive period. Hope you appreciated the referencing I did on your list! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your festive greeting with more sincerity except the last little dig ("your list"). Never said it was "mine", nor that it was a "list", it's a full Wikipedia article about the award. It would be great to see the William Hill Sports Book of the Year award become a FAC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seemed to claim elsewhere that you created this list and was the resident expert in such things, so I was hoping my edits to add references to it would meet with your approval. Of course, they didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seek approval - from me - for your edits? LOL hahahhahahahaha oh my, oh.. thanks for that, I just watched Ren and Stimpy, or the Simpsons, or some cartoon and I needed laugh after that, oh .. The Rambling Man needs approvals for his edits.. Duh! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly need to seek approval from the "resident expert" since pretty much everything I've edited you've whinged about! (I take it you're having a bad day, and sorry for that, but honestly, your claim ... funniest thing I've read this year)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"pretty much everything I've edited you've whinged about" That's ridiculous and you know it. You've made good edits and generally do. Every edit here has been perfectly legitimate under the rules to get this article into better shape. Stop the whinging. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the mirror. Anyway, I've got better things to do that argue with you here about things you're clearly more expert on than me, so you do what you think's best. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge William Hill Irish Sports Book of the Year[edit]

Proposal to merge William Hill Irish Sports Book of the Year into this article. Both awards are given by the same company, William Hill Media, and both are for sports books. They are almost exactly the same, other than one for "Irish" and the other for International. It would make more sense to combine these into a single article, with one section for each award, as they are otherwise so closely related. In fact that is how it was originally but one user, The Rambling Man, unilaterally split them without discussion or consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a standalone award and can easily sustain its own list, along with its own references. As adequately demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reporting of superlative claim[edit]

Re:

[William Hill] claims to be "the world's richest sports book prize"Source: William Hill

This requires reliable secondary sources (plural given the superlative nature of it). Just framing it around a primary source doesn't make it appropriate as an off-handed way to include that claim in an article and bypass the rules of WP:RS. If this sentence is saying William Hill has made a claim, a secondary source should be provided to show that William Hill has in fact made a claim. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So rephrase it and stick to the facts, as I have done in a couple of seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you had done the right thing in the first place instead of forcefully reverting it[1] and requiring me to explain to you a very basic core concept of how Wikipedia works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can stop wasting your and my time and get on with improving the article rather than just bluster away on the talk page, expending effort for little or no gain. You keep removing information which, with a second's searching, could be cited. You absolutely can cite the prize money to the official website. What's the problem with that? Instead of (a) deleting things you don't like or don't consider referenced (b) posting endless threads to talk pages (c) seeking dispute resolution for the colour of a heading (seriously, seriously?!!), why not just spend all that time actively improving the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some edits don't meet The Rambling Man's approval, you seem a little upset. Disagreements happen sometimes on Wikipedia. That's why we have talk discussions. Even if you consider this talk page discussion "wasting time", that's how collaboration works. How do you propose to resolve the color question? I want it, you don't. There is no rule on this, it comes down a matter of personal taste. The only way to resolve it is either one side gives in, or there is consensus from multiple people with neutral outside opinion. Since we have already both established through edit warring that neither side is caving in, dispute resolution is the only way forward. Unless you have some other way, but I don't see it. As for the rest of it, this is a full regular encyclopedia article, not a list article. It has never been a list article. If you want to split off List of William Hill Sports Book of the Year winners go for it. That would leave room for both a FAC and a FLC. One for the award, the other for the list of winners. There is content that could be added to this article that would be inappropriate and restricted if it were just a list article, and anyway, I'd like to see it become a FAC (with or without the list of winners). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you now conflating various issues? This section is about the (sic) "Self-reporting of superlative claim". Nothing more than that. If you have other issues to address, please present them logically. As for this particular issue, I've addressed it adequately, as I'm sure you would agree, yes? (Oh, and your ideas are fascinating, just like how amazingly well the split off of Women's Prize for Fiction has gone, you have a stub for a main article, and a featured list describing all the winners and nominees, well played!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this mentioned on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, I thought I'd see what all the fuss is about. I have to say that the behaviour (and attitude) of Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) is, frankly, shocking. There seem to be serious issues with WP:OWN and WP:POINT. I suggest you start to address these before you continue editing the article, as you do not seem to be be able to work productively on it. Number 57 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the outside view, perhaps I am blind to it, but if it was OWN I would be blocking edits or changes to the article, which is not the case. In fact The Rambling Man last said "do whatever you want" and I didn't, not without consensus - the current revision is the one he wanted. Further, almost all the material I removed was unsourced stuff I wrote to begin with, it is cleaning up my own work. Finally, people with OWN usually don't initiate conflict dispute resolutions, rather they resist outside opinion (by definition). I seek and welcome outside opinion. What is it I said or did that you think is OWN? (a question for Number 57 or any other outside opinion). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments you made on Rambling Man's userpage such as "I've put a lot of work into creating and maintaining the article over the course of many years" (despite the claim in the next sentence that you "don't own it"), and then " there's been a lot of changes since, including my saving it from being deleted while defending it from User:Hazir and User:2005 both of whom would have also deleted it." The later claim that "I'm basically the resident Wikipedia expert on literary awards" was also very ill-judged. Number 57 09:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Resident Wikipedia expert" was intended to be just a figure of speech, I am not a resident Wikipedia expert, there is no such thing, Wikipedia is egalitarian - he even laughed at it, clearly seeing the irony - it was intentionally self-deprecating while getting across the level of interest and participation because there was a parallel discussion in which he thought the blue color looked like corporate marketing (ie. COI) and I didn't want to be mistaken as a corporate shill. But after laughing, he decided to take the "expert" comment literally and ran with it in post after post attacking the comment as a strategy for dealing with the content dispute. Look I'll redact any comment he or anyone wants, if you think that would help. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I detected not one iota of irony in your posts. Just for your information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you were an experienced Wikipedia user who wouldn't take such an ironic claim as "resident Wikipedia expert" literally. You even laughed.. BTW I see you are going through the dozens of articles listed on my User page and making edits to them, methodically going down the list. You might want to consider looking at the entire corpus of a few thousand literary award articles at Category:literary awards and not limit yourself to the ones listed on my user page, for whatever reason. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since most editors here are not from the UK, I never assume they're capable of using or understanding irony, and I made a similar assumption with your claim of resident expertise. And yes, I'm trying my best to revise and update many of the articles you've expertly crafted so they're correctly formatted. But what that has to do with this article, I don't know. Could you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
many of the articles you've expertly crafted There you go again! I never "expertly crafted" anything. Why do you keep attacking me what is your problem? You need to back off and stop fixating on me and following me around all over Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You proclaimed you'd created this article. You proclaimed to be the expert on literary award articles. You have a public list of literary lists on your page, most of which exhibit common problems which I assume you introduced yourself. I decided to start there to try to fix some of them. I suggest you do the same, get on with fixing the many, many problems that exist with all these extraordinarily weak literary prize lists. And once again, what that has to do with article, I know not. Could you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Hill Sports Book 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year&oldid=1206048555"